How many of you think the neutron bomb can be launched in an artillery shell?
155643
The neutron bomb, or "enhanced radiation warhead" as it is called in scientific circles, is basically a hydrogen bomb without the uranium-238 jacket which would absorb neutrons to increase the blast. By eliminating that jacket the full fusion emission of neutrons is released. A one-kiloton neutron bomb will spread a lethal dose of neutron radiation to exposed people over a one-mile radius. It would take a 13-kiloton fission (atom) bomb to produce a combined lethal dose of neutron and gamma radiation over that same distance.[3] Although the lethal radius for people inside tanks would be somewhat less because of the protection, pure neutron radiation is more penetrating than a mixture of neutron and gamma, and the lethal radius would be greater for a one-kiloton neutron bomb than for a 13- kiloton fission warhead. But the radius of destruction from blast and heat would be considerably less for the former. Neutron warheads are now in production for the Lance missile and the eight-inch artillery shell. Soon they will be available as projectiles for the more numerous 155-millimeter cannons. \nAnd, yes, there have been tactical nuclear warheads on artillery shells for decades now.
1024881
during world war 2, we did actually invent this. it would plow it's nose into the ground that was about 2 inches thick if i remember correctly. Just the crater it left was phenomenal. then, when it exploded underground, it made another crater about the size of the impact crater. the biggest version of this was as tall as a two story house! sadly, the atomic bomb overshadowed this marvelous invention.
630393
That would be pretty stupid of mankind.  But then, we're not known for intelligence, on the whole...\n\nTornadoes only form in very low pressure systems, and the main destructive force of a nuke is its ability to create a very high pressure center that blows down everything in its path.  If anything, the low pressure of the atmosphere would amplify the effect of the nuke, because the pressure differential would be greater.  As for tornado, if it weren't destroyed (and the disruption caused by the high pressure of the bomb may do that), it could potentially carry and scatter radioactive dust for miles, especially if the nuke were burst close to the ground.
662679
We all know that if they have the nuclear tech the bomb will be used to destroy many people....if they are really concerned  about energy (especially electrical) solar energy will be great for that part of the world...I am sure the U.S.A will help in this project.
548164
Your question is a very good one and everyone here is trying to help. Let me wade in with what I hope is a clear answer or two.\n\nCommercial reactors do not have the configuration to do what a nuclear bomb does: go promptly critical and thus have a large-scale supercritical nuclear explosion. Even Chernobyl (may the 40 or so people who died from it rest in peace) was mostly a steam explosion with a burning of the graphite core. The RBMK reactors like Chernobyl have mostly been shut down now - folks in the former Soviet Union may chime in now as to their status. \n\nModern commercial nuclear reactors (unlike the RBMK design) have large concrete domes called containments over them. The containment structures are designed to hold large amounts of pressure to guard against an accidental release of radiation. Even if the reactor core (part with the nuclear fuel) should become uncovered and thus lose its cooling, the containment will hold most of the radioactive material inside. That is precisely what happened at Three Mile Island. Most of the fuel and fission products were in the containment basement and plated out on the walls.\n\nThe most credible accidents are practiced for often at every power plant. Drills exercise the staff from the control room to the folks who go out into the field to survey for radiation. Those drills are graded not just by the plant, not just by the NRC, but by the county and state. \n\nNuclear reactors do not become nuclear bombs. If you were to take used fuel from nuclear reactors and chemically reprocess it - separating out the plutonium that is made in small amounts in the fuel - you could eventually make a bomb. We do not do reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel in the US. There is a worry that some countries may do that. Of course, that is precisely what the military does do.\n\nMy job? I am a Health Physicist. I teach radiation protection, nuclear physics, and radiation chemistry. In the event of an accident, I read remote monitors and figure out what the pathway the radionuclides are taking out, how much, and what dose might be delivered to the population downwind. My predictions are used to advise the county about evacuation of persons living in a 20 mile radius of the power plant. I have a Bachelors of Science in biology from Baylor University, Masters in Applied Nuclear Science from Georgia Tech, and my PhD work was in leukemia research at Baylor Col. of Medicine. I was part of the Three Mile Island Recovery Team.
703278
I think it very likely that some people will survive.  We have a great track record of tolerating and adapting to some pretty extreme conditions.  I expect there are some secret hideaways that would even allow a few folks to survive a "nuclear winter" scenario, and start repopulating without the technology.  Obviously, any less serious scenario will allow even more flexibility for means of survival.  Right now, today, I do not believe there is a practical possibility of more than two nuclear devices being detonated -- those few who might be otherworldly enough to use them do not, praise Allah and thank God, have the means to use more.  The tragic military, political, economic, and environmental consequences would immediately and eventually kill tens of millions of people, perhaps hundreds of millions, and alter the conditions of life for the billions remaining..  but "billions remaining" is a great lot of survivors to be tolerating and adapting to conditions.  We'll manage.
1159351
I really doubt it unless it has several hundred pounds of high explosive in a shaped charge.
426649
To get a nuclear explosion, you need to have an uncontrolled  chain reaction: whenever an atom fissions (and emits neutrons), other fissionable atoms have to be available to capture the neutrons and also fission themselves. The chain reaction occur because one atom fissions, emitting two neutrons; these two cause two more atoms to fission, emitting four, then eight, sixteen, thiry-two ...\n\nCritical mass is also necessary to have enough fissionable material around that enough of the neutrons are absorbed to continue the chain reaction. \n\nBarium-133 decays by electron capture (one of the protons in the nucleus actually combines with  an inner-shell electron to form a neutron. This emits a X-ray instead of a neutron, so it's not suitable for building a bomb. Gotta have those neutrons, and more than one of them.
78527
yes, they are developing "bunker buster" cruise missles that "dig" underground and explode. They also make "tactical nukes" which are essentially low yeild nukes fired from a cannon. and there is of course the uranium shells used by U.S. tanks in Iraq. They use uranium to harden the steel of the shells to better pierce armor, although these are not specifically "nukes" they have a lot of the nasty side effects like cancer causing radiation. I don't know if the U.S. still makes ICBM's, but I'm pretty sure they do. I know the most recent ICBM's are multiple warheads essentially 7 nukes in one, each with a blast zone exponentially larger than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
599664
I think a nuclar bomb would do a good job.
595744
Anti-matter bomb cause it hasn't been invented yet (who knows how much damage it could do.
1120999
No, be nice, but Reagan couldn't make it work. We're testing a system aboard a mod 747, and ground based systems, but nothing powerful enough yet to penetrate the atmosphere. Other anti-missile missile systems being tested for regional defense. Japan is partnered with us on that among others.
259040
The chances of it is extremely small, yet finite.  \nParticle Accelerators if not used carefully, you might accidently blow up the entire universe.
445580
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm
280004
very very dangerous, the explosion could be very very bad  also acetelyne would explode with just the tinyest spark
400521
A neutron bomb is a type of nuclear weapon invented by Samuel Cohen specifically designed to release a relatively large portion of its energy as energetic neutron radiation.\n\nNeutron radiation consists of free neutrons. Neutrons may be emitted during nuclear fission (either spontaneous or triggered), nuclear fusion, very high energy reactions such as in a Spallation Neutron Source, or from certain other reactions, most famously the (α,n) reaction, for example when a beryllium nucleus absorbs an alpha particle and emits a neutron.\n\nCold, thermal and hot neutron radiation is most commonly used for scattering and diffraction experiments in order to access the properties and the structure of materials in condensed matter physics, biology, solid state chemistry, materials science, geology, mineralogy and related sciences.\n\nNeutron radiation is often called indirectly ionizing radiation. It does not ionize atoms in the same way protons, photons, and electrons do (exciting an electron) because neutrons have no charge. However, neutron interactions are largely ionizing, for example when neutron absorption results in gamma emission and the gamma subsequently removes an electron from an atom, or a nucleus recoiling from a neutron interaction is ionized and causes more traditional subsequent ionization in other atoms. Because neutrons are uncharged, they are more penetrating than alpha radiation or beta radiation. In some cases they are more penetrating than gamma radiation, which is impeded in materials of high atomic number, in hydrogen, a low energy neutron may not be as penetrating as a high energy gamma. In health physics neutron radiation is considered a fourth radiation hazard alongside these other types of radiation. Another, sometimes more severe, hazard of neutron radiation is neutron activation, the ability of neutron radiation to induce radioactivity in most substances it encounters, including the body tissues of the workers themselves. This occurs through the capture of neutrons by atomic nuclei, which are transformed to another nuclide, frequently a radionuclide. This process accounts for much of the radioactive material released by the detonation of a nuclear weapon. It is also a problem in nuclear fission and nuclear fusion installations, as it gradually renders the equipment radioactive; eventually the hardware must be replaced and disposed of as low-level radioactive waste. Neutrons also degrade materials; intense bombardment with neutrons creates dislocations in the materials, leading to embrittlement of metals and other materials, and to swelling of some of them. This poses a problem for nuclear reactor vessels, and significantly limits their lifetime (which can be somewhat prolonged by controlled annealing of the vessel, reducing the number of the built-up dislocations).\n\nThe neutrons in reactors are generally categorized as slow (thermal) neutrons or fast neutrons depending on their energy. Thermal neutrons are similar to a gas in thermodynamic equilibrium but are easily captured by atomic nuclei and are the primary means by which elements undergo atomic transmutation.\n\nIn order to achieve an effective fission chain reaction, the neutrons produced during fission must be captured by fissionable nuclei, which then split, releasing more neutrons. In most fission reactor designs, the nuclear fuel is not sufficiently refined to be able to absorb enough fast neutrons to carry on the fission chain reaction, due to the lower cross section for higher-energy neutrons, so a neutron moderator must be introduced to slow the fast neutrons down to thermal velocities to permit sufficient absorption. Common neutron moderators include graphite, light water and heavy water. A few reactors (fast neutron reactors) and all nuclear weapons rely on fast neutrons. This requires certain changes in the design and in the required nuclear fuel. The element beryllium is particularly useful due to its ability to act as a neutron reflec
803226
No...\n\nAll calculations are based off of an impact explosion model developed for determining the effect of Bunker Buster artillery.\n\nThat type of impact would be no diferent than what was seen when battleships lobbed volkswagen sized shells into the earth...  Only the size and velocity of the projectile are increased to reflect the meteor...