"Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft.
In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armoured ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981."
From: http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm
"Enhanced Radiation Weapons
An enhanced radiation (ER) weapon, by special design techniques, has an output in which neutrons and x-rays are made to constitute a substantial portion of the total energy released. For example, a standard fission weapon's total energy output would be partitioned as follows: 50% as blast; 35% as thermal energy; and 15% as nuclear radiation. An ER weapon's total energy would be partitioned as follows: 30% as blast; 20% as thermal; and 50% as nuclear radiation. Thus, a 3-kiloton ER weapon will produce the nuclear radiation of a 10-kiloton fission weapon and the blast and thermal radiation of a 1-kiloton fission device. However, the energy distribution percentages of nuclear weapons are a function of yield."
Though I'm not really crazy about this quick linked article and I've seen much more comprehensive discussions, this is the bottom line. There is quite a bit to be desired in further discussion, but I'm not going to get involved in this one much more on the present thread, but the long and short of this is that these EHRs are highly destructive to cities and other targets and harm not only biological tissue. This severly limits their military/ political/ tactical usefulness, and in fact, my lengthy research into this seems to indicate that the US has decided that EHRs introduce more problems into the battlefield situation than those they solve.
They are major nuclear weapons and are highly destructive on their own part. The description in britannica.com (which you didn't accredit) is lacking in its failure to point out that very pertinent fact.