Dirty and clean nuclear devices. - Page 2




 
--
 
July 28th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Can't we all just get along?
August 8th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
There are nukes that will give out a huge burst of Gamma radiation that will kill the people and leave the surrounding area almost untouched. The Radiation will rapidly disperse allowing your troops to move in. A dirty bomb will leave the area contaminated for countless years.
August 8th, 2005  
EnigmaNZ
 
I think you are refering to the neutron bomb. It use was discontinued after a lot of bad press. At the time, if the Russians didn't like some new technology the west was developing, it would get it's followers in the west, peace groups, greenies etc, to agitate to have the tech banned. We saw this with the ABM system that Regan was having researched, ignoring the fact Russian already had such a system around Moscow that is regulary updated. We saw this with weapons in space, ignoring the fact that Russia had weapons in space designed to destroy satelites back in the 1980's. Russia also produced the only partial orbit weapons delivery system, basically the rocket put the nuke into a low polar earth orbit until it was programed to do a de-orbit burn and drop in on the US from the south, the US's sensors etc were located to detect nukes coming directly from the USSR, from the north. In the case of the neutron bomb, there were front page emotive stories of how the bomb killed people why leaving cities largely intact, etc. In actuallity, the neutron damage didn't extend much past the blast damage area. So it's use on cities wasn't an issue.

The bomb was actually designed to kill tank crews, the USSR at one point had about 50,000 tanks facing off against western europe. Nato had tactical nukes but tanks can largely survive a nearby nuke. Also a regular nuke does a lot of collateral damage, especially if it had to be used nearby to a populated area. Hence the NBomb. A normal nuke large enough to irradiate the tank crew with neutrons would level the surrounding area to a considerable distance. The NBomb could be used against large tank formations, killing the crews and making the tank hot enough to prevent it's reuse, while the nearby cities would be left untouched, neutron radiation doesn't have that long a range, despite what the peace fanatics were screaming.

As far as I know, only the Chinese are developing the neutron bomb now, funny how there's no outcry over it.

"Tactical neutron bombs are primarily intended to kill soldiers who are protected by armor. Armored vehicles are very resistant to blast and heat produced by nuclear weapons, but steel armor can reduce neutron radiation only by a modest amount so the lethal range from neutrons greatly exceeds that of other weapon effects. The lethal range for tactical neutron bombs can exceed the lethal range for blast and heat even for unprotected troops. Armor can absorb neutrons and neutron energy, thus reducing the neutron radiation to which the tank crew is exposed, but this offset to some extent by the fact that armor can also react harmfully with neutrons. Alloy steels for example can develop induced radioactivity that remains dangerous for some time. When fast neutrons are slowed down, the energy lost can show up as x-rays. Some types of armor, like that of the M-1 tank, employ depleted uranium which can undergo fast fission, generating additional neutrons and becoming radioactive. Special neutron absorbing armor techniques have also been developed, such as armors containing boronated plastics and the use of vehicle fuel as a shield."

reference: http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Outlaws/faq1

"Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft.

In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armoured ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981."

reference: http://www.britannica.com/seo/n/neutron-bomb/
--
August 8th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Hugely interesting. Btw as an European I can confirm that Peace movements greenies and the like were only Moscow's tool.
August 10th, 2005  
specialasiankid
 
There pretty much the same thing.
dirty bomb is much smaller and easier to build. also can cause more devastation by the thought

conventional is something used normally to start a war. like the 2 nukes we dropped on the japs. thats more conventional.
correct me if im wrong anyone
August 10th, 2005  
EnigmaNZ
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by specialasiankid
There pretty much the same thing.
dirty bomb is much smaller and easier to build. also can cause more devastation by the thought
Dirty has nothing to do with size, it has everything to do with the ammount of radioactive fallout, and long lived radioactive byproducts produced. That has to do with the amount of fissionable material used. A fusion explosion is basically clean.

Quote:
conventional is something used normally to start a war. like the 2 nukes we dropped on the japs. thats more conventional.
correct me if im wrong anyone
Nope, conventional means non nuclear, that is chemical explosives for instance.
August 10th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (NBC) are all unconventional. One shouldn't be confused by EnigmaNZ's reference to "chemical explosives" as chemical weapons. He means explosives that are caused by a chemical reaction such as igniting gunpowder or detonating C-4. Just adding a bit of clarity.
August 10th, 2005  
EnigmaNZ
 
Thanks Charge 7, hehe, was writen well after midnight. Yes, by chemical I was thinking standard type weapons that go "BANG"