--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> While true, all those energetic neutrons have to go
> somewhere. They will do two
> things:-
>
> 1) While still energetic they will damage other
> nuclei, producing radioactive
> species.
> 2) When absorbed by other nuclei, they will also
> create radioactive species.
>
> In short it isn't *really* going to be a "clean"
> bomb.
That's what I would think. Far cleaner than anything
we have today, but if it is ground blasted, there's
got to be a little something left. My question was
basically, how bad would it compare to something
manufactured with today's technology.
IF I am correct in my thinking...
1. Ground-blast leaves some (maybe not too much)
fallout, probably far less than a normal
fission-fusion ground blast.
2. Air blast leaves very little, depending on how far
the neutrons are able to go and be absorbed by atoms
in dust and debris. Widespread destruction, thermal
and blast effects, initial ionizing radiation, but
little lasting radioactivity. March in a few days
later.
3. Higher altitude aerial blast (something like a Nike
Zeus), for all intents, no fallout. Little to speak of
nearby to activate. Some remnants of the bomb parts,
destroyed missiles, etc. might become a bit
radioactive, but not like Castle Bravo did.
Incidentally, while following up on neutron bombs, I
found a document by Sam Cohen which discusses
pure-fusion bombs and lack of fallout. I guess the
idea is, there's very little produced even by
activation.
My only beef with calling a multimegaton pure fusion
nuke a 'neutron bomb' is simply that the neutron
effects radius is far overshadowed by blast and
thermal effect radii.
The Tsar Bomb obviously put out more neutrons than a
10 ton yield neutron bomb...but no one is calling the
King of All Bombs a neutron bomb. :)
But I guess in the end it boils down to this: it will
still kill ya if you're unlucky enough to be nearby.
--Kyle
