I'm not sure if this goes in here, or the regular hangout forum. Anyway, this question is for those that are familiar with military weapons & the war in Iraq. A friend at work asked the question "Why not use the Neutron bomb on Fallujah?". It's my understanding that the Neutron bombs kill people & leave the buildings standing. He also couldn't understand why we would continue to make moves that told the insurgents what was coming. So, the question is, why wouldn't we just surround Fallujah, leave a single exit for non-combatants to exit & be screened, give a timetable for evacuation of non-combatants, & then drop a Neutron bomb on the city? That way, the innocent wouldn't have their homes destroyed & We/the Iraqies wouldn't lose any troops in the battle. Can someone help me understand this better? Crap! Make that 2 questions.
Well, I guess it may have to do with how long Fallujah would remain radioactive after you unleash this thing and how do you contain said radioactivity?
It's my understanding that there is no radiation. It uses Gamma Rays, which kills humans & leaves no residual effect. Let's just hope it doesn't create an incredible Hulk. Imagine what a big, green, pissed off insurgent could do.
The neutron bomb is a small hydrogen bomb. The neutron bomb differs from standard nuclear weapons insofar as its primary lethal effects come from the radiation damage caused by the neutrons it emits. It is also known as an enhanced-radiation weapon (ERW). The augmented radiation effects mean that blast and heat effects are reduced so that physical structures including houses and industrial installations, are less affected. Because neutron radiation effects drop off very rapidly with distance, there is a sharper distinction between areas of high lethality and areas with minimal radiation doses. This was desired by the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), since they have to be prepared to fight in densely populated areas; any tactical nuclear explosion will endanger civilian lives and property. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fusion/Fusion5.shtml
Its a f*cked up world when people pose such a threat to your livelihood that it would warrant such a weapon to exist in the first place.
A neutron bomb is basically a radiation bomb that melts anything organic (neutron radiation will pass right through buildings, armor, etc). Solid structures will remain standing, but you can't use them for quite a long time.
There are many reasons you don't use it: 1.) Using a nuke makes us look like a culture that has no respect for life. The reason we survived the cold war was because we understood the sickness of using the weapons. Don't use it. 2.) You are saying to let the women & children leave, but what about the innocent men? We should strive to protect all innocents, and there is no way to accurately identify innocent men from non-innocent men (or for that matter, why assume all women and children are innocent?). Terrible consequences. 3.) Though they may not need it, if we use a nuke and end up killing innocents, don't you think AQ qould gladly use that as justification in doing the same to us? Again, they may not need it, but it would hard for the rest of the world to not see us as barbarians similar to AQ. Terrible idea. One thing I hope this country always remembers is that we are not fighting an entire people. We are fighting a evil subset that lives within a larger population. When we become incapable of separating the two, we become frighteningly close to becoming just like the terrorists.
I did not know it was basically a controlled nuclear bomb. I was misinformed by someone else & took it as gospel. My mistake. Thanks for the info.
Good to see you in here, Hottoddie. Your question reminded me of something I got in Amsterdam back in 1971. It's a yellow/orange colored political button with, "STOP de neutronen BOM" printed on it, with STOP in blue, the rest in red, with the inside of the O in BOM white, pierced by the tip of a Pershing II missile, which appears to be aimed at an urban landscape. (that's "Stop the neutron bomb," for those of you in Sugarland) It's a reminder of several months of good times for me, and great fun, romance , and conversation with the Europeans I met, but also a reminder that the Europeans knew exactly why the neutron bomb was intended to be deployed in their region... so that we could fight a "limited" nuclear war with the Soviet Union in densely populated urban settings. The idea was to help cancel out the superiority in numbers of the Warsaw Pact, but the result would have also been the deaths of European civilians in their towns and cities. It was highly controversial, to say the least. Thank goodness, it never became a reality. Maybe you could come up with a good trade for us. How about we trade our current government for, I don't know... perhaps the Dutch one? I would hate to do that to the Netherlands, but we could throw in an SUV for every Dutch citizen capable of driving, maybe a few hundred longhorn steers and some buffalo. Not enough? Offer an NBA team! The Dutch Jazz! (now I'm really being mean. My wife's Dutch relatives would draw and quarter me, lol! ) Just kidding, Hottoddie. I understand why you asked your question. It's going to be hell for our Marines, taking Fallujah, and hell for the civilians there. The only good thing to come from it, as best I can tell, will be the hell offered to the foreign fighters and terrorists, along with their insurgent allies. I suspect that some of them have quietly moved on, to other urban locations, or in the countryside, it being plain for a long time what we intend to do after our elections. It would be nice to bag the lot of them, but I doubt we'll be that lucky. Keep D&D Civil!!
