Registered: Aug 2001
Location: The Great Satan
Posts: 40

Father Of Neutron Bomb Says Use It On bin Laden

In the summer of 1958, Sam Cohen, a strategic nuclear weapons analyst at Rand Corp., a military think tank in Santa Monica, California, began investigating the military possibilities of large thermonuclear warheads. During his research into the possible effects on high-flying bomber crews, he became impressed by the high neutron release accompanying the fusion reaction. He reasoned that if the outer uranium casing of a hydrogen bomb were removed, the neutrons released would travel great distances. Such neutrons would be capable of penetrating relatively well-shielded structures with lethal doses and incapacitating the people inside. Since fallout is due primarily to products of the fission reactions, removing the outer casing would leave only the initial small fission reaction, releasing only one hundredth the radiation of a comparable fission weapon. Even so, the weapon would emit a large percentage of neutrons, making it considerably more deadly than a standard atomic or hydrogen bomb. Thus the enhanced radiation weapon (ERW) or neutron bomb was born. The concept of a weapon that could kill people but leave most structures intact had great appeal for some in the armed forces and government. When the idea was first proposed during the 1960s, the Kennedy administration decided against building neutron weapons because it might jeopardize the nuclear test moratorium that the United States and Soviet Union were currently observing. But when the Soviet Union broke the moratorium in 1961, this barrier was removed and by 1962 the first neutron device had been successfully tested. ERWs became an on-again, off-again item until the mid-1970s, when the Carter administration proposed modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal by installing neutron warheads on the Lance missile and artillery shells planned for deployment in Europe.
The neutron bomb, or "enhanced radiation warhead" as it is called in scientific circles, is basically a hydrogen bomb without the uranium-238 jacket which would absorb neutrons to increase the blast. By eliminating that jacket the full fusion emission of neutrons is released. A one-
kiloton neutron bomb will spread a lethal dose of neutron
radiation to exposed people over a one-mile radius. It
would take a 13-kiloton fission (atom) bomb to produce a
combined lethal dose of neutron and gamma radiation over
that same distance. Although the lethal radius for peo-
ple inside tanks would be somewhat less because of the pro-
tection, pure neutron radiation is more penetrating than a
mixture of neutron and gamma, and the lethal radius would
be greater for a one-kiloton neutron bomb than for a 13-
kiloton fission warhead. But the radius of destruction
from blast and heat would be considerably less for the for-
mer. Neutron warheads are now in production for the Lance
missile and the eight-inch artillery shell. Soon they will
be available as projectiles for the more numerous 155-milli-
meter cannons.

So far it looks as if the claim that neutron bombs
reduce "collateral damage" is true -- collateral damage
being a euphemism for associated civilian casualties. The
neutron bomb does seem to provide a greater penetrating
dose of lethal radiation in a prescribed area without the
wider-spread heat and blast effects typical of other de-
signs. If we had only to choose among nuclear warheads,
the enhanced radiation variety does seem to be the most
desirable.

Scientist says Pakistan can build neutron bomb!

Lobotomy? Isn't that for loonies?
Not at all. Friend of mine had one. Designer of the neutron bomb. You ever hear of the neutron bomb? Destroys people - leaves buildings standing. Fits in a suitcase. It's so small, no one knows it's there until -BLAMMO! Eyes melt, skin explodes, everybody dead! So immoral, working on the thing can drive you mad. That's what happened to this friend of mine. So he had a lobotomy. Now he's well again.




Once again, humans prove we are incapable of responding properly to stimuli.


Stimulus: 4 airplanes hijacked by knife-wielding terrorists
Response: ask all passengers if they have knives

Stimulus: terrorists from oil-producing nations bomb us
Response: put $2 flags on our gas-guzzling SUVs

Stimulus: religious extremists kill 5000
Response: non-religious blame religion, religious blame Islam




If the soul occupies or is somehow connected to a body, can it truly be nonmaterial? Is it perhaps just as likely that the soul is a form of matter and/or energy that exists beyond our current comprehension? Maybe the soul exists in another dimension. In either case, a material soul is vulnerable to material destruction.

Ordinarily, death does not pose a threat to the existence of the soul. Death occurs when important cells in the body disintegrate. Even when death is swift or violent, such as death in a chemical explosion, destruction may occur at a molecular level but an entity that existed at the atomic or subatomic level might remain intact. But what if death was so fast and furious that it destroyed or disrupted all patterns of energy and matter?

Under what circumstances would such a death occur? We need only look back at our Roswell mythology and heed the real estate maxim: what is important is "location, location, location." Roswell is in New Mexico, home of the first atomic bomb test. Here then is a kind of deadly force that could destroy souls.

At Hiroshima, the temperature at the site of the explosion reached approximately 5,400 F. People within a half mile of the fireball were turned into "bundles of smoking char in a fraction of a section," noted Richard Rhodes in "The Making of the Atomic Bomb." Such black bundles numbered in the thousands--the shadows of destroyed souls. In the explosion of a much more powerful H-bomb, the fireball can expand to three miles in diameter, claiming the souls of tens of thousands.

That the creation of a sun on earth could destroy souls is consistent with mythology. The sun god is often represented by a falcon or other raptor, symbolizing the soaring spirit. The earth goddess is usually depicted with a snake, representing the powers of the flesh and the generation of life. The god and goddess thus represent the duality and balance between soul and body. The angry earth goddess would destroy the body; the angry sun god would destroy the soul.

The scientists who created the nuclear bomb were not unaware of the spiritual or mythic dimensions of their actions. Moments after the explosion in the New Mexico desert, Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Manhattan Project, recalled a line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." In communications with each other, other physicists considering the ethics of the bomb cited the Old Testament, the teachings of Buddha and various works of literature, such as Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and Shakespeare's "The Tempest."

Last edited by Arc Light on 11-02-2001 at 01:36 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9475

But those fonts are tough to read.

Interesting history lesson though. I wonder what the world politic would think of a neutron bomb?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: The Great Satan
Posts: 40

I was just wondering...

If more people were aware that the neutron bomb has so few unwanted side effects, eg: fallout, etc...

That why isn't McWorld using it more often against jihad?

The radiation is intense, local, brief, survivable.

I guess McWorld is waiting for jihad to stike first with nukes before going medieval on their asses...?

5000 dead wasn't really scary enough to wake us from our corporate/feudal slumber. Maybe 1,000,000 will better convince McWorld to think seriously about dealing death.

---

Oh well...who really gives a flying handshake? It's all just talk.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: The Great Satan
Posts: 40

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15083

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc Light

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 37

*yawn* It's difficult to believe that someone actually posted that.

Apparently, AL here has forgotton lessons learned living beneath the sprawling madness of mutually assured destruction (MAD), the prevailing defense strategy of the Cold War. Am I to believe that you think its a good idea to start launching nukes into the Middle East, the foremost hotbed of civil, military, and political unrest in the world?

Considering two factors: 1) that an even greater number of nations have achieved nuclear capability since the CW, some of which are considered relatively unstable including India and Pakistan, and 2) the safety systems on many of these weapons are practically non-existent compared to the 1980s; the vast destruction caused by the deployment of nuclear weapons is just as if not more real of a threat than it was in the military arms race of 1980's. Maybe, if you're lucky, Arc Light, you'll get to go in a dazzling blaze of light, rather than a slow and painful death as your body gradually deteriorates due to radiation sickness.

Last edited by Thomas G. Chance on 11-03-2001 at 07:55 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 37

.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: The Great Satan
Posts: 40

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thomas G. Chance
you'll get to go in a dazzling blaze of light, rather than a slow and painful death as your body gradually deteriorates due to radiation sickness.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged