Prove you are right, first. You may as well have printed some random gossip. Your rather silly sigh there is just you covering up the massive schoolboy mistake you just made- you used an encyclopedia as a source, you used wiki as a source, you used UNSOURCED wiki as a source; an escalation of mistakes.
Actually look into this area and you will find I am correct.
Ush, there's a difference.
Off the deep end view:
Government: "We're going to kill you!"
My view:
Government: "We turn a blind eye to what some of us and our sponsors are doing for a number of reasons. Some of us do it because we blindly believe in failed free market ideologies which have taken on the unofficial status of national religion. Some of us do it out of malice. Most of us do nothing because we just don't give a shit as long as we've got the money, the blow, and the hookers. It's not that we're trying to kill you, but if most of you would just ****ing die off, it would really make life easier for us."
Just look at the policies currently under consideration-deregulating health care, privatizing the social safety net and allowing states to opt out of them, defunding or closing down entire federal agencies vital to public health, ending unemployment benefits during a period of high unemployment. Even getting away from the neutron bomb hyperbole, I wouldn't be surprised if the libertarian/conservative solution to the jobs/economic situation involves decriminalizing suicide.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That still remains a massively paranoid view. Plans for mass depopulation brings you into the conspiracy theory territory; they talk about thst sort of thing all the time. If that wouldn't surprise you, then you have lost your sense of proportion.
That's my point. It's mass depopulation without a plan.
"Tactical neutron bombs are primarily intended to kill soldiers who are protected by
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Prove you are right, first. You may as well have printed some random gossip. Your rather silly sigh there is just you covering up the massive schoolboy mistake you just made- you used an encyclopedia as a source, you used wiki as a source, you used UNSOURCED wiki as a source; an escalation of mistakes.
http://www.thewednesdayreport.com/twr/neutron-bomb.htm
"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.""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."
http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/NeutronBomb.pdf
-starting on the bottom of page 14
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually look into this area and you will find I am correct.
though, of course, there is no burden of proof for your side
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/neutronbomb.htm
The primary strategic uses of a neutron bomb would be as an anti-missile device, to kill soldiers who are protected by armor, to temporarily or permanently disable armored targets, or to take out targets fairly close to friendly forces. It is untrue that neutron bombs leave buildings and other structures intact. This is because the blast and thermal effects are damaging much further out than the radiation. Although military targets may be fortified, civilian structures are destroyed by a relatively mild blast. Armor, on the other hand, isn't affected by thermal effects or the blast except very near to ground zero. However, armor, and the personnel directing, it is damaged by the intense radiation of a neutron bomb. In the case of armored targets, the lethal range from neutron bombs greatly exceeds that of other weapons.
EDIT: the PDF in the above post is long, but very telling. It goes into excruciating detail about Soviet tank divisions in Eastern Europe, and how that was the particular threat that neutron bombs were meant to face.
It is possible that in their most theoretical phases, ie, prior to 1970, it was about civilian populations and infrastructure, or maybe that was the propoganda, but the actual development of the bomb was to deter soviet tanks from entering western europe
Originally posted by UshgarakSure it does. It just means that the actions of several, disorganized people sharing an ideology and perpetuating a system will have the exact same results as an overt slaughter. Just more spread out and subtle. It's not a conspiracy of supervillains, it's not the X-Files, it's a perfect mess of party loyalists, zealots, psychopaths, and the indifferent each pursuing their own personal interests and the interests of their sponsors that effectively function as a conspiracy.
That simply makes no sense.
Your first one is unsourced. Your second one is a paper that supports my view, not yours, so thank you for that. Aquino specifies in his chapter about what a neutron bomb is- that it is about being able to use it on an area without removing the strategic value of the area. He talks about it in great detail, and then goes on to discuss the political implications. He explains it very clearly, so I suggest you read it properly. The chapter is 'The Neutron Bomb Defined'.
No-one would have cared about the neutron bomb if it was just a way to kill tank crews.
Honestly, this is rather poor from you, inimalist.
Originally posted by inimalist
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/neutronbomb.htm
Effectively unsourced; no expert involved.
Learn to do proper research rather than just random web links. Have you ever done any proper study? You aren't even reading your own sources properly.
do you have a single source, even one of my poor standards, that says the neutron bomb was developed to not destroy infrastructure?
I'd read the part of that paper I highlighted though, as it is essentially all about Soviet tanks...
EDIT: also, your point is pretty much self defeating. The neutron bomb would be incredibly destructive to civilian infrastructure. Carpet bombing would be less destructive
Did you read chapter 3? The one that defines what a neutron bomb is? That defines, in detail, its advantages in that it destroys enemy forces without affecting infrastructure or leaving a place unusable? As opposed to your utterly unsupported idea that the neutron bomb is 'better' at disabling tanks as being its purpose.
That's an expert in the field right there, specifying in the chapter saying what a neutron bomb is precisely what I have been telling you it is. If that's not good enough for you, you have finally taken the step into the plunge of total irrationality.
Presumably you are acting this way as you are so defensive about your mistake- but it is a poor way to act. Be aware that anyone else can take 30 seconds to read the chapter I mention and see I am right. So you only make yourself look more silly as you go on.
Meanwhile, the section you have tried to use as support from it is irrelevant. I have no idea what you were thinking or how you think it helps you. Page 14 onwards is discussing the political situation at the time and has not even got onto nukes. Aquino is on my side- that's just something you'll have to live with.
1) the politics at the time of the development of the weapon are a primary concern, since my point was "the neutron bomb was developed for...". The bomb was not developed in a political vaccum, but in fact, to deal with what was thought to be the Soviet threat in Eastern Europe
2) the first point in chapter 3, where neutron bombs are defined, deals primarily with stoping advancing infintry and armor, the second is about "surgical" strikes you mention
3) without re-typing huge paragraphs here, starting at the end of page 21, the details of why neutron bomb radiation will penetrate tank armor is highlighted. this is important, in light of point 1, as the tactics behind the development of the bomb related presciesly to destroying armored vehicles
4) Aquino goes on, pages 22-23, to describe why the weapon is not surgical, ie, he doesn't think it would be useful in not harming ones own troops or protecting territory
5) read chapter 4, understand soviet tank strategy and NATO weaknesses in that area
6) I already admitted that not destroying Europe was probably a "benefical result" of the design of the neutron bomb, but there is certainly more evidence, especially from military context at the time, that the bomb was made to fight tanks
7) we don't have to agree, but make a personal remark about me again, please, moderator
Poor.
1. Yes the politics are relevant... but not for what you are saying. They are relevant as to why a nuclear arsenal was being discussed at all.
2. This was the bottom of the barrel for you- now you are changing your base argument. Your argument was that it was BETTER against armour. He does not say that. Mine was that it could be used against the enemy without damaging infrastructure or leaving an area unusable. It says PRECISELY that. He even contrasts the advantage over normal nukes- not that it is better than a normal nuke, but that it does it without leaving the area unusable. It is 100% clearly specified. Read it properly.
3. That's why it would kill people in tanks. It is not BETTER at killing tanks for it than simply blowing them up, like a nuke would. Again, don't shift your argument.
4. Which is part of the argument against them. But that doesn't change the point that the intention behind them is as I and Aquinio both stated.
5. Irrelevant- see 1 and 3 above.
6. No there isn't. Like I said, any nuke would fight tanks, so that makes no difference at all. They already had a totally effective anti-tank weapon.
7. We're not agreeing because you made such a huge mistake in basing your argument on an unsourced wiki page and are now too defensive to admit your error. My attacks are on the way you are presenting your argument, and that is entirely your fault. Your attempts to imply flaming or bringing my mod status into it are unseemly and akin to trolling. It's as simple as this- if you don't want to be called out on poor arguing technique, then actually make proper arguments instead of your garbage above. I am entitled to point out your flaws as a reason as to why they do not refute my points.
That my argument is correct and backed by Aquino is so abundantly obvious as for me to conclude that you are simply being irrational and not worth anyone's time arguing with. Not a good show. Well, with that, I am done- the source speaks so strongly for me that nothing else needs to be said and your objections are meaningless. I've brought this off-topic for too long as it is.
Just be careful about where you source info from in future.
No, it was always as I say. It was originally conceived as the idea that if you adjusted a bomb to let out neutrons rather than contain them, it would cause great irradiation, but that was only possible with a relatively small explosion.
From square one, the main strategic use for that was that you could wipe out enemy forces without the mass damage to infrastructure. There was no strategic need for tank killing; nukes already did that.
And inimalist's appalling sourcing issue remains.
I don't really have much knowledge about weapons, but what you said is how I "knew" it anyways....probably from TV. But I could imagine that because of those properties it might be effective against tanks. What the reasons were why people wanted to develop it in the first place doesn't actually seem too important.
Especially in light of a lot of tea party candidates being ineligible to hold office shock