[AFPhys]

"Neutron bombs" that keep "the infrastructure intact and relatively free of radiation" are more myth than truth. More properly called "Enhanced Radiation Weapons", they have only about 3-4 times the radiation as a nuke of similar yield.

A small, 5 kiloton weapon, with "radiation damage" similar to the 20kT Hiroshima weapon, would nevertheless have a huge blast effect. It would be somewhat smaller (at a guess, 80% of the blast radius) but infrastructure WOULD be massively affected.

EHRs also carry some nasty tactical problems for military planners, and for that reason (as far as I know) thoughts of developing and using them are quite far from the US military thoughts.

[Captain Rhino]

My understanding was that the radiation produced by the neutron bomb (enhanced radiation weapon) was lethal to organic life within the irradiated area (unless protected by very thick armor steel/lead shielding or at the bottom of a swimming pool-size (or larger) body of water. However, the effect was not supposed to be long lasting ((days/months vice multiple millennia) and if the weapon was detonated at a sufficient altitude (in order to maximize the radiation coverage), there would be greatly reduced damage to the infrastructure from blast and overpressure.

However, I will defer to your expertise on this matter.