Geiger kit and tubes at electronic goldmine

[Mike O'Dell]

the real frenzy about the neutron warhead was its
effectiveness against missiles still in their silos
without having to breech the blast doors.

a tomahawk could put a neutron warhead on the
center of the blast doors. several possible outcomes
from the neutron warhead detonation:
the warhead of the missile in the silo detonates to a
greater or lesser degree from the flux,
the warhead is neutered by transmutation from the flux,
the electronics is rendered brain-dead....
you get the idea.

hence, a neutron warhead, especially with a cruise missile,
is a launch-on-warning threat. the first time a tomahawk
even looked like it was headed their way, everything would
come out of the holes, even what would have been second-wave
hold-backs because they are dead if the neutron warheads
get to them.

that's why the Soviets got apoplectic about the neutron bomb.

	-mo


On 4/3/10 5:46 PM, andre kesteloot wrote:
> Brian Hawes wrote:
>> I'm more concerned about Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse. If you have
>> only one or two weapons, a high altitude burst is much better value.
>> Better to disable most of Europe's electronic infrastructure than
>> destroy one City.
>> It would, of course, get the offender turned, as one of you guys put
>> it, 'into a sheet of glass' but does deterrence work on these smaller
>> nations?
> In the past, most wars were generally meant to allow the people from
> Country A to take over part of the land (and or cattle, and or women
> etc) form Country B.
> The purpose, then, was not to annihilate the other side, but to get the
> people from Country B to work --sometimes as slave labor-- for the
> people of Country A.
> Radiation bombs changed that picture: for instance parts of the Sahara
> Desert, neighborhoods of Chernobyl, and of course Nagasaki and
> Hiroshima, etc are all areas that are still dangerous for human beings.
>
> On the other hand, , if Country A:
> 1) Country A wanted to actually annihilate the population of Country B,
> (e.g., religious war) and
> 2) Country A had only one opportunity to detonate a bomb (before
> retaliation took place) and if
> 3) Country A wanted to be able to use some of Country B's existing
> manufacturing facilities (for example) after the attack,
> then it could be argued that the best choice would be a neutron bomb.
> It would increase casualties without necessarily destroying the
> environment.
>
> André N4ICK
> _______________________________________________
> Tacos mailing list
> Tacos at amrad.org
> http://www.amrad.org/mailman/listinfo/tacos

-- 
"Of course it's hard!
If it was easy, we'd be buying it from somebody else!"