do you think that USA could use neutron weapons in Iran?

Why would a country use a 'shielded' nuke then? I had allways thought that a neutron bomb wasn't physicalyl destructive from the explosion, but apparently its just a nuke bomb, but one that isn't made to hold in the neutrons. Why hold in the neutrons?


Also, if it does destroy radioactive fuel, then it might make sense to use them, t at least insofar as it will destroy the nuke plants and facilities and the fuel, and then the iranians would have to start from scratch. So that even after an occupation, they wouldn't be able to get into the program again.


Is there anything else that can destroy nuclear fuel via radiation???? Seems like, if you had something that could do that, that'd be even better than going to war, just zap the fuel from a distance, perhaps blowing up the plant and the personell there, but maybe preventing total war in the process??

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why would a country use a 'shielded' nuke then? I had allways thought that a neutron bomb wasn't physicalyl destructive from the explosion, but apparently its just a nuke bomb, but one that isn't made to hold in the neutrons. Why hold in the neutrons?

nuclear bombs 101

short and sweet

to start a nuclear reaction the neutrons must be directed towards the uranium atoms - IF they are allowed to randomly escape then there will NOT be enough to sustain the reaction thus the bomb will just fizzle; so therefore you must try and keep as many as you can inside the collapsing uranium.


hence why in a `modern` nuclear bomb there are xray mirrors and reflectors to enhance the reaction rate of the fission first stage

once the fission first stage has gone `bang` nano seconds later a new wave of neutrons (and xrays) then arive at the second stage and collapse the tritium and deuterium together under intence heat and light from the fission bomb - the tritium and deuterium then start to `fuse` together and convert the energy from fusing into more heat and light = fuseing together = fusion

so fission = splitting atom , fusion is joining atoms.


anyway the lining of the warhead depends on the radiation it is more suitable to enhance - GOLD will enhance the X-Ray`s and was used in the Sprint and Spartan ABM.

www.johnstonsarchive.net... - a good read about how a nuke goes bang

srmsc.org... - more about the only USA ABM complex



[edit on 11/4/06 by Harlequin]

Neutron bombs are defensive, not offensive, weapons. They were designed with the Fulda Gap in mind. They maximize gamma ray penetration and minimize blast effects in order to destroy troops out in the open and inside tanks while shielded troops in bunkers and civilians in shelters in nearby cities (read, Frankfurt) would be safe. The idea was, as the Soviet tanks plow through the Gap, the US could stop them with nukes which would have a minimal effect on nearby cities and its own troops, which would be dug in nearby - unlike normal nukes up to that time which could not be used in such close proximity to allied forces without degrading their combat ability once they entered the affected area. It was a problem of time and distance- at the time, NATO's primary weapon against the Soviets, who outnumbered them, was nukes, but there was no nuke (before the neutron bomb) that was suitable for use with such short distances in mind, or that would be effective against armor distant from ground zero.

They wouldn't have much of a use in Iran, where it would be the other way around, presumably - US troops in the open, advancing, and Iranians dug in and defending.

Of course IMO an attack on Iran would be foolish and is unlikely, but that's for a different thread.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by koji_K]