Talk:Neutron bomb/Archive 1

Old and unsorted comments
Don't free neutrons decay in about 15 minutes? Would that mean that (radiation aside) an area hit by a neutron bomb would be safe to re-enter by then? t

It refers to "salted bombs" being mentioned above, which are not, probably refering to something from the original article this used to be part of. The tactics section is confusing. Are Nbombs suposed to destroy buildings or not? Vroman 22:29, 9 June 2003 (UTC)

Well, physicists who work for the U.S. Army say yes...

Sam Cohen, who invented the thing says no... at least in his book.

Neutrons are absorbed by hydrogen (water vapor), so maybe Cohen is right in Nevada, and the Army is right in Germany...

And I don't know the neutron absorption cross section of water vapor, so I can't even calculate it. Frustrating. User:Ray Van De Walker 208.187.134.239 (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2003 (UTC)

This page says that "A radiation dose of 600 rads is normally considered lethal (it will kill at least half of those who are exposed to it)", whereas the RADIATION page says that a 450R (roentgen/hr) dose kills at least half, noone has been known to survive a 600R dose. Since these are old terms, it would be good to see the newer units used consistently across all radiation articles. The old/new terms and conversions are listed here: http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Kondo93/sk1_4Dos.html 206.124.131.156 (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2003 (UTC)

No mention of the anti-war protests and peace activism in the Neutron bomb article? I remember there were huge demonstrations in the 1980's to stop neutron bomb making. 195.70.48.242 (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2005 (UTC)

I found a quite interesting article about the history of the neutron bomb at http://boingboing.net/profits_of_fear.html Sundae 10:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Learned Elder
"The US stockpile is believed to have been largely dismantled by the elder Bush administration"

The word "elder" is mostly known among non-native speakers of english in relation with the infamous Protocols. Since Bush Sr. is not a sinister jew, a better wording is welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I see no reason to alter the use of the word elder to describe Bush Sr. It is obvious that elder means the older of the two men, and not a reference to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". I mean, are we forced to abandon any common adjectives that are used in titles? Just of books? Or of the more dubious variety? This is bizarre. Joe Giorandino (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No fallout
How could it be that this device leaves no radiactive fallout?

As far as I know all nuclear weapons (including fusion weapons) require a fission reaction to initiate it. If there is a fission reaction it means that there will be at least some fallout. This needs to be addressed. 24.222.119.44 16:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre claims
Some of the claims by the inventor are pretty wildly off base. He's also claimed that iraq had 50 baseball sized nukes they were going to use on the coalition forces, and that "red mercury" is the key to pure fusion weapons. Red mercury, in this instance being a hoax. Id say delete the claims unless they can be substantiated. Also, the tsar bomba, which was about as powerful a neutron source as is possible to build, (50 Mt, 97% fusion) was detonated 45 km from the test pilots. If neutron radiation was as powerful as claimed, they would have been killed instantly, and they were not.70.70.136.240 10:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely Red Mercury is a legend, that means we don't actually know whether it exists or doesn't. Its the kind of idea that was probably never more than a theory or speculation. As far as I know it was supposedly a Russian technology anyway, I'm partly paraphrasing what I think was a New Scientist article from many years ago. Certainly the theory about the baseball sized bombs is correct though, the whole reason red Mercury was such a fear was that you could make a working bomb very very small.


 * Being interested in such things (not for bomb making reasons) I believe Red mercury acted as some kind of energy absorber somehow storing free neutrons or ?. When exposed to a powerful chemical explosion it could be made to unleash an energy wave that would release a vast burst of high energy neutrons. The process that released the bust of neutrons was itself probably fission but the real question is how the extra neutrons could be stored (one should remember that neutron decay is very different from nuclear decay).


 * Sorry if I go on but I find this old 'rubbish' fascinating. Lucien86 (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to comment on the "Tsar Bomba" comment above. Although the comment might hold weight if the device was an enhanced radiation device, it was not; the neutrons were captured in order to increase explosive yield. I arrived at this conclusion from this very entry (isn't Wikipedia awesome?). As for Red Mercury, it was a legend, and I suppose you can say that anything at all proposed and can not be tested might exist...but seriously, red mercury is a hoax. Pure fiction. Joe Giorandino (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the Tsar Bomba did not capture those neutrons to increase its power. As originally designed, it would have had a tamper made of U-238 which would have captured the neutrons produced by the fusion reaction and produced an additional 50 megatonnes of (fast fission) yield. However, this would have increased the fallout by at least an order of magnitude. Since the principle of increasing the yield this way was already well understood, the original tamper was replaced with a tamper made of non fissile tungsten for the actual detonation. Essentially the tsar bomba was the world's largest neutron bomb, and illustrates exactly why they don't scale up well. The blast and thermal radiation fall off slower than the neutron radiation, and thus anyone who would have been killed by neutrons would have been pulverized and vapourized by the other weapon effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutoffyourjib (talk • contribs) 07:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletes
I just made a few deletes. The information was all tagged as "Citation needed", and it was further elaboration on something that is summed up very well in the technical section: "A popular misconception is that the neutron bomb "leaves the infrastructure intact" - in reality the blast from a neutron bomb would level almost any civilian structure inside the lethal radiation range." The Navy comment was included in this because it was just such a loose end, and it was also tagged as "Citation needed." 24.13.141.176 18:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the last line of the Neutron Bomb Tactics section "Moreover, these victims would likely be aware of their inevitable fate and react accordingly." be deleted? I think its implying that someone irradiated by a neutron bomb will suddenly go nuts and start fighting with no consideration of their own life because they know they'll die soon. It sounds more like a concept lifted from a movie and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. But I'm not going to delete it myself unless others agree. 214.13.82.22 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound unlikely to me. But I don't have any references for it. Man with two legs (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Humans have a basic survival instinct, and even if severely irradiated, I don't think anyone would willingly throw themselves in front of bullets or make a suicide run at the enemy like this suggests, even if they were able to (which I think is unlikely in itself). A person would probably be more inclined to seek help for himself from his own side, and hopefully survive. 214.13.82.22 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Technology
It is implied in article that antimatter could be used to increase the bomb's effectiveness. Could someone please explain how you can store antimatter inside the bomb, as the bomb is made of matter itself?


 * antimatter, as long as it is electrically charged (usually antiprotons) can be contained within a magnetic bubble. it has been theorized that it could be used to catalyze a fusion reaction by firing it at a relatively heavy nucleus, which would be blown to pieces and set off fusion fuel. However, at current production rates, you'd have to wait till the heat death of the universe to make a quantity large enough to blow up a soap bubble.70.70.136.240 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Irak use
I deleted this utterly ridiculous claim. See my changes to the technical overview. If the US had used a neutron bomb in Baghdad, we would know about it. There would not have been a way to hide it, as well as the death and maiming of all the intelligence and news personnel of other nations that this would have brought about. Also (careful, sarcasm to follow) the US wouldn't have the problems there that they have now (because they would have flattened half the city in the process.)--Cancun771 10:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What a joke you can't even spell Iraq and you're trying to act like you know anything about this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.139.109 (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Irak is the correct spelling in some languages. Devil Master (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture references
This is a bit ridiculous. I don't want to play the deletionist here, and I know what a can of worms this whole thing is, but we're looking at two-thirds or more of the article. What's more, it spoiled the relevent part of a novel I was reading. I understand the content disclaimer, but the reason we don't put spoiler warnings on articles anymore is that such content should generally be clear from article headers and context. I don't actually care that much about the spoiler, but it pointed out how extraneous much of this content is. Any proposed solutions? Split to a "Neutron bombs in popular culture" article? Just cut this way down? Any thoughts? /Ninly (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yield explanation
The article currently says: Neutron bombs have low yields compared with other nuclear weapons. This is because neutrons are absorbed by air, so a high-yield neutron bomb is not able to radiate neutrons beyond its blast range and so would have no destructive advantage over a normal hydrogen bomb. I am not sure what this paragraph is supposed to say but neutrons are _not_ readily absorbed by air. The claim that a (high-yield or other) neutron bomb is not able to radiate neutrons beyond its blast range is dubious. Increasing the overall yield of a neutron bomb would increase the neutron flux as well as the blast yield.

Maybe the term neutron bomb is used incorrectly here? A neutron bomb is _defined_ as a hydrogen bomb with a low blast yield to neutron flux ratio. --79.210.239.204 (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * High-energy neutrons are scattered easily in air (and water, and other light elements), at the distances one thinks of in terms of nuclear blasts (e.g. less than a thousand yards). This scattering dissipates a surprising amount of their energy (esp. since it is light elements that scatter better than heavier ones—this is discussed in Glasstone and Dolan's book). Thus the neutron effects curve falls off a lot quicker than gamma rays, and in large explosions, much quicker than the blast/heat effects, even though on a table-top scale, you're right, neutrons aren't really absorbed by the air. You can see this quite readily with any "nuclear effects calculator" -- put in a small yield and suddenly the radiation effects greatly out-strip the blast and heat; but with mid to large yields they don't get outside of the blast radius at all. I do think that the passage could be clarified, and maybe could be refined to indicate that the immediate radiation effects (that is, excluding fallout) of high-yield weapons are too small to make a "neutron bomb" like weapon (e.g. a weapon with more radiation than blast). (This is not the same thing as a salted bomb, of course.) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nitrogen is used as an emergency neutron absorber in MAGNOX gas-cooled nuclear reactors which suggests that the sentence above is actually correct as it is. It may be worth adding something about the distance over which it happens.  I also remember, but I can't remember the source (perhaps nuclearweaponarchive.org), that neutrons are 90% absorbed by 500 metres of air. Man with two legs (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mmm, I don't know. Glasstone and Dolan don't seem to agree with that. And I suspect it matters a bit whether one is talking about slow neutrons (as in most reactors, including a MAGNOX) and fast ones (as in a bomb). I'm also not sure if the nitrogen is a great comparison to air (is it gaseous, liquid, what pressure, etc.). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't read Glasstone and Dolan, but it is certain that nitrogen gas can absorb neutrons. In a reactor, the pressure would be greater but a large enough volume of normal pressure air will have a similar effect.  If for some reason this does not work with fast neutrons, many will thermalise in air within a few hundred metres.  Either way if the range is more than a few hundred metres then air will absorb neutrons.  My guess is that anything that needs explaining on this point can be solved by being clear about the distances involved. Man with two legs (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What does "formerly built mainly by the United States" mean?
In the introduction is the phrase "formerly built mainly by the United States".

What does this mean? I can think of several interpretations:


 * Several countries built it, mainly the US, but nobody builds it any more
 * Several countries built it, but the US and a few others don't build it any more
 * The US used to be the main builder, but now there are other countries who build more

I don't know which one is correct. Could this be re-worded to give a clear and unambiguous meaning? cojoco (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it means, "several countries built it, mainly the US, and the US doesn't build them anymore, but maybe other countries do, we don't really know." --Mr.98 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
Most of the article seems to have been ripped from the Nuclear Weapons FAQ without attribution: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html section 1.5.4. I've added a reference but I'm not clear how Wikipedia's usage falls under the licence, which can be found at the top of that page. Jamougha (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why can't a simple number be given in days or years
I really only know about the Neutron Bomb because of a famous Halloween Special for the Simpsons. The main character homer is running around care free as if there was no radiation left behind after Springfield was destroyed by the french with a neutron bomb.

I know its only a cartoon, but it got me curious about how long radiation from a nuclear weapon, or more specifically, a neutron bomb would last/be dangerous.

The problem is I can't find one solid/direct answer or piece of info on Wikipedia, this article or anywhere else.

It seems no one knows, and most of the places I've found give some INDIRECT answer about multiple variables like weather or isotopes BUT NO GENERAL OR DIRECT answer.

So how long in days or years would the radiation from a bomb, or in this case a Neutron bomb last/be dangerous. I just want a direct general assessment. Like "the radiation from a Neutron Bomb lasts x days or x years"

It would be nice if the article actually had a clear direct answer to this. Yami (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The radiation from a neutron bomb poses no long-lasting danger. The effect comes from prompt neutrons, emitted in the nuclear detonation.  The radiation from fallout comes from the decay of short-lived fission products and decays rapidly over a period of days to weeks. NPguy (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Technocrats ruining the article
First references in popular culture removed, then international criticism and controversy references removed. That's awesome-- separate the weapon from absolutely all historical, political and cultural context, as if you were writing a spec manual on ERWs. A good example among many of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. Sickening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.72.125 (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, those that believe everything they see on TV are ruining reality.

Popular culture constantly protrays weapons(from non-nuclear to nuclear) as being capable of things they are not. E.g conventional bullets routinely blowing up cars, which is actually pretty impossible.

The international controversy is largely, again, based on the weapons false and misleading protrayal in the media, and therefore I understand why these sections were removed.

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Bogus Claim
The following text claims that a neutron is ionising radiation. A neutron has no charge.

"ER weapons are meant to kill a much higher percentage of enemy personnel inside such protected environments through the release of a higher percentage of their yield in the form of neutron ionizing radiation, against which tank armors, excluding depleted uranium, are ineffective."

I think this should be DNA, protein and cellular damage.89.242.105.129 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Gamma rays are ionizing, even though they have no charge. Neutrons cause ionization by collisions with light nuclei and are actually considered more biologically harmful (per unit energy) than gamma rays. NPguy (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

NPguy is correct Neutrons are ionising radiation. Boundarylayer (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Misconceptions of Neutron Bombs
This article needs a section on the misconceptions of neutron bombs. The lack of understanding that these weapons produce radiation as well as a significant blast should be covered more extensively. Currently, the article only has a single sentence each in the introduction and in the "use" section addressing this: "Although their extreme blast and heat effects are not eliminated, it is the enormous radiation released by ERWs that is meant to be a major source of casualties." and "Although neutron bombs are commonly believed to "leave the infrastructure intact", current designs have explosive yields in the kiloton range, the detonation of which would cause considerable destruction through blast and heat effects." The pervasiveness of confusion about the weapon is easily demonstrated by the multitude of comments/sections above that are related to [dispelling/combating] these misconceptions. I noticed that inclusion of a sentence on this was previously deleted although it has seemed to be replaced by the sentence presently in the "use" section. The issue is that the near universality of this misconception demands more of a representation in the article. The popular culture section that was deleted also would seem to demonstrate this; most uses of neutron weapons in popular culture depict them as doing no damage whatsoever to non-organic things. To supply an a example I personally encountered: in the computer game Command & Conquer: Generals – Zero Hour China is depicted as having self-propelled artillery that can fire "neutron shells" and "neutron mines" that, if used on infantry, will kill them instantly, but if used on vehicles, it will only kill the crew inside and leave the vehicle perfectly untouched - even if the explosion hits them directly. In summary, this article would benefit from having a section on misconceptions and not just a few sentences. --Noha307 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, they were originally designed as an anti-tank weapon. See the inventor's medal from the pope for his work, as the USSR had a tank advantage during the Cold war, and the prior pope being from, at the time, the Warsaw pact Poland, he knew all too well of the capabilities of the USSR to continue invading into the rest of Europe, the Pope saw anything that gave the Europeans an advantage as something that might level the playing field and hopefully deter the USSR from invading.


 * However with the increase in armor that I referenced in the article a while back, they are now no longer fielded, as larger weapons would do the job of killing tanks just as well.


 * I agree that the article should make a stronger emphasis that the weapon will not leave infrastructure entirely undamaged as is popularly presented in the media, however I do not agree with a media section or a controversy section being added.


 * Furthermore, mention should be made that Neutron bombs are probably not the best way to kill people without causing much infrastructure damage, that dubious honor probably falling to Biological weapons or Chemical weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Questionable effectiveness in modern anti-tank role - according to Cohen there's no question here, metal armour isn't effective at stopping Neutron radiation (it's effective against Gamma radiation which is produced in greater quantities in conventional nuclear weapons). That was the reason for the development of the Neutron bomb, a means of leveling the playing field between the western/eastern forces.

Biological/Chemical weapons aren't the best of things to use in an allies territory, both can be blown back onto friendly troops and they can be effective for years, whereas the radiation from a Neutron bomb has a very short half life posing little to no threat after a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.12.38 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Neutron activation of building material in a city after a neutron bomb designed to kill city dwellers would render the city pretty inhospitable to many a wary civilian who might like to live in the city afterwards for 1-5 years after the detonation. As I said, the description of a weapon that kills people and leaves infrastructure intact falls to biological and Chemical weapons. You can also easily vaccinate troops against the effects of a biological agent, unlike the effects of radiation. As for modern tanks and Cohen, he was completely right for his time, but please see the Boron jacket(neutron shield) that was fielded on many a Cold War era Soviet tank - T72. I actually had a mention to the T72 tank in the article when I first created the section, but for some reason another editor removed it for no rational reason.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Use against ballistic missiles
It says in this section that neutron bombs defeat ballistic missiles by destroying their electronics with their neutron flux. However, I thought that incoming ballistic missiles were destroyed when the intense neutron flux caused their cores to undergo premature fission. Which one is correct, or are both correct?--Witan (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Expert review needed
This article has been extensively rewritten by a single IP editor. It seems review by a subject matter expert would be warranted. NPguy (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2014‎ (UTC)


 * As the aforementioned IP user, I welcome the review. Who do you have in mind? I've referenced practically everything I wrote from public domain material. Which was a difficult task let me tell you, most of the serious neutron transmission codes are behind pay walls etc, but would be a reference mining avenue to look into.
 * 86.47.21.225 (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Off topic material
I found the following at the end of the history section:

However for those who truly "hold life cheap", chemical and biological weapons are far more effective at leaving property/"capital" undamaged and people dead, indeed although the US officially disbanded their BW program in 1972, the Soviet Union, despite also signing the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972, clandestinely continued the Soviet biological weapons program by reclassifying it as the civilian "Biopreparat", with offensive weaponization of pathogens continuing in that facility right up until the dissolution of the state in 1991.[30]

While I agree with the above, it comes across as a rebuttal that seems out of place and goes on too long about biological weapons. If a quote from a person instrumental in the development and discussion of such weapons can be found that says essentially the same thing that could be used in stead of the above. Zedshort (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Why was the Concrete neutron shield sentence removed?
It appears that in one of their recent edits to the article, User:Bgwhite, on 9 April 2014, while they were doing some superfluous rearranging of the order of the paragraphs, perhaps by accident, removed the sentence and references about high density concrete being the most effective neutron shield, information added by a prior IP user.

Having spotted this strange deletion of material, that is well referenced, I have reinstated the sentence and references. 92.251.157.84 (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

explosion?
If a neutron bomb explodes above a building will the building be destroyed? I mean does the bomb only release energy radiation or does it also include a (relatively) small explosion? --130.161.31.25 20:49, 17 March 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is an explosion that is likely large enough to destroy a building. -Lommer | talk 00:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What is the typical explosive yield? I tried to find out, but couldn't find any concrete information. Maybe it should be added to the article as well? --GalFisk 18:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like this is most likely just a regular nuke with an enhanced initial pulse. A few layers of chromium are not going to stop a nuclear blast, while the bomb may be small it is most likely that the explosion may be on the magnitude of a few kilotones nuclear.
 * According to http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html, yield is typically 1 to 1.1 kt.
 * Years ago, when I read up about this, I stumbled across a discussion that depicted even the Hiroshima weapon as a kind of ER. This was because of the fact that the lethal blast and heat radii of nuclear weapons grow (much) faster than the lethal radiation radius as the yield increases. That means that only below a certain yield (pinpointed in the area of around 15 kt as far as I remember), people can be close enough to die from initial radiation without being killed from blast and/or heat. (All this is of course very much simplified, there are a lot of factors that go into it.)--Cancun771 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a big question of how big a minimal tactical neutron blast could be and how enhanced a neutron bomb could become. It is doubtful that fielded American neutron bombs were the peak of such technology. A yield of 100 kilos of TNT would leave lots of buildings standing if detonation is at say 300 meters above the target (250-400 tons being what was used in actual bombs according to this article's sources). I expect an aerial burst at 600 meters would be sufficient for most hardier steel and concrete buildings to remain standing after a 1.1Kt explosion based on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (basically most the attenuated blast is downward for a split second rather than lateral). But in any case the objective was not to avoid "window breakage" of typical civilian structures, but to save the heavy machinery of industry, roads and buried infrastructures like central city electrical, water and gas lines for later rebuilding and refugees.

Of course there also were thoughts to explode larger neutron bombs at sufficient altitude to even more completely abate the explosive effects, somewhat like EMP bombs. For various reasons having to do with rapidly decreasing air densities, low yield explosions at 3 miles or above can be made to skip or reflect most effects upward. "Unfortunately" the same air will absorb neutrons as well. So whether they ever achieved the magic balance between effective delivered neutron radiation and buffering of explosive effects...remains classified. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't explain radiation well
This article needs to make very clear that all of the radiation effects being discussed, especially in the "Neutron bomb tactics" section, are referring to electromagnetic radiation, not to be confused with radioactive fallout. Here's one sentence in particular: "A radiation dose of 6 Gy is normally considered lethal." If someone doesn't know exactly what a Gray is they might assume it's a measure of radioactive fallout or toxicity, when in fact it is a measure of absorbed electromagnetic radiation. -- Cyde Weys 22:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And now I'm even confused. See this sentence: "This intense burst of high-energy neutrons is the principal destructive mechanism." What does that even mean? Are neutrons (the subatomic particle) being sent at high velocities away from the blast? Or is it electromagnetic radiation that's doing the killing? -- Cyde Weys 22:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This article need allot more information, it's pretty incomplete at the moment, for example it doesn't even state when the bomb was invented! - Gleake


 * Also, don't neutrons alone decay after 15 minutes, how long before an area is safe to enter after detonation? Is it 15 minutes or is there any lingering ionization radiation from its decay that can be considered harmful? WkpdTed 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the neutrons delivering the damage just as the article clearly says. Neutrons are not EM radiation in common layman's physics though they are small and, in this case, fast enough to have significant wavelike properties. The neutrons bash through your body at high speed releasing energy as they collide with stuff. Neutrons love to bash into water, like contained by the human body, more than most other things. So the human body stands out as a neutron absorbing target while neutrons often pass through stuff like concrete without leaving nearly as much energy behind. Each packet of energy released as the neutron slows down tends to bust up large complex molecules like DNA. Eventually the neutron will slow enough to be absorbed by an atom likely changing that atom into a radioactive isotope, though maybe not. In some case atoms get split. All this happens lots faster than 15 minutes. Very few free neutrons are left floating around to undergo radioactive decay.


 * Read the part about tanks for info on lingering effects. That is what happens when steel and other substances absorb part of the neutrons into their atoms -- new radioactive isotopes of those atoms!!! So there two components of delivering death -- immediate and lingering, with lingering being mostly short term. Of course "dead men walking" often take longer to die than the area remains dangerous to newcomers.

69.23.124.142 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I heard it explained like this:
In a bar: --Achim (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "What is the difference between the neutron bomb and the atom bomb?
 * "Easy. When the atom bomb goes off, you are gone, your house is gone and your bike is gone. When the neutron bomb goes off, your house is there, your bike is there but you are gone."
 * "Wait a minute! There must be another kind of bomb then."
 * "What do you mean?"
 * "Last weekend, I woke up on Saturday, I was there, the house was there, but the bike was gone!"

Possible use in Iraq
I do not think we should dismiss the idea that the US military may have used weapons that kill though radiation like a neutron bomb, depleted uranium which may be consider to have an effect like a dirty bomb is used a great deal, and nuclear weapons can be made with a great range of yields so wide spread devastation is not guaranteed form the detonation of a nuclear device. Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter 17:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All else aside, there is a very wide gap between "not dismissing" an unreferenced and completely unsubstanciated claim and "including such a claim into an encyclopedia".--Cancun771 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can and should dismiss this. It's technically and logistically impossible, period. For starters, neutron bombs don't leave buildings intact. That's a complete and total myth, not true at all. Second, even the smallest nuclear bomb ever built would still be massive compared to any conventional weapon, and the use of even a tactical nuke would be clearly evident to any of the other countries with satellite tracking capabilities, not to mention to anyone within 10 miles of the blast.

And the claims about "depleted uranium" and its radiation content have been grossly exaggerated. 69.19.25.108 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not restore this insane conspiracy theory again. The last US neutron bomb (the W70) was deactivated with the short-range Lance missile that carried it in the early 90s, and it would have physically destroyed the airport and much of the surrounding city. Our current lowest-yield deployable nuclear weapon (.3 kilotons) still would have completely destroyed the airport. Our smallest warhead ever was 10 tons yield, which would have resulted in massive, visible damage to the airport's infrastructure (but we haven't deployed such weapons for 20 years).

The addition of depleted uranium rounds to the discussion is ludicrous. Any danger of DU is in the inhalation of toxic, low-radiation particles, and would be a long-term health risk with nobody appearing burned.QuilaBird 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The section on possible use in Iraq is about a claim by the former commander of the Iraqi republican guard that a neutron weapon was used, it does not state that such a weapon was used, just that it has been alleged, and it is referenced. 

A neutron bomb detonated in the middle of a city or directly over the airport would certainly damage buildings but Baghdad International Airport is not in the middle of a city, it is on the vary edge and it may be possible that a neutron weapon detonated to the west of the airport could kill a significant proportion of the republican guard stationed there, without destroying the airport or causing significant amount of death in Baghdad itself

We do not know if the US military has neutron bombs or not. It appears that all such weapons where decommissioned in the early 90s although it is not unknown of the military to keep weapons secret. I do not see how this is a conspiracy theory, no conspiracy is required, just that the military to behave as it normally does.

The point of the the depleted uranium is that it is an example of the US military using a weapon that release toxic, radioactive material into the environment that is suspected of causing significant long term heath problems, I put this in to make to point that there is no reason to think that if the US military would be reluctant to use a weapon such as a neutron bomb.

It may be posible for a small nuclear explosion to go undetected by other nations Thermobaric weapons resemble in apperance a small nuclear exposion and it can not be said with certanty that the airburst of a small nuclear weapon could be reliably detected as such through seismic methords.

Although it seems unlikely that it has happened it is worth noting the allegation, and this is not the same as saying that it is true. Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I read somewhere that the flash signatures of an atomic blast, which are one of the things detected by the now-decommissioned Vela satellites, are unique to that type of explosion. If any other nation had similar detection systems in place, they would presumably never confuse a thermobaric bomb (which might look to the naked eye like a small nuclear explosion) with an actual nuclear blast (as far as I know, thermobaric weapons don't flash in the millisecond scale of time the way nukes do).  However, I have no idea if anyone does have such systems in place.  67.163.165.236 (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That is still not a reason for turning an encyclopaedia into a platform for spreading rumours or insinuations. An encyclopaedia is supposed to be a place where you can look up facts.
 * As far as "small" nuclear explosions go, I'd like to ask you to please have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE and bear in mind that the detonations depicted there have a yield, not of 1 kt, not of 0.1 kt, but of a mere 22 and 18 metric tons of TNT (0.022 / 0.018 kt) Little Feller (nuclear tests).
 * As far as the Iraq thing goes, I shall request semi-protected status for Neutron bomb if it is included once more.--Cancun771 08:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter, you do not understand how neutron bombs work. A neutron bomb still has a highly-destructive nuclear blast. This is enough to destroy any regular building within several hundred meters and damage anything out to over a kilometer. There is enough infrastructure and vegetation to the West of the airport that we would see a circle of destruction today. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/images/030403-d-6570c-014.jpg shows conventional damage, not nuclear.

Another problem is that the radiation doesn't go and then just stop when it burns people. It goes far, with lesser and lesser effects. So where were the thousands of people crowding the Baghdad hospitals due to radiation sickness in the weeks following the attack? There were none.

Aside from that, such use of neutron bombs is not even envisioned, and plain tactically stupid. For the military to "behave as it normally does" is to not use such a weapon where it is tactically dumb. The bombs meant to kill people in hardened, highly blast-resistant targets. That is their use. The airport is not such a target. I know this because I worked on these systems. I was trained to store them, to launch them and to calculate their effects.QuilaBird 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC) g —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.175.39 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me clear up the Baghdad Airport rumour. Underneath Saddam Airport is literally an underground fortified town. The Republican Guard and SRG retreated to this complex. They succeussfully repelled and almost obliterated the US 3/7 Cavalry from within the complex. The US found two entrances. One was sealed, the other was used. The device was used underground, thus the annihilation of the SRG. A general 'cleanup' operation took place over a period of Months well into 2003, such as the removal of contaminated Earth etc.

Almost all contemporary literature on this invasion tends to avoid discussion of the SRG. The only agreement is that they weren't on the streets of Baghdad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.241.122 (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the comment by Some Sort Of Anarchist Nutter - depleted uranium munitions are not used because they are toxic and intentionally pollute the environment. They are used because uranium is an extremely dense metal and makes for a very effective armor-piercing or tankbusting projectile. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a chat forum. This page is for the discussion of the improvement of the article, not airing out and arguing about conspiracy theories.  Xihr  03:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Cohen quote
The article currently contains an extended quote attributed to Samuel Cohen, beginning 'the W-70 ... is not even remotely a "neutron bomb." '. The source given is http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_29_15/ai_55426724/pg_2. This is a broken link. No publication details are provided for this quote. I was unable to identify the source of this quotation using Google. If no reliable source for this quote can be provided, I will remove it from the article. - Crosbie 11:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sam's book contains a rant about the Lance warhead having far too much blast, as do other sources - he was quite vocal about this issue. As URL expiry is common, and quotes are often backed by offline sources, AGF along with these sources argue in favour of leaving it in. I will entertain arguments to the contrary, but some 3rd party input would be nice if you disagree. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith has no relevance for a decision on whether or not to remove unverifiable information from Wikipedia. The only relevant policy document for a decision on whether or not to remove unverifiable information from Wikipedia is Verifiability.  The 'page in a nutshell' for Wikipedia:Verifiability states "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."  Currently, Wikipedia readers cannot check that this direct quotation from Cohen is not made up.  Until or unless a reliable source can be found for this direct quotation, it remains my intention to remove this quotation from the article. - Crosbie 17:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I note that a Google search for phrases from this quote returns a link to Questia: Check Your Facts: Cox Report Bombs from Insight on the News, contributed by Sam Cohen, and dated August 9, 1999. I will not seek to remove this quotation from the article unless this potential source has been checked.  I do not myself have access to the full article on Questia - Crosbie 19:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have posted a request to User:MrX to check this quote, at User_talk:MrX - Crosbie 19:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the quote and some of the surrounding material:
 * - MrX 19:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - Thank-you very much! I have updated the article. - Crosbie 19:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - Thank-you very much! I have updated the article. - Crosbie 19:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

W66 as first fielded ER warhead
The article currently states "As an anti-ballistic missile weapon, the first fielded ER warhead, the W66, was developed for the Sprint missile system as part of the Safeguard Program to protect United States cities and missile silos from incoming Soviet warheads by damaging their electronic components with the intense neutron flux". The given source is the article What Is a Neutron Bomb? at 'about.com'. The source does not mention the W66. A source that does not mention the W66 cannot support a claim that the W66 was the first fielded ER warhead. If no reliable source is provided for this claim, I will remove it from the article. - Crosbie 06:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sam's book states that the Safeguard warhead was a neutron bomb. He should know, he designed it. The only matter that remains are the dates. The W65 was the original design from the early/mid 1960s, and was replaced by the W66 after 1968. Production of the W66 was carried out in the early 1970s. The Lance's original warhead was the W63 which was cancelled in 1966 and replaced by the W70 Mod 0/1/2 which were conventional dial-a-yield designs, while Mod 3 was the ER design manufactured under Reagan from 81 to 82. So the W66 is the earliest as well. Or you could just look here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In your response above, you link to a PDF edition of the book F*** You! Mr. President: Confessions of the Father of the Neutron Bomb, by Samuel T. Cohen. This is a self-published source.  I see no evidence that he designed the W66 warhead.  There is no reason to accept him as an authority on the design of the W66 warhead.  The relevant quote from the book is 'Of the two kinds of defensive missiles developed for SAFEGUARD, one of them used, of all things, was a neutron warhead.'  Secondly you linked to http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w70.htm at globalsecurity.org.  This is a self-published site maintained by John Pike and is therefore not a reliable source for Wikipedia.  I will not update the article with these references.  As the article stands, the claim that the W66 was the first fielded ER warhead is not supported by the reference provided. Until or unless a reliable source can be found for this claim, it remains my intention to remove it from the article. - Crosbie 17:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To add a bit of context to my objection to these sources, I provide the following quotations from the Cox Report:
 * "The stolen information also includes classified design information for an enhanced radiation weapon (commonly known as the "neutron bomb"), which neither the United States, nor any other nation, has yet deployed."
 * and also
 * "The U.S. has never deployed a neutron weapon."
 * In the Cox Report we have an official United States government publication stating that a neutron weapon has never been deployed by the United States government. On the other hand, we have two self-published sources claiming that the W66 was either a neutron warhead, or used enhanced radiation technology.  - Crosbie 20:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've looked into this a little more - several sources indicate a neutron warhead was used in the Sprint missile. The current online edition of Encyclopædia Britannica states "For a brief period in the 1970s, an enhanced radiation warhead was fitted onto the Sprint antiballistic missile". . The November 1977 edition of Popular Mechanics states 'Sprint was equipped to give off primarily neutron "bullets." '. And we have the document Nike Zeus: The U.S. Army's First ABM, already linked from the LIM-49 Nike Zeus article, which quotes Jerome Wiesner saying "Still another problem with the Nike-Zeus was that its destruction of the incoming nuclear weapons depended on a phenomenon called neutron heating." Of course the Wiesner quote supports the idea that the effects of a Nike-Zeus warhead were due to neutron emissions, not that a warhead used was unusual in the proportion of energy released as neutrons. Also, Wiesner does not specify which warhead or warheads he is talking about - at a first glance, the context suggests to me Wiesner here was referring to a version of Nike-Zeus prior to the announcement of Nike-X in 1963, which would seem, again at first glance, to rule out this being a reference to the W66. I note that the Encyclopædia Britannica and Popular Mechanics sources also do not specifically refer to the W66. Against this, we have the Cox Report quote above which specifically denies that the United States ever deployed a neutron weapon. Verifiability states "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.". So if we make any claim here about Sprint making use of a neutron warhead, we must make clear this disagrees with this later government statement. Finally, none of these sources state that the W66 was the *first* fielded ER warhead, as the article currently claims. To make this claim supported by any of the sources I provide here would be pure WP:SYNTH, or straight out original research. The claim that the W66 was specifically the first fielded ER warhead must be removed from the article, unless a reliable source is provided to support it. - Crosbie 11:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked again at the LIM-49 Nike Zeus article, and as the Wiesner quote is used there, it appears to be with reference to the W50, not the W66. So the Wiesner quote is irrelevant here - sorry for the distraction.  The remaining Encyclopædia Britannica and Popular Mechanics quotes are relevant to this discussion. - Crosbie 12:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. Is this just a case of mistaken identity?  Was the W-50 deployed on the Nike Zeus or the Sprint ABM?  Would the statement in the article be correct if it referred to the W-50 instead of the W-66.  My understanding has been that the U.S. ABM system used enhanced radiation warheads because they had a larger kill radius against nuclear warheads than an ordinary nuclear warhead.  Is that not correct? NPguy (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Now I'm confused too. Crosbie, do you know of any other warheads fit to the Sprint? Other than this one of course. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Gazelle missile, to do


I'm not entirely content with these references, so although I wrote the following I've since removed it. I am looking for a specific reference that I seem to have misplaced that graphs the most far ranging nuclear weapon effects as a function of altitude. Once I find that, I'll add that ref and re-post this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 22:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You sure?
It says that "Although the neutrons emitted by the neutron bomb may not penetrate to the tank crew in lethal quantities, the fast fission of DU within the armor could still ensure a lethal environment for the crew and maintenance personnel by fission neutron and gamma ray exposure,[63] largely depending on the exact thickness and elemental composition of the armor—information usually hard to attain. Despite this, DUCRETE—which has an elemental composition similar to, but not identical to the ceramic 2nd generation heavy metal Chobham armor of the Abrams tank—is an effective radiation shield, to both fission neutrons and gamma rays due to it being a graded Z material.[64][65] Uranium being about twice as dense as lead is thus nearly twice as effective at shielding gamma ray radiation per unit thickness.[66]"

If DU/ceramic armor is so classified that they don't even know the thickness of the armor, how do they know that DURCRETE has a similar composition to 2nd generation armor? Aren't the exact materials used in the making of modern US tank armor highly classified? Sounds like speculation to me....45Colt 03:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * While the exact dimensions may indeed be classified, the basic makeup is common knowledge. It's used by just about any modern tank, it's not exactly a secret to anyone other than "the public".

Also, now that I think about it, what is the relevance of this "DUCRETE" stuff...it says it may be good for storing radioactive waste. I'm no nuclear physicist, but I'm pretty sure that the mild radiation emitted by radioactive waste is both a order of magnitude less and of a totally different type and energy level than that emitted by a nuclear or thermonuclear reaction. Just because it's safe to contain particles emitted by decaying waste doesn't mean it wouldn't react with the much higher energy burst of all manner of particles that an nuclear reaction makes. Also not sure about this claim that it's "similar" to DU armor. It's concrete made with DU filler. There are probably numerous forms of DU. What proof do you supply that they bear any real similarity as far as reacting with high-energy radiation? Doesn't the matrix have some effect? This is DU molecules held seperated in a cement matrix. 50lbs of uranium won't make an nuclear reaction unless it's pure, and made into a critical mass. This seems likely irrelevant me, and worse, stinks strongly of original research..45Colt 08:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * While it's true that the quantity of the radiation from nuclear waste is much smaller than from a bomb, the quality is identical. When a U235 decays it gives off certain bits and pieces, and they're the same if its induced due to neutron impingement, or natural decay. To protect yourself from that radiation you need the same sort of shielding in either case. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Quotes on people not property
I removed the August 2015 tag on the relevance of Asimov - he was a social commentator as well as a fiction writer. For the request for a quote of Brezhnev calling it a "capitalist bomb", I couldn't find one and from a Google Book search this phrase was coined in 1977-8 and may have been coined by a US senator or the US media. Fences &amp;  Windows  11:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * But what gives Asimov relevance? Was he a well renowned nuclear weapons "social commentator"? No. Was he knowledgeable on the intricacies of the neutron bomb? No. Was he just going on whatever the mass-media was ladling out at the time? Yes.
 * So the relevance tag stands, honestly why don't we get what Hollywood movies said about it if you're really keen on injecting this "social commentator" angle?
 * 109.125.17.234 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because "From Hiroshima to Fukushima to You" quoted him. Presumably because it sums up opinion at the time - which while not well informed, was still the opinion. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality
The article falls short when compared to the vast majority of Wikipedia pages related to Physics et. al. for the following reasons: 1 The section "History and Deployment" is poor on its face. Discuss one or the other. The section is nearly completely composed of "deployment" with little history on the topic itself. 2 Unacceptable references: I won't go through them all, but found these to be glaring: a Conception of the neutron bomb is generally credited to Samuel T. Cohen of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who developed the concept in 1958.[14] This statement cites the New York Times. This source is nothing close to an authority. b The article asserts that such a weapon has never been used, yet contains a section labeled "Use." c The article leaps from a section labeled "Effects" to a very specific use case. d The first paragraph is not a summary, but a jumble of information, none of which belongs in an introduction. e The article cites "According to the Cox Report" and again, provides a link to the organization, not to supporting information as presented. 3 I reached this page from a link on John von Neumann's page, yet he (and a lot of other people) is (are) not referenced. This page is more about one of its sources than it's purported subject. It seems to me like a spaghetti bowl of statements hastily and poorly organized, to elevate a particular publication. I could go on, but a competent editor would immediately realize that this article is not up a link on this site. I recommend that it be taken down until a more coherent and organized article is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartWilsonMaui (talk • contribs) 06:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
The caption for the image in the "Effects" section reads, in part: "Although neutron bombs, such as that fitted on the MGM-52 Lance missile would cause similar levels of destruction as depicted here within the zone were ~1970s tank crews would also be incapacitated by neutron radiation."

I can't parse this sentence. It seems to have two main verbs. Hairy Dude (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it an the following sentences should read something like this:
 * Although neutron bombs such as that fitted on the MGM-52 Lance missile would cause levels of destruction within the zone where ~1970s tank crews would also be incapacitated by neutron radiation similar to what is depicted here, when compared to the range of destruction that would be caused by the comparatively higher yield conventional nuclear weapons that it supplanted (e.g., MGR-1 Honest John) which had been needed to deliver the same range and intensity of neutron dose to neutralize tank crews, the range of civilian destruction and amount of fission product fallout generated by a neutron bomb is far more constrained, sparing the destruction of West Germany more than would otherwise be the case.
 * Could still do with some rewording and splitting. Tea2min (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I find this slightly ambiguous ... which would severely damage all non-reinforced concrete structures.
Discussing physical effects we find "....which would severely damage all non-reinforced concrete structures."

Does this mean structures not made of reinforced concrete or does it mean concrete structures that have not been reinforced begging the question of "reinforced how?"

2601:6C0:C103:7E80:F065:8253:6AE5:9901 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Greg R.

" non-ionizing radiation in the form of fast (14.1 MeV) neutrons." ?!?
"non-ionizing radiation in the form of fast (14.1 MeV) neutrons." only exists in non-factual scenarios. If there is other matter around (and there will be ev3n if just from the bomb) a 14MeV neutron Flux is highly ionizing. Whoever wrote that was going completely off their wet behind the ears cuff. Perhaps they were thinking about neutrons not having a charge and this made them predict non-ionizing....but they predict wrong, very wrong. Needs to be removed/recorded. BGriffin (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)BGriffin

Image caption
The image of the wood-frame house has a caption that begins:

"Wood frame house in 1953 nuclear test, 5 pounds per square inch (psi) overpressure, full collapse. Although neutron bombs, such as that fitted on the MGM-52 Lance missile would cause similar levels of destruction as depicted here within the zone were ~1970s tank crews would also be incapacitated by neutron radiation."

There are several grammatical issues here, and it's not entirely clear what was meant about the "~1970s tank crews". Any thoughts on how best to fix this? In addition, the caption is quite long and goes beyond the portion quoted above. It seems that this sort of thing could be covered in the body of the article if it is relevant. Omnedon (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neutron bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=107840
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302091606/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

previous talk comment erased, issue still remains.
"...non-ionizing radiation in the form of fast (14.1 MeV) neutrons..."

This sentence in the article is absolutely wrong. Neutrons even when thermal are ionizing radiation. Increasing their speeds up to multi-megaelectonvolt levels only makes neutrons far more ionizing. Whoever erased the talk comment and whoever included that wording shouldn't be writing on this subject as their understanding is inadequate. BGriffin (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)BGriffin

Not Tritium
Cryogenic Deuterium and Tritium (both liquid Hydrogen) I believe was used at Castle Bravo test. However most used fusion fuel is Lithium7 Deuteride; high energy particles or gamma rays split Lli7 into Tritium and Alpha particles. Lithium Deuteride is stable and provides reactants at higher density than cryogenics. (Tritium is produced in breeder reactors: Li6 + n > Li7 + 4.7MeV > He4 + T.) Lithium, Deuterium, and Tritium also participate in (n,2n) reactions multiplying neutrons but destroying fusion fuel. Shjacks45 (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)