This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vfrickey (talk | contribs) at 06:37, 16 November 2017 (→Big gap: answered the question.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:37, 16 November 2017 by Vfrickey (talk | contribs) (→Big gap: answered the question.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Grammar and style: criterion met
Untitled
WTF! "radiological warfare might well be a far more safe and humane way to conduct extermination of large numbers of people, or the emptying out of troublesome political centres, than any of the various biological alternatives."
Note bolded words, it doesn't really seem to fit, does it??
- No it doesn't. cyclosarin 08:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Fictional Sources
This article seems to draw heavily from fictional sources for its information on the uses of radiological warfare. This seems to lead to much speculation and lack of actual fact. I suggest removing the paragraphs based on fictional works and rewriting them with actual cited scientific research.
Also, the last paragraph seems to be complete speculation. Its suggestion of ethical human mass killings is obviously not pertinent to the article; to say the least. I believe this paragraph should be removed entirely. Please comment.
Removed Fictional Sources
I have removed the parts of this article referencing or pertaining to the aforementioned fictional sources. This article is still in need to some sound research. It should be expanded to include referenced sources and verifiable information.
Big gap
Why isn't Cohen's neutron bomb mentioned here?
- Probably because it's a nuclear weapon whose main weapons effect is neutron irradiation of enemy troops - it doesn't disseminate radioactivity such as fallout and its area denial properties were temporary - after a few hours, friendly troops could re-enter an area under which a neutron bomb had detonated with minimal hazard.
- The neutron bomb was originally meant to be detonated (according to its inventor) at high altitude (where fallout and other weapon effects apart from prompt but temporary irradiation of enemy troops would be minimal or absent, and only enemy troops in a small area under the detonation would be affected). That makes it, strictly speaking, not a radiological weapon in the same sense a salted bomb or a dirty bomb is.
- Unfortunately (again, according to Mr. Cohen) the Army wound up getting the neutron bomb and didn't have delivery systems capable of sending enhanced radiation weapons that high in the sky, so there was a wider area of lethal irradiation, and other weapon effects such as blast and heat were present in the target area.
- W79 neutron howitzer shells, for example, were developed which weren't noticeably more humane or focussed in their effects on enemy formations (as opposed to civilians in densely-populated areas such as Germany where they'd be used to stall Soviet tank formations) than other tactical nuclear weapons, because the Army's howitzers couldn't loft them as high as needed to only irradiate enemy in a small area under the detonation. The W70 warhead for the short-range tactical MGM-52 Lance missile combined the undesirable capacity of having enough fusion fuel in it to be reconfigurable as a 100 kiloton thermonuclear weapon (this is now, with our more accurate ICBMs considered a "strategic" weapon yield) with excessively wide prompt neutron radiation field, heat, and blast effects, not Cohen's original objective of a humanitarian weapon with effects confined more precisely to enemy troops. loupgarous (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)