Talk:Radiological warfare

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Science Policy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

WTF! "radiological warfare might well be a far more safe and humane way to conduct extermination of large numbers of people, or the emptying out of troublesome political centres, than any of the various biological alternatives."

Note bolded words, it doesn't really seem to fit, does it??

No it doesn't. cyclosarin 08:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean a biological threat can be contagious and spread outside the area unnoticed but a radiological source lingers around ,even if you clear out the population from radiation. they both have pros and cons. Dawn Lim (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Sources

This article seems to draw heavily from fictional sources for its information on the uses of radiological warfare. This seems to lead to much speculation and lack of actual fact. I suggest removing the paragraphs based on fictional works and rewriting them with actual cited scientific research.

Also, the last paragraph seems to be complete speculation. Its suggestion of ethical human mass killings is obviously not pertinent to the article; to say the least. I believe this paragraph should be removed entirely. Please comment.

Removed Fictional Sources

I have removed the parts of this article referencing or pertaining to the aforementioned fictional sources. This article is still in need to some sound research. It should be expanded to include referenced sources and verifiable information.

Big gap

Why isn't Cohen's neutron bomb mentioned here?

Probably because it's a nuclear weapon (or enhanced radiation weapon) whose main weapons effect is neutron irradiation of enemy troops - it doesn't disseminate radioactivity such as fallout and its area denial properties are temporary - friendly troops could enter an area over which a neutron bomb had detonated after a short while with minimal hazard.

The neutron bomb was originally meant to be detonated (according to its inventor, Sam Cohen) at high altitude so its weapon effect on the ground under it would be prompt, temporary irradiation of enemy troops with lethal or incapacitating neutron radiation in a small area under the detonation. That makes it, strictly speaking, not a radiological weapon in the same sense a salted bomb or a dirty bomb is, as ideally it would leave little residual fallout or other radiation compared to a radiological weapon as we define it here.

Unfortunately (again, according to Mr. Cohen) the Army wound up getting the neutron bomb and didn't have delivery systems capable of sending enhanced radiation weapons that high in the sky, so there was a wider area of lethal irradiation, and other weapon effects such as blast and heat were present in the target area.

W79 neutron howitzer shells, for example, were developed which weren't noticeably more humane or focussed in their effects on enemy formations (as opposed to civilians in densely-populated areas such as Germany where they'd be used to stall Soviet tank formations) than other tactical nuclear weapons, because the Army's howitzers couldn't loft them as high as needed to only irradiate enemy in a small area under the detonation.

The W70 neutron warhead for the short-range tactical MGM-52 Lance missile had enough fusion fuel to be reconfigurable as a 100 kiloton thermonuclear weapon (this is now, with our more accurate ICBMs considered a "strategic" weapon yield), and excessively wide prompt neutron radiation field, heat, and blast effects not confinable to a Soviet troop formation, but effecting nearby civilians (there was a grim joke during the Cold War that German towns were "two kilotons apart"). According to Cohen, W70 didn't meet his original objective of a humanitarian weapon with effects confined to enemy troops. loupgarous (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The area covered by the fallout plume will be smaller if one is using a neutron bomb, as it will not eject as much material from its crater as a "normal weapon", although the fallout will very likely be more intense in that (smaller) area. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]