Neutron bomb Iraqi oil fields? I say Yes!

[js_africanus]

Okay, I don't say Yes! But seriously, it seems pretty obvious that in the event of a war Saddam intends to blow the Iraqi oil fields like he did in Quwait (sp?). Suppose, for sake of argument, his oil fields are nowhere near residential areas. Should the U.S. start an invasion/war by neutron bombing them? What would be worse for the environment: a few neutron bombs or massive oil well fires?

Downsides: Dead civilian petroleum workers. Bad press for using neutron bomb. Residual radiation?

Upsides: Oil wells not blown and set alight.

Net zeros: Republican guard soldiers would probably be killed anyway--is radiation burning that much worse that being shredded by shrapnel?

Absent the nuclear stigma, I'd be tempted to say go for it.

Thoughts?

[JonScribe]

Beyond the moral arguments and the fact that you'd have oil fields that were now contaminated and virtually unusable... a bomb that spreads radiation wouldn't kill soldiers immediately, alllowing them to continue fighting for at least a few days, more likely weeks or months.

Do we even have a stockpile of neutron bombs?

[msmith537]

That's a pretty stupid idea. JonScribe already explained why.

[samclem]

Neutron bomb Iraqi oil fields? I say Yes!

Okay, I don't say Yes!
So why the F*** did you put that stupid statement in your OP? How ingenuous. How juvenile.

[Alien2022]

I didn't even know that neutron bombs existed past the theoretical phase yet. Does anyone know if a usuable neutron bomb exists?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Links To Info


http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138527&highlight=neutron+AND+bomb


And a general Atomic Weapons link

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html

[Urban Ranger]

Would a nuclear bomb detonated over a US military base in the middle of nowhere be acceptable to you, js_africanus?

[houston_84]

The richest oilfield in Iraq is up north in the Kurdistan region, whom by the way are meant to be allies of yours in case you've forgotten!!
But then again with history repeating itself the U.S. would probably betray us Kurds yet again!!

pfft

[Beagle]

I agree with you, but...

I think the point of the OP is to prevent the Iraqis from blowing the oil fields, ah, by nuking them. I understand your confusion though.

[js_africanus]

Thanks for the links, Bosda. I never knew that they were just regular atom bombs with added radiation. In that regard, Beagle is right about my confusion.

Urban Ranger, I don't consider Nagasaki (sp?) to be more of a tragedy than Dresden.

Some of you others really need to lighten up.

[RickJay]

Yup, starting a nuclear war just sounds like a fantastic idea. And with magical weapons, no less.

They should use phasers and photon torpedoes to take Baghdad, too!

By the way, africanus, even a neutron bomb makes a pretty large bang.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Lighten up?!?!

You're advocating nuclear bombs and you tell us to lighten up?!?!

Even I don't support the use of nukes. Not even if I have to die because of their non-use.

You must be out of your bloomin' mind.

[Crusoe]

I suspect there's still a lingering misconception that neutron bombs only produce radiation. They don't. There's still a pretty substantial bang involved.

(apologies if this ends up posted more than once -- the boards appear to be having more than a minor fit at the moment)

[Sofa King]

You know, when I try to be objective about it there does seem to be one option which might fit the bill. js_africanus is really suggesting the use of an area-denial weapon in order to keep people away from the oilfields. It would have to be something that would be good at keeping people out while doing minimal damage to the facilities itself. It would have to work for a period of weeks, but not months or years, and it shouldn't be very expensive, dangerous, or time-consuming to clean up.

A good dousing of the important areas with a biodegradable chemical blistering agent (http://www.horne.com/abcdf.htm) might do quite nicely.

Or perhaps I should say, "might do quite nicely in theory," because everyone knows this war is about weapons of mass destruction, not oil.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Lighten up?!?!
Yeah. A large component of debate is to float ideas, some timid, some crazy, and see what happens. So yeah, lighten up.

Note that I have suffered from potentially lethal radiation sickness and it was no picnic. If I hadn't switched to a new anti-nausea drug, I would have been dead in a few days from dehydration caused by vomiting and diarrhea. But I don't see how it would have been worse than getting shot. I don't understand the proclivity to consider gutting someone a moral way to kill him but using radiation is immoral.

[i]Originally posted by Sofa King[i]
js_africanus is really suggesting the use of an area-denial weapon in order to keep people away from the oilfields. Yeah, that's the ticket. If the hard core Republican Guard are going to go down fighting anyway, might as well kill them while they're trying to do egregious environmental damage. But your idea is better, since it sounds non-lethal. (Plus it turns out that the reports about the neutron bomb were a hoax.)

[Sofa King]

Oh, no. My idea is very lethal, environmentally destructive, and also as mad as a bloomin' march hare.

The point I was trying to make is the very weapon which could actually be of use is one of the weapons we seek to take away from the Iraqis. I think we'd be much better served by dropping of a dozen sticks of Rangers and hoping that an Iraqi armored division doesn't pop up out of the sand.

[Hail Ants]

The neutron bomb is not really a general purpose weapon. It was for a potential, and specific, scenario in WW III. I doubt we even deploy them anymore.

They were created to counter the huge mobilized armor advantage the Soviets had in eastern Europe in the 70s & 80s. If they ever tried to blitzkrieg west with thousands of tanks (much more than NATO had) an enhanced radiation weapon (i.e. a neutron bomb) would have been a good contingency plan. The radiation would be able to penetrate thick armor.

It was never a magic 'death ray' that would kill people without damaging structures and would be totally impractical to protect Iraqi oil fields with.

[Bryan Ekers]

"Well, sir, we nuked the oil well in order to save it."

[ChaosGod]

What if the oil-fields are rigged and set-up to blow-up by remote control?
After you mess everything up with the neutron bomb, they blow the fields anyway.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Hail Ants
It was never a magic 'death ray' that would kill people without damaging structures and would be totally impractical to protect Iraqi oil fields with.
Unfortunately that's the impression that was given: a huge blast of radiation that streams out into infinity, but strong enought to kill every thing within a certain range. That's what I get for listening to popular media.

Bryan Ekers, you highlighted the central organizing principle of quite a bit of past [url=www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465038115/qid=1047959574/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-2280662-5307126Galapogos conservation policy[/url] there. It makes perfect sense.

[js_africanus]

Galapogos conservation policy (www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465038115/qid=1047959574/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-2280662-5307126)

[SenorBeef]

Assuming the popular conceptions of neutrom bombs exist (and they don't, see my posts in the above-linked thread), that'd be a good way for al queda to say "SEE! They killed innocent Iraqis just to get at the oil!"

[SenorBeef]

...To lend strength to their cause and recruit people, I mean.

[tirechangerwix]

The rumor was the welds leaked. All neutron bombs are a complete hoax, good in theory, impossible to make. Our government has sold us out.

[RedFury]

STM traveling back in time is an even bigger deal.

[VarlosZ]

How do these things get resurrected? Does someone stumble across the thread on Google, then decide to register just so they can post to it?

[Bryan Ekers]

At least I got in a tired Vietnam reference, so 2003 wasn't a complete waste.

[Der Trihs]

I admit that I'm actually slightly relieved that this is a necro thread, given the title.


Also, I've heard elsewhere that another disadvantage of neutron bombs is the likelihood of hitting large number of enemy soldiers with fatal but not incapacitating doses of radiation. Which means that you'd be manufacturing large numbers of soldiers who have nothing to lose and no reason not to literally fight to the last man in order to kill as many of your side as possible, since they are already as good as dead.

[madmonk28]

How do these things get resurrected? Does someone stumble across the thread on Google, then decide to register just so they can post to it? I've always wondered this myself.

[Stranger On A Train]

The rumor was the welds leaked. All neutron bombs are a complete hoax, good in theory, impossible to make.Well, you're clearly an expert.

Aside from the fact that this idea is just as insane now as it was back in 2003 when the o.p. posted it, it is also the case that while an enhanced radiation ('neutron') weapon produces less of its yield as x-rays and therefore, less thermal and blast effects, it is still a nuclear weapon with an explosive yield than the largest chemical explosive bomb.

Stranger

[Capitaine Zombie]

How do these things get resurrected? Does someone stumble across the thread on Google, then decide to register just so they can post to it?

Google references the board. You will notice most zombie resurections are done by people who have just registered. And they're not familiar with the concept of zombie threads (I wasnt when I stumbled upon the board, and the date on posts is not something you catch immediately).

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Well, you're clearly an expert.

Aside from the fact that this idea is just as insane now as it was back in 2003 when the o.p. posted it, it is also the case that while an enhanced radiation ('neutron') weapon produces less of its yield as x-rays and therefore, less thermal and blast effects, it is still a nuclear weapon with an explosive yield than the largest chemical explosive bomb.

How much less yield? Is it stronger than a vacuum bomb? From here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/09/11/us-russia-bomb-idUSL1155952320070911):
Russia has tested the world's most powerful vacuum bomb, which unleashes a destructive shockwave with the power of a nuclear blast

Interesting because we have used a similar weapon in Afghanistan. From the same article:
U.S. forces have used a "thermobaric" bomb, which works on similar principles, in their campaign against al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan.

Though I suppose sans radiation, it just isn't the same. Is it? Anyway, has it helped or hurt with Al Qaeda's recruiting?

[sevenwood]

Google references the board. You will notice most zombie resurections are done by people who have just registered. And they're not familiar with the concept of zombie threads (I wasnt when I stumbled upon the board, and the date on posts is not something you catch immediately).

Perhaps the registration page could mention (after a friendly "welcome" message) something about the SD Message Board's preferred etiquette and protocol, with perhaps a bolded comment about the current issue of resurrecting zombie threads. I'm not saying that everyone who is joining the board would actually read that message (as a practical matter I seldom read them), but it might help.

[Heyoka13]

Essentially, as detonated, (without the tertiary DU wrap), the infamous Tsar Bomba was an enhanced radiation weapon.

Most folks generally do not consider that device to be 'benign' to structures and lethal to people.

Another curiosity about nukes; during US war games, commanders were watching to see how the troops utilized a variable yield nuclear weapon. (Yes, it apparently had a big knob on it, which was turned to the desired blast effect)

Anyhow, regardless of the target, and the proximity to collateral damage sensitive items, the troups invariably deployed the device at maximum yield.

(Yeah, off topic, but I just luv how revealing of human nature that is)


:cool:

[smiling bandit]

Also, I've heard elsewhere that another disadvantage of neutron bombs is the likelihood of hitting large number of enemy soldiers with fatal but not incapacitating doses of radiation. Which means that you'd be manufacturing large numbers of soldiers who have nothing to lose and no reason not to literally fight to the last man in order to kill as many of your side as possible, since they are already as good as dead.

... I don't know you heard that whopper, but people who get lethal doses of radiation don't usually stay active for long. It does very bad things, like devouring muscle tissue and killing whole organs. Death can take a while... but it's not pretty. The wounded become a huge drain on the enemy's fighting force unless they're ruthless bastards and let them rot on the spot. In any case, I'm not gonna be too worried about the fighting morale of enemy soldiers with radiation poisoning.

Seriously, who told you this nonsense?

[Asympotically fat]

... I don't know you heard that whopper, but people who get lethal doses of radiation don't usually stay active for long. It does very bad things, like devouring muscle tissue and killing whole organs. Death can take a while... but it's not pretty. The wounded become a huge drain on the enemy's fighting force unless they're ruthless bastards and let them rot on the spot. In any case, I'm not gonna be too worried about the fighting morale of enemy soldiers with radiation poisoning.

Seriously, who told you this nonsense?

From what I understand people suffering from lethal radiation doses at a certain level through a 'walking ghost' phase, where after the initial symptoms they have exhibit little to no symptoms. This because what has been destroyed is their bodies abiltiy to make new cells of certain types, but they can get by for a short time (hours-a couple of days) with the cells they already have. Thoguh they are pretty much fully fnctional during this stage there is already nothing that anyone can do for them.

[Nametag]

All of the neutron bomb designs produced in the U.S. have explosive yields in the 1 kiloton range. Very destructive, yes, but not greater than what's achievable with chemical explosives, and well below the yields typically designed into tactical nukes, much less ICBMs (there are several warheads with even lower yields, but those are in mobile-launched missiles to be used against aircraft, armor, or other missiles).

[Stranger On A Train]

All of the neutron bomb designs produced in the U.S. have explosive yields in the 1 kiloton range. Very destructive, yes, but not greater than what's achievable with chemical explosivesPlease show my in any standard reference (Jane's, Globalsecurity.org, et cetera) and deliverable chemical explosive weapon with a yield of 1 kT TNT equivalent and the unitary delivery system that can carry such a monster.

Stranger

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Rise of the Atomic Zombies....

[ralph124c]

A bit of a hijack, bt Iraq may well have more oil than SA-most of the fields in Krdistan have yet to be tapped.
Iraq shold become a very wealthy nation, provided they can attract the investment necessary to develop their oilfields.

[Magiver]

If you're going to allow zombie threads then why don't you add the word "zombie/2003" to the thread title?

[Nametag]

Please show my in any standard reference (Jane's, Globalsecurity.org, et cetera) and deliverable chemical explosive weapon with a yield of 1 kT TNT equivalent and the unitary delivery system that can carry such a monster.

Stranger
I didn't say anybody made any single conventional weapon like that; I said that 1kT yield is achievable with chemical explosives, which it is. What I had in mind was not actually a bomb-dropping scenario, but a hypothetical "yeah, you could stack up enough H-6 or whatever..." scenario. Yes, it would be the size of a building. Alternatively, you could drop a bunch of bombs, like on Tokyo during WWII.

Ah. On review of the thread, I see that you might think I was refuting your response to tirechangerwix. While it's probably one of the things that started me off, I wasn't responding to anything particular by the time I finished composing my post. What I was trying to get across was that neutron bombs are in the "very destructive, but lower yield than Little Boy" category, rather than the "unimaginably destructive, yield measured in megatons" variety. I think it would take a national effort to produce a million tons of TNT or anything else that goes bang, whereas we could scrape together a thousand tons if we had to.

[JohnT]

I thought js_africanus was back... :(

[Buck Godot]

All of the neutron bomb designs produced in the U.S. have explosive yields in the 1 kiloton range. Very destructive, yes, but not greater than what's achievable with chemical explosives.

Not easily achievable. My father used to work on nuclear treaty verification, and one of the main area of interests was whether they could determine the difference between an accidental chemical explosion (such as a natural gas filled mine) and a nuclear explosion, as part of that they set up a Chemical Kiloton experiment. This took a great deal of effort and wasn't just a matter of borrowing one of the military's bombs. Remember 1kt means about 2 million pounds of TNT, or a cube about 28 feet on a side composed entirely of TNT. Something you could set up for an experiment, but not something you could deploy militarily.

ETA: I see Nametag clarified his post so he's off the hook.

[Der Trihs]

It's my understand though that nuclear weapons are more destructive for the same amount of force because the energy is released much more quickly. At the speed of a nuclear reaction rather than a chemical one. That's why only nuclear weapons and meteorite impacts leave behind shocked quartz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shocked_quartz); ordinary explosions, even really big ones like an exploding volcano don't produce an intense enough shockwave.

[Dissonance]

Also, I've heard elsewhere that another disadvantage of neutron bombs is the likelihood of hitting large number of enemy soldiers with fatal but not incapacitating doses of radiation. Which means that you'd be manufacturing large numbers of soldiers who have nothing to lose and no reason not to literally fight to the last man in order to kill as many of your side as possible, since they are already as good as dead.It's actually the complete opposite. With a conventional nuclear weapon (there's an oxymoron), the radius of lethal levels of radiation is much greater than the radius of the blast effect. The result is a lot of soldiers, particularly those in armored vehicles, who have received a lethal dose of radiation, but will be in the 'ghost walking' phase and won't be dead or even incapacitated for a week or more. The neutron bomb, or more properly enhanced radiation weapon releases such high levels of radiation that the onset of the effects are near immediate incapacitation with no 'ghost walking' latency phase and death within 48 hours or so; additionally armor offers little to no protection. There's a table on the effects of various exposure levels to radiation here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning#Exposure_levels), ERWs would deliver >30Sv.

[Stranger On A Train]

I didn't say anybody made any single conventional weapon like that; I said that 1kT yield is achievable with chemical explosives, which it is. What I had in mind was not actually a bomb-dropping scenario, but a hypothetical "yeah, you could stack up enough H-6 or whatever..." scenario. Yes, it would be the size of a building. Alternatively, you could drop a bunch of bombs, like on Tokyo during WWII.But the point is dropping even a 1 KT TNT explosive yield on an oil field would do an extraordinary amount of damage, critically damaging or destroying surface structures at a few thousands of meters. Many people seem to have absorbed the idea that neutron bombs just kill people and leave structures "standing" but in fact, while the blast and thermal effects are only a fraction of what is seen by weapons that maximize x-ray yield, they're still an order of magnitude or more greater yield than any conventional weapons, including thermobaric weapons and the BLU-82 or GBU-43/B 'MOAB'.

Stranger