And spread nuclear fallout over the surrounding countries, and a large percentage of the world's oil supply. Do you expect those countries and the rest of the world to sit back and take that?
It wouldn't be the fallout, as neutron warheads don't produce enough fallout to affect much beyond the detonation zone.
Yes it would as we don't have neutron warheads on ICBMs. The neutron weapon was seen as a tactical munition, and all the design work done was on warheads for IRBMs and artillery shells. I don't believe that any were actually constructed.
So... What's the down side, again?
10 to 30 million dead seem to be a pretty big downside to me. Not to mention the likelyhood of global economic collapse.
I stated neutron warheads...
And as you kindly noted, they are not available for ICBM's, but for IRBM's.
Sooo, launch 20-30 IRBM's instead.
Those have a much smaller explosion coupled with just as much radiation as a standard warhead. So the radiation kills living tissue but leaves the infrastructure intact.
So, no fallout. And decontamination is usually handled by washing with water, so you'd just need to wait for the rain.
Of course, the topsoil would be destroyed via the comtaminated runoff.
As for global economic collapse... how so? Fallout's not an issue, so contamination of the world's oil supply is... not applicable in this scenario.
Rome dealt with Carthage, and likewise, America must deal with Iran. Carthage never became a problem after Rome 'dealt' with it.
We must be as thorough.