Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Neutron Bomb: Does any country have stockpiles of it?

Discussion in 'Missiles & WMDs' started by TheOne, Aug 31, 2006.

Share This Page

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheOne

    TheOne New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Hi All.

    This is my first post to this forum, I had been looking at this forum for last couple of years and I see that Its hard to come up with some good quality discussion topics. I 'm trying to think of new topics apart from whats been in this forum.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Neutron Bomb is a potent weapon which has its roots long back to 50's and 60's. Its an intresting weapon which has its share of advantages and disadvantages. I would like to know some information regarding this weapon, I have read the available material from Wikipedia and other search engines. But none of the information I have gone through have any information regarding any country having any stockpiles and having used in any combat situations.

    Some links to Information about the weapon.

    Source: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

    Could anyone find some information regarding whether this weapon has been in active service or combat ?

    Cheers:)
     
  2. TrangleC

    TrangleC New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    As far as i know the Superpowers have agreed not to build neutron bombs because a nearly perfect weapon like that would be a too big temptation to use it by both sides.
     
  3. KGB

    KGB New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    The russian ABM system over Moscow have nuclear warheads. They might be neutron bombs for the reasons posted in wikipedia, plus the fact that low yield nukes are now thought to be favored i guess since they don't want to blow up their own abms
     
  4. Rich

    Rich New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Big city
    Israel has stocks of this weapon. Makes sense in their situation too. They may want to kill the enemy without damaging their own territory beyond repair.
     
  5. TrangleC

    TrangleC New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aren't they forbidden by the Geneva Convention?
     
  6. Grand Danois

    Grand Danois Entertainer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,297
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CPH
    If you're thinking of the Geneva Protocol to Hague Convention, then no, they aren't...
     
  7. JBodnar39

    JBodnar39 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have neverheard this. What is your source?
     
  8. Rich

    Rich New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Big city

    Sorry, Ive been away from the computer for awhile. Its quite easily investigated by typing "Israel and neutron bomb" in a search engine. I thought this was fairly accepted , if not documented. Of course Israels nuclear program is very hard to pin down but its always been widely accepted they have NBs. And correct me If I'm wrong but didn't/doesn't Russia have stocks of them? China too?

    I always thought that Indian ocean test which Israel and RSA are suspected of having done back in the 70's was actually a neutron bomb test.............here is some backup http://www.nti.org/db/nuclear/1994/n9411479.htm I'll search more for solid sources when I have time but Israel having stocks of neutron bombs should come as no surprise. Especially considering their strategic/geopolitical environment.
     
  9. JBodnar39

    JBodnar39 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    thanks
     
  10. robsta83

    robsta83 The Wanderer

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    932
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Talk

    Scuttle is that China is developing or maintains a stockpile, it does not take much of a thinker to see the reason why China would want such a weapon, low yield that removes populations but leaves infrastructure intact hmm perfect for taking back rebellious islands. Most believed they "acquired" the technology from the US or USSR, conspiracy theorists say that the US gave it to them but I dont buy it.
     
  11. ever4244

    ever4244 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Beijing
    We are not that unmoral to unleash such weapon to our brethren! Even if we are losing side in the war. Yes we already have the tech for about 10 years, but that is not a ideal weapon to us since we proclaimed not use nuke first. So the stockpile of it is very low.Neutron Bomb cannot be accept among superpowers because it will lay low the standard of using nuclear weapon, I thought there is a treaty to limit the lowest power of nuclear weapon .
     
  12. Chrom

    Chrom New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. The only country ever fielded neutron bomb was USA.
    2. It was later 70x-early 80x. Now neutron warheads weapons is officially out of service in USA, but they could maintain some stock of neutron warheads.
    3. Contrary to popular belief, neutron bombs dont produce more radiation than regular nuclear bombs. They just produce much smaller blast
    4. In the USSR neutron bombs was considered ineffective weapon and as such was not deployed. In the case of nuclear war no-one would care about bigger blast of regular nuclear warhead... even contrary, its desirable.
    5. As such i pretty much doubt what China have neutron bomb in service. Its useless.
     
  13. ever4244

    ever4244 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Beijing
    No service ,just experimental type----we have to always keep up the tech in case left behind by US too much but that doesnot mean we intend to use it-----and maybe the remain one was extinguished now for we havn t nuclear experiment for year-------but china Do has or had the n-bomb for a period of time, even though it against our stratagem.
    N-bomb is comparatively "clean" than atom-bomb but that s why it s more dangerous. They are ideal to use against Soviet Armor and US carrier.
    BTW:eek:nce rumor say we try use space detonated N-bomb to exert EMP
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2006
  14. Chrom

    Chrom New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thats a common misunderstanding. Neutron bomb is no more or less "clean" then regular bomb. It just have much smaller blast - in fact, a neutron bomb is just "misfired" normal nuclear bomb. As such, it produce exactly as much radiation as normal nuclear bomb. Of course, its more "clean" in the sence what its doesnt leave a whole city in ruin - but still it will be a perfectly intact radioactive city.
     
  15. ever4244

    ever4244 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Beijing
    The radiation is less than same power atom bomb .nealy 70% energy in N-bomb tranformed into neutron blast. thus the shock wave and radiation dust distinguishly lower than atom-b. And N-bomb has less sequelae compare to atom -b so after half an hour your troop can march into the explosion center with proper protection.If you found your n-bomb not cleaner than atom-b maybe you get a low quality one
     
  16. Chrom

    Chrom New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh? Neutron blast by itself cause induced radiation. And what you said about neuron bombs is even more true for regular bomb. Of course, the regular nuclear bomb will produce much more dust from burned building, etc - but its will not produce more radiation. Its very easy: both normal nuclear bomb and neutron bomb contain about the same amount of radiactive material, and produce almost the same radiation, including neutron radiation. The difference is what in normal nuclear bomb 10kg of radiacrive material produce 50kt blast, and in neutron bomb the very same 10kg produce only 0.5kt blast. Thats all.
    Actually, modern fission bombs are also quite clean, and in case of usuall bursting in the air you can also walk 1 hour after the blast stright to epicentre - even after 200kt blast. Moreover, USSR used "extra" clean nuclear bombs for civilian building purposes - and in these cases the radiation after just 1 year in artificial lackes are almost as low as natural radiation.
     
  17. ever4244

    ever4244 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Beijing
    If you count Neutron-blast into radiation then your re right for n-bomb is dedicate to neutron-blast. but the radiation I refer to it s the long term ray include X, beita, gama posed by the radiative dust.
    naturely the neutron blast are clean because it dies rapidly as distance growing and only last for seconds, So the induce radiation can be partly ignore.therefore a ne-bomb is less likely to pollute water or soil. the radiation of a n-bomb instantly kill your enemy in half hour but would not hurt later comer much. As you have said the radiation total amount is nealy same compare with fissle-b----in fact is maybe even more. but the energy release stuningly strong in the form of neutron blast in short period of time and after that the radiative sequela is much less.
     
  18. Chrom

    Chrom New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmm, how you think, from where comes the radiation in the regular nuclear airbusted bomb? Only from the radioactive material in the bomb itself, including the induced radiation caused in the non-radioactive material in the bomb by the nuclear explosion. There is NO other radioactive "dust". But the source of radiation in neutron bomb just the same - the bomb itself. And even in the case of earth surface explosion, the amount of radiation produced by neutron bomb and normal nuclear bomb also the same. THE ONLY difference is what after the normal nuclear bomb explosion you will see much higher amount of radiactive dust - but the total amount of radioactive particles in the dust in both cases will be equal. This might cause bigger radioactive cloud - but again, ONLY in the case of surface explosion. Normally, almost all nuclear warheads are designed to burst high obove the surface - from 500m to about 3km. In that case there will be NO difference in radioactivity between neutron and normal bombs.

    Here is the example: Normal 150kt bomb and 0.5kt neutron bomb.
    Both are exploded in the center of the city, above surface.
    After 150kt bomb everyone in the radious of 5km is killed by neutron radiation, everyone in the radious of 10k is killed by blast and thermal shock. There is very big radiactive cloud, the city lies in ruin.

    Now after 0.5kt neuron bomb everyone in the radius of 5km killed by neutron radiation, every one in the radius of 800m killed by the blast/thermal wave. There is much smaller radioactive cloud - but the amount of radiation in that cloud is just the same as in the first case, so on average this cloud is much more radioactive. This doesnt matter much as the cloud quickly expands, and after several minutes it expand enouth to nullify any difference.
    Ya, and the city is almost ok. Still, it will be the radioactive city to just the same extent as radioactiveruins in the first case.
     
  19. ever4244

    ever4244 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Beijing
    If 1 j energy transformed into neutron blast , it likely spend much quicker than other beta or gama ray for a single neutron can takes much more energy. So if a radiative material emit large amount of neutron , it s semi-disintegration term gets very short . You can argue that the density of neutron blast can be very low thus the energy spend slower, but that s not the case in N-bomb which is designed to emit high density neutron blast. When the radiative material disintegrated it would become harmless or continued to disintegrated into a third material.

    My arguement is the radiation energy all shall come into the form of heat which is harmless. regurlar hbomb will spend it slowly in the period of week or even year when a N-bomb unleash it in few hours.

    Partly I have to agree the induced radiation is an problem, but only some kind of metal can became really dangerous when most of quick Neutron dies into very slow one and before they are recaptured their energy mostly goes to heat.

    BTW:Hehe arguing with you , I digged out all my highschool text book :)
     
  20. Chrom

    Chrom New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmmmm. Look, if a "If 1 j energy transformed into heat blast , it likely spend much quicker than other beta or gama ray " as obviosly, heat doesnt add any radiation. Now, what cause more radiation and induced radiation - heat or neutrons ? Moreover, normal bomb might be even cleaner than neutron bombs as percentage of radiactive material what is converted to pure energy is higher. But thats also pure academic, as in nuclear bomb also less than 1% material converted to energy - all other turned to isotopes/remained as is. So in both cases (neutron and normal N. bombs) you will have exactly the same amount of radiactive material in the air. Again, from more logical point of view neutron bomb is of course designed to produce strong neutron wave, but its achieved in rather funny way - i.e. by underdevelopment of normal nuclear blast. Thats mean that it just CANT produce stronger neutrons wave and more radiation in general than normal bomb with the same mass.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.