What if nukes had zero radiation?

[NUKE]

If nuclear weapons had zero radiation but still had the same blast and heat, would it be more acceptable to use them in wars?

[OIO]

the neutron bomb kills without blast damage or lingering radiation.


use in wars? perhaps in small tactical warheads.. i doubt a continent-killing bomb is acceptable.

[Capt. Pork]

Originally posted by NUKE
If nuclear weapons had zero radiation but still had the same blast and heat, would it be more acceptable to use them in wars?

Ask the question, 'would it be acceptable to vaporize an entire city and its population with a single bomb, and then repeat the process a couple hundred times if need be?'

The radiation factor is really an afterthough, in my opinion. Radiation from nuclear weapons, even the big ones tested in the 50s and early 60s by the US and USSR, pales in comparison to the magnitude released in Chernobyl. The true horror, and thus effect of nukes is their ability to wipe away civilization, from continent to continent in minutes. Not to mention the massive, sun-blocking dust clouds. If they're all used in anger, with or without the radioactive aspect, the remaining people I think would welcome death, as there would be little left to look forward to in a world cleansed of the infrastructure and environment they've grown to depend on.

Small, tactical warheads are a different story, of course. Without radiation, we would have probably implemented them against military complexes in Iraq.

[LAWCobra]

War in of itself is the single most ignorant thing we do as the "higher" species.

So I would say no.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by OIO
the neutron bomb kills without blast damage or lingering radiation.


use in wars? perhaps in small tactical warheads.. i doubt a continent-killing bomb is acceptable.

you actually trumped my next point........ thanks a lot!

I was going to try to leverage a debate of radiation vrs. blast and the morality/justification for the use/nonuse  of each weapon.

[Capt. Pork]

Originally posted by NUKE
you actually trumped my next point........ thanks a lot!

I was going to try to leverage a debate of radiation vrs. blast and the morality/justification for the use/nonuse  of each weapon.

Like I said, what's the real difference between turning a city like New York or Moscow into a smoldering ring of carbon and turning the same city into a smoldering ring of carbon that is poisonous to the unfortunate few who choose to approach it afterwards.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by NUKE
I was going to try to leverage a debate of radiation vrs. blast and the morality/justification for the use/nonuse  of each weapon.

You might as well argue about the winner of a fight between Spiderman and Batman.

[NUKE]

On the one hand, say a nuke had zero radiation...just a huge explosive power. Such a weapon is only a progression of any explosive made in the past. At what point does an explosion become so large as to not be morally acceptable?

On the other hand, what if radiation alone could wipe out a massive tank assualt, yet leave all the buildings and tanks in tact and have no radiation left over beyond a couple weeks?

One is hypothetical, one is reality. The nuetron bomb was abandoned by it's inventor, the US, because of morality. The nuetron bomb was adapted and it thought to be held in large numbers by China, Russia, Israel and god knows who else.

The neutron bomb is almost the perfect weapon to be used against an armored assault in a tactical counter attack.

Weapons are weapons.....they kill. I just wonder why certain weapons are "taboo"

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by OIO
the neutron bomb kills without blast damage or lingering radiation.


use in wars? perhaps in small tactical warheads.. i doubt a continent-killing bomb is acceptable.

The effects of the neutron bomb are probably as bad as the long term effects of a nuke.  The funny things about neutron bombs is that the high levels of neutron radiation have this wonderful habit of altering the DNA of what is exposed to it.... ie. corn that was ok to eat before may very well be poisonous the next go around...  Thats the reason they are not tested above ground, they are just too damn unpredictable as to the long term effects.

[CyranoAH]

What Bodhi said.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Bodhi
high levels of neutron radiation have this wonderful habit of altering the DNA of what is exposed to it....Thats the reason they are not tested above ground, they are just too damn unpredictable as to the long term effects.

When tested underground in the desert southwest it altered the dna of earthworms who then terrorized Kevin Bacon.  I saw a documentary about it.

[LAWCobra]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
When tested underground in the desert southwest it altered the dna of earthworms who then terrorized Kevin Bacon.  I saw a documentary about it.

[Maniac]

would it be more acceptable to use them in wars?

I hope that killing women and children never gets acceptable...

[Nilsen]

Good question Nuke cause i would have to say yes and no....its just plain difficult to answer because you would have to also answer the question of how big an explosion can be before its to big.

If we didnt have nukes we would prolly have seen this question for real. I know there was some controversy over the HUGE type of bomb you dropped over afghanistan but i cant remember the name for it.

My temporary answer to your question is that when an explosion is to big to prevent colateral damage it is to big.

Let me give you an ex of what i mean:
1. If you have a tank sitting in the street between to buildings and the explosion is so big that even if you hit the tank in the middle both houses are damaged/destroyed.....the explosin is to big
2. If you have 500 tanks spead out in the middle of a desert and the explosion takes out all the tanks but nothing else.... then the explosion is not to big.

conclusion: as long as the explosion only takes out the intended target it is ok.

[Leslie]

Originally posted by NUKE
If nuclear weapons had zero radiation but still had the same blast and heat, would it be more acceptable to use them in wars?

Absolutely!!!  That's why there haven't been atomic wars!!!  It's the deterence factor that makes people think twice.  If it wasn't for the radiation, such bombs would have been used many times over.




Les