Giving thanks for Hiroshima

The Spectator (U.K.) ^ | 07/30/05 | Andrew Kenny

[Zeroisanumber]

HEU is the most dangerous explosive material in existence...

And thankfully is deadly dangerous to handle. A half-hour of exposure will give you enough rads to kill you, and make you glow like a strobe-light to satellites. Without regular maintenance, bombs using HEU as an explosive break down. Without the proper protection gear and equipment, any technician trying to do the routine maintenance will die.

[APFel]

I'm not criticizing that decision, I think it was necessary, but the pattern of targeting civilians in WWII, by all sides of that war, is something we are living with today.

And I completely agree. I just felt the need to pick nits. :)

APf

[AFPhys]

I have no idea where the "perfect neutron bomb" concept came from. To the best of my knowledge and expertise, it has no relationship to reality. In the past, I've contacted some buddies who would know to reassure myself of that (but they wouldn't be able to verify classified). There IS data about U.S. tests of EHRs, but nothing remotely close to a "kills people but not infrastructure" weapon.

I have a feeling that this perfect "neutron bomb" was invented by some science fiction writer, though. Certainly, some anti-war movement types have used it to suggest we're going to conduct a war for imperialistic purposes with our "neutron bomb" to steal some nation's infrastructure and resources. For the most part, it seems that uninformed people simply keep propagating the myth.

I related to you in my post what my best research and best interpolation of the available data has revealed to me.

I'm open to other data, and crave it, but in more than six years of responding to posts such as yours, no one has disputed my interpretation of the available data.

[cvq3842]

I know what you mean.

You do what you need to in order to survive.

[Tax-chick]

I'm glad you're here, too :-).

[Captain Rhino]

I'm certainly in no position to dispute what you say.

What I put down in my last post were (to the best of my recollection) the supposed characteristics of the weapon that were discussed in the open press when it's existence was first revealed under President Carter in the late 1970s. Yes, there was a lot of strong anti-capitalist, anti-imperialism, and anti-war movement reaction to this new type of weapon at that time. IIRC, a lot of "first strike" rhetoric blew around until the administration mumbled some "no first use" verbage and things simmered down.

I did a web search a year or two ago on numbers and found reports that there were roughly 100 of these weapons still in US inventory. Since these and all nuclear weapons require maintenance, whether or not they are still any good is not publicly available knowledge (as it should be).

Picking up on your science fiction illusion, if they were as good as initially reported, there would probably be a lot more in inventory. If, however, you get tactical complications and still have significant infrastructure damage maybe it is better to just use the standard nukes. Then you stay off a potential slippery slope ("Yes, its a nuke, but it's sort of a decaf nuke.") and retain the horror of what they can do to act as a bright line (or cliff) to motivate you to do everything you can to keep them in their bunkers and silos.

[Dan Evans]

I think it is viewed as acceptable if it is judged that it would help bring an end to whatever armed conflict we are in, nuclear or conventional.

You may be right that some people feel that way but no one I know does and no president has. Otherwise why did Truman not use the bomb in Korea? Why have we not used it in the half dozen or so military conflicts since WWII?

[Dan Evans]

And thankfully is deadly dangerous to handle. A half-hour of exposure will give you enough rads to kill you,

That isn't true. It is actually less radioactive than plutonium. And plutonium can be worked with without special shielding:

"Since the radiation hazard from HEU is 1000 times less than that from Pu, exposures to the public at the site boundary are substantially reduced..."

During the Manhattan project the core of the "Gadget" (plutonium) was transported to the Trinity Site in the back seat of a car by a physicist who held it in his lap.

[BikerNYC]

You may be right that some people feel that way but no one I know does and no president has. Otherwise why did Truman not use the bomb in Korea? Why have we not used it in the half dozen or so military conflicts since WWII?

I was referring to targeting civilians as legitmate targets during an armed conflict, not using the Bomb. But, I think that the same applies to the Bomb. We will intentionally target civilians if it in our best interests to do so. We will use the Bomb against civilians if it is in our best interests to do so. Our best interests include the likelihood that our enemies will retaliate in kind. In war, the ends really do justify the means.

[dirtboy]

That isn't true. It is actually less radioactive than plutonium

I think the author is instead postulating that it is extremely dangerous because it's much easier to make an a-bomb with it than plutonium.

[Dan Evans]

Certainly, some anti-war movement types have used it to suggest we're going to conduct a war for imperialistic purposes with our "neutron bomb" to steal some nation's infrastructure and resources.

It was during the Reagan administration that the neutron bomb got its reputation. The bomb was being considered as a deterrent to an invasion of Warsaw Pact tanks in Europe because it would minimize collateral damage of adjacent villages. Leftist propagandists turned that around and portrayed the neutron bomb as the "capitalist bomb" because it supposedly destroyed people but left the buildings standing.

[TChris]

There is little connection between atomic weapons and nuclear power. Sweden, Switzerland and Japan have nuclear power but no weapons. Israel has atomic weapons but no nuclear power. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) came into existence to allow nuclear power and to stop the spread of atomic weapons. Technically, this is very simple to do: have an outright and worldwide ban on any uranium enrichment above 10 per cent (weapons need above 80 per cent) and the same ban on weapons-grade plutonium. The problem is political. The countries that possess the atomic weapons, including the USA, would refuse this ban. Other countries are judged not by their compliance to NPT but by political prejudice. Iran does not have atomic weapons and has a good record of compliance with NPT. India does have atomic weapons and refuses to sign it. Yet Iran is vilified by the US, and President Bush has just agreed to help India’s nuclear programme. This staggering hypocrisy endangers the world.

It's only "staggering hypocrisy" to those who:

A) believe that every country signing the treaty would actually abide by it. (Hey, Saddam promised he would be good!)
B) believe evil is neutralized by taking away one of its tools.
C) see total moral equivalence in every culture and nation; presuming that the risk posed by every nation is the same.

[Dan Evans]

We will intentionally target civilians if it in our best interests to do so.

But when have we ever done that since WWII? The only examples that I can think of that might fall into that category would be when we have targeted the Hussein family or when we've killed terrorists. Do you consider them civilians?

During the Vietnam war, Hanoi was off-limits to bombing (until Nixon). The Vietnamese knew that and they took advantage of it by stockpiling munitions within the city.

[Dan Evans]

I think the author is instead postulating that it is extremely dangerous because it's much easier to make an a-bomb with it than plutonium.

I suppose that's one way to look at it.

But there is a form of uranium that he may be thinking of. Not HEU but U-233. The critical mass is less than half that of HEU and it is easier to make because it doesn't require the enormously expensive enriching process.

It is produced by irradiating thorium in a nuclear reactor and fortunately that makes it radioactive to the point where it can't be handled.

[Montfort]

"Survival is not only a natural right, it is a natural imperative. It needs no apology, it needs no defense, no matter how brutal. The greatness of Churchill is that he fully understood this and was prepared to be as brutal as necessary, or more.

The peace that the atomic bombs wrought is their own justification."

You sound Churchillian. Nicely put.

[BikerNYC]

Cambodian carpet-bombing of villages. Necessary, I think, but it was targeting of civilians.

[CGVet58]

Yep, that's the part about being an American that all others just keep on missing; we said as much in our Declaration of Independence:

ENEMIES in War; in PEACE, FRIENDS