Geiger kit and tubes at electronic goldmine

[andre kesteloot]

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