Neutron Bombs and Missile Defense- some questions.
pjmc...@gate.net
Neutron bombs are normally considered as tactical low yield anti-personal
devices with limited area of effect,largely
because of the exponential shielding effect of 1 ATM pressure air.(Radius ~=
500 meters)
However, neutrons can also cook the fission mechanisms in nuclear warheads
and decompose the high explosives
used.
How far do these killing effects against warheads extend when a neutron bomb
is detonated at high altitude to
catch an exoatmospheric warhead or even an endoatmospheric warhead that's
still relatively high up (40-50 miles) ?
If a high yield neutron bomb was produced , by , for instance, stripping the
casing off of a multimegaton hydrogen bomb(assuming that's how you make
neutron bombs) how far would the lethal to warheads neutron flux extend
(recognizing that it wouldn't extend *down* very far because the atmosphere
is in the way) ?
Anyone have information on this ?
Tom Billings
> Neutron bombs are normally considered as tactical low yield anti-personal
> devices with limited area of effect,largely
> because of the exponential shielding effect of 1 ATM pressure air.(Radius ~=
> 500 meters)
Actually, this is the *second* deployed use of them.
The first was the deployment of the Sprint endo-atmospheric
BMD interceptor, in 1975.
>
>
> However, neutrons can also cook the fission mechanisms in nuclear warheads
> and decompose the high explosives
> used.
>
> How far do these killing effects against warheads extend when a neutron bomb
> is detonated at high altitude to
> catch an exoatmospheric warhead or even an endoatmospheric warhead that's
> still relatively high up (40-50 miles) ?
The Sprint was to be used between about 5 and 30 kilometers
altitude, because at an altitude between 30 kilometers and
150-250 kilometers, the atmosphere's density allowed far
easier generation of EMP. Keeping the warhead below that
obviated this as a major problem for the entire Safegurd system.
>
>
> If a high yield neutron bomb was produced , by , for instance, stripping the
> casing off of a multimegaton hydrogen bomb(assuming that's how you make
> neutron bombs) how far would the lethal to warheads neutron flux extend
> (recognizing that it wouldn't extend *down* very far because the atmosphere
> is in the way) ?
This would depend on the size of the 2-stage weapon you describe.
At altitudes above 150-250 kilometers, the preferred kill mechanism
was X-rays, produced by the 5 megaton warhead on the Spartan, the
longer range missile. All these have been dismantled since about 1987.
X-rays have a longer warhead-lethal range, in a vacuum, than do neutrons.
In an atmosphere, they have a very short range, in comparison to neutrons.
Regards,
Tom Billings
pjmc...@gate.net
Tom Billings <it...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3A9DDC6A...@teleport.com...
> pjmc...@gate.net wrote:
>
> > Neutron bombs are normally considered as tactical low yield
anti-personal
> > devices with limited area of effect,largely
> > because of the exponential shielding effect of 1 ATM pressure
air.(Radius ~=
> > 500 meters)
>
> Actually, this is the *second* deployed use of them.
> The first was the deployment of the Sprint endo-atmospheric
> BMD interceptor, in 1975.
Were those megaton+ yield warheads ?
>
>
> >
> >
> > However, neutrons can also cook the fission mechanisms in nuclear
warheads
> > and decompose the high explosives
> > used.
> >
> > How far do these killing effects against warheads extend when a neutron
bomb
> > is detonated at high altitude to
> > catch an exoatmospheric warhead or even an endoatmospheric warhead
that's
> > still relatively high up (40-50 miles) ?
>
> The Sprint was to be used between about 5 and 30 kilometers
> altitude, because at an altitude between 30 kilometers and
> 150-250 kilometers, the atmosphere's density allowed far
> easier generation of EMP. Keeping the warhead below that
> obviated this as a major problem for the entire Safegurd system.
Any idea what the effective kill radius was ?
Yards ? Miles ? tens of miles ? hundreds ?
Or I should ask: If military planners were less concerned about EMP, what
effective kill range could
be achieved ?
>
> >
> >
> > If a high yield neutron bomb was produced , by , for instance, stripping
the
> > casing off of a multimegaton hydrogen bomb(assuming that's how you make
> > neutron bombs) how far would the lethal to warheads neutron flux extend
> > (recognizing that it wouldn't extend *down* very far because the
atmosphere
> > is in the way) ?
>
> This would depend on the size of the 2-stage weapon you describe.
For the sake of argument, let's say 20 megatons, since that seems to be
about
as large as 2 stage weapons get, and is near the limit of yield for any
weapon ever deployed,
though I think that everything with a higher yield than that was only used
on bombers.
>
> At altitudes above 150-250 kilometers, the preferred kill mechanism
> was X-rays, produced by the 5 megaton warhead on the Spartan, the
> longer range missile.
> All these have been dismantled since about 1987.
I thought the system was dismantled in the seventies.
Did they have them in mothballs ?
> X-rays have a longer warhead-lethal range, in a vacuum, than do neutrons.
> In an atmosphere, they have a very short range, in comparison to neutrons.
Do you mean that a given energy flux of x-rays is more lethal than a given
energy flux of neutrons ?
Or do you mean that X-rays are produced more ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Billings
>
Tom Billings
> Tom Billings <it...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:3A9DDC6A...@teleport.com...
> > pjmc...@gate.net wrote:
> >
> > > Neutron bombs are normally considered as tactical low yield
> anti-personal
> > > devices with limited area of effect,largely
> > > because of the exponential shielding effect of 1 ATM pressure
> air.(Radius ~=
> > > 500 meters)
> >
> > Actually, this is the *second* deployed use of them.
> > The first was the deployment of the Sprint endo-atmospheric
> > BMD interceptor, in 1975.
> Were those megaton+ yield warheads ?
No. About 5 kilotons, IIRC.
> > > However, neutrons can also cook the fission mechanisms in nuclear
> warheads
> > > and decompose the high explosives
> > > used.
> > >
> > > How far do these killing effects against warheads extend when a neutron
> bomb
> > > is detonated at high altitude to
> > > catch an exoatmospheric warhead or even an endoatmospheric warhead
> that's
> > > still relatively high up (40-50 miles) ?
>
> > The Sprint was to be used between about 5 and 30 kilometers
> > altitude, because at an altitude between 30 kilometers and
> > 150-250 kilometers, the atmosphere's density allowed far
> > easier generation of EMP. Keeping the warhead below that
> > obviated this as a major problem for the entire Safegurd system.
> Any idea what the effective kill radius was ?
> Yards ? Miles ? tens of miles ? hundreds ?
Effective radius was almost certainly much less
than the minimum operational altitude, of about
5,000 meters. I'd believe anything between 250
and 2500 meters, if I had some good authority.
>
> Or I should ask: If military planners were less concerned about EMP, what
> effective kill range could
> be achieved ?
It would probably be boosted a bit, with larger
weapons, but not that much. The particles spread
out over a surface that is proportional to the square
of the kill radius, but occupy a volume proportional
to the cube of that radius as well. Inside the atmosphere
they would also face atmospheric absorption.
>
> > > If a high yield neutron bomb was produced , by , for instance, stripping
> the
> > > casing off of a multimegaton hydrogen bomb(assuming that's how you make
> > > neutron bombs) how far would the lethal to warheads neutron flux extend
> > > (recognizing that it wouldn't extend *down* very far because the
> atmosphere
> > > is in the way) ?
> >
> > This would depend on the size of the 2-stage weapon you describe.
>
> For the sake of argument, let's say 20 megatons, since that seems to be
> about
> as large as 2 stage weapons get, and is near the limit of yield for any
> weapon ever deployed,
> though I think that everything with a higher yield than that was only used
> on bombers.
I don't know how to calculate it myself, but a simple
calculation based on a volume-filling assumption for
the neutrons would mean that this warhead, being
about 4,000 times the energy of the Sprint warhead,
would have a kill radius of less than 40 kilometers,
using the 2500 meter radius I mentioned above for t
he Sprint warhead. If the real kill radius of the Sprint
is closer to 250 meters, adjust by one order of magnitude
lower for the larger device.
>
>
> >
> > At altitudes above 150-250 kilometers, the preferred kill mechanism
> > was X-rays, produced by the 5 megaton warhead on the Spartan, the
> > longer range missile.
>
> > All these have been dismantled since about 1987.
> I thought the system was dismantled in the seventies.
> Did they have them in mothballs ?
I believe they did, until they were satisfied that
non-nuclear BMD was sufficiently capable that
the political price of the nuclear warheads was
not worth it in deployed systems.
> > X-rays have a longer warhead-lethal range, in a vacuum, than do neutrons.
> > In an atmosphere, they have a very short range, in comparison to neutrons.
>
> Do you mean that a given energy flux of x-rays is more lethal than a given
> energy flux of neutrons ?
The kill mechanism for X-rays is different, and apparently
more effective on more parts of the warhead than are neutrons.
> Or do you mean that X-rays are produced more ?
That is a characteristic of the design of the device.
You can tune thermonuclear weapons to emit mostly
X-rays, or mostly neutrons, or mostly blast,...
Regards,
Tom Billings
bob
wrote in message <97ksu1$1j1c$1...@news.gate.net>...
>> This would depend on the size of the 2-stage weapon you describe.
>
>For the sake of argument, let's say 20 megatons, since that seems to be
>about
>as large as 2 stage weapons get, and is near the limit of yield for any
>weapon ever deployed,
>though I think that everything with a higher yield than that was only used
>on bombers.
20 megatonns?
the largest weapon in inventory was a mk17... it's yeild was in the 15 to 20
mt range, and was the LARGEST bomb in the us stockpile.. it weighed on the
order of 20+ tonns... something that large isnt going to be fitted onto a
missile all that easily...
Henry Spencer
bob <nom...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>For the sake of argument, let's say 20 megatons...
>
>20 megatonns?
>the largest weapon in inventory was a mk17... it's yeild was in the 15 to 20
The Mk 17 was the 11MT "Runt I" design (test Romeo in Operation Castle),
or a minor variant thereof. The externally-identical Mk 24 was the 13.5MT
"Runt II" (test Yankee), or a minor variant. Either was roughly the size
of a Polaris missile and weighed about 20t.
There have been claims that the obscure Mk 41 was a three-stage 25MT bomb,
never tested at full yield. Still about 5t, awfully heavy for a missile.
--
When failure is not an option, success | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
can get expensive. -- Peter Stibrany | (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)