Building a Better Bomb

dr who and the darlix writes "There is a nice article here about carbon composite warheads being tested. They destroy their targets while minimizing collateral damage."

Comments

Shades of the `70's neutron bomb

[Paul Bain]

This development reminds me of the "neutron bomb" that the defense establishment developed in the late seventies. It was a small, nuclear warhead meant for use on the battlefield (i.e., against soldiers and tanks, etc.) that killed not through a combination of blast-&-heat (that would destroy structures) but, rather, by unleashing a lethal flood of neutrons that destroyed the cell walls of nearly all animals (humans included). The neutrons could penetrate tank armor and the walls of buildings, killing tank crews and infantry inside the buildings, respectively. Think Star Trek, First Generation, the episode where Bones says, "Jim, every cell in his body has been disrupted!!". The bomb did not, however, destroy as many structures as a traditional, tactical nuclear weapon.

The defense establishment tried to sell the virutes of the neutron bomb with this pithy point: "It destroys humans but leaves buildings intact," minimizing collateral damage. Aping this thought, in college, some of my acquaintances developed a powerful alcoholic mixture that they dubbed "neutron punch." Their rationale? "It destroys your mind but leaves your body intact," they said.

Re:This strikes me

[Pharmboy]

The JDAM is the most cost effective weapon now, and incidently, its one of the more accurate since it doesnt require a laser or any visability. its a $20k piece of hardware on an otherwise dumb (and cheap) bomb.

One of the advantages is the accuracy tends to produce lower collateral damage by itself. The primary benefit being the locals tend to rise up less when you don't kill lots of them, which is a good thing when you have to hang out for a few years.

There is also some degree of usefullness when the enemy knows you can program in coordinates x y z and the type and depth of penetration for the bomb, and make the bad guys eat it. The best bomb is one powerful and accurate enough that you don't have to use it. Using collateral damage as a form of control of the masses is one of the things we try to frown on now that we are all civilized, since it smacks of terrorism itself, although I would not rule out bombing civilian facilities myself, under certain circumstances.

Design criteria

[CaptBubba]

These bombs aren't being designed because people like to live next to military outposts. People don't wander into potential bomb sites to look at the big guns...

What does happen is that certain militaries will deploy their equipment where the most collateral damage will be caused. The civilians are being used. When they die the occupying power can come on TV and rant about the US "murdering innocent civilians". Never mind that they stuck an AAA battery in a residential neighborhood, that's not important.

I think these bombs are a good curiosity to have but would be too expensive for general use. I hope that these bombs will make a commander think twice about using civilians as a shield. Unfortunately I think the effect will be the opposite, and military installations will get even more integrated with the populace for defense. Sometimes cause and effect really sucks...

Re: I hate it..

[Black Parrot]

> It doesn't seem like anyone really cares about Iraq any more. The protests were heavy and numerous leading up to the war, but once it began everyone seemed to abandon the cause all but entirely.

There's a curious phenomenon at work here. IIRC, a couple of weeks before the war started the only way you could squeeze > 50% US public support out of the polls was to qualify the question with "with UN authorization", and even then the support was only about 60%. Without UN authorization it was somewhere down around 40%.

Those aren't very good numbers for a democracy to embark on a war with.

However, as soon as the shooting started the "support the troops" meme kicked in, and approval skyrocketed. I suspect it's something to do with guilt, i.e. the naive notion that not supporting the war must equate to wishing our troops harm.

> This is in stark contrast to the Vietnam war, which as far as I can tell (I could be wrong) resulted in protests through its entire duration.

I think there were no protests at all early on, though they grew to an avalanche as "the cause" caught on. And as for Iraq, there doesn't seem to be much point in protesting a done deal.

However, since the "deep support" (i.e., before the shooting started) for the Iraq war was not all that broad, and since the promised wonder of a native democracy overseeing US-built schools and hospitals and rebuilding itself with oil revenues doesn't seem to be anywhere in sight, this could still turn into a Vietnam-style political issue if the killing and dying continues. (Recall how delightedly the media were announcing four consecutive days without any combat deaths just a few days ago, and compare that to the gloomy tone of the news tonight.)

IMO things have gone much better than we had any right to expect so far, but unfortunately the fat lady hasn't sung yet. If things are still going like they are now when the elections come around next year you can look to a lot of "peace with honor" campaign rhetoric, i.e. how fast can we get the hell out without admitting we're giving up on it.

And that is where the Vietnam analogy fits in. During the Vietnam war the public was treated to a steady stream of glowing reports about the phenomenal casualty ratios, but ultimately it didn't make any difference. There's a heck of a lot more to winning a war than killing lots of people, high-tech warheads or no. Especially in a democracy.

Re:Misguided....

[delong]

This is Slashdot, you're wasting your breath.

Americans were obstinately isolationist until after WWII. We still are, given a percieved lack of threat - George Bush ran in 2000 on an isolationist platform: bring the boys home, let the world look after it's own ass, the Cold War is over. After being dragged into two World Wars and Soviet expansionism threatening to drag the world into a third, it became US policy to maintain a large standing army forward deployed in Eurasia to actively deter the Soviets and Chinese and to de-militarize European states (and specifically, Germany) by assuming the majority of Europe's defense burden.

America is the reluctant Superpower. We could have had tributary states like the Soviets after WWII, and ruled half the world. We didn't. We chose the Marshall Plan, and helped western Europe and Japan rebuild as liberal democracies. If the world was such a Pollyanna place some people think it to be, Americans would want their sons and daughters back home, permanently, and wish the world to come visit, but leave us alone behind our oceans.

Derek

Funny?

[Tharn]

Come on, this is flamebait and not at all funny. /. IS too Americentric (though why America would want to kill people is beyond me).

Re:Another "thing" they are working on

[Mike1024]

A few months back, I saw a tech article about another type of bomb they are working on, that is very related - Small bombs!

Reminds me of a British invention, inert bombs - laser-guided 1,000lb blocks of concrete.

No word yet on if they'll be anvil-shaped.

Michael