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...