Neutron bomb (environmental impact)
The neutron bomb, or enhanced radiation weapon, is a type of nuclear device designed to release a greater proportion of energy in the form of radiation while minimizing the explosive blast and resulting fallout. Developed during the Cold War, its primary intention was to incapacitate enemy tank crews without causing extensive environmental damage to the surrounding area. This feature raised significant controversy, as proponents argued that its use could deter invasions without devastating Germany, whereas opponents feared it might lower the threshold for nuclear engagement and lead to larger-scale conflicts.
In practice, the neutron bomb's radiation can effectively neutralize armored targets within a specified area while limiting collateral damage to buildings and infrastructure. This strategic approach was considered crucial in the context of the Warsaw Pact's numerical superiority over NATO forces in Europe. Despite the theoretical advantages, critics expressed concerns that the perceived reduced impact of the neutron bomb could encourage its use, potentially escalating into full-scale nuclear warfare, which would entail catastrophic environmental consequences.
While the United States developed and equipped certain weapons with neutron bombs in the early 1980s, all were dismantled after the Cold War, with no nation actively deploying them by the end of the 20th century. However, rumors persisted into the 21st century regarding the potential possession of such weapons by countries like China and Israel. The discussion surrounding neutron bombs continues to evoke diverse perspectives on military strategy and environmental ethics.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Neutron bomb (environmental impact)
DEFINITION: Nuclear devices that, compared with standard nuclear weapons, are designed to put more energy into radiation and less into blast, heat, and fallout
Development of the neutron bomb, an enhanced radiation weapon, was controversial. Opponents argued that the bomb’s ability to destroy enemy tanks with less environmental destruction than would be caused by conventional nuclear weapons might actually increase the likelihood that the bomb would be used.
During the Cold War, Warsaw Pact armaments and soldiers outnumbered those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Europe by more than two to one. Had the Warsaw Pact nations launched a massive tank invasion into Germany, the NATO plan was to halt the invasion with nuclear weapons if necessary. A major flaw in this plan was that Germany might not be any better off if its land were pummeled by NATO nuclear weapons instead of Warsaw Pact tanks and planes. The enhanced weapon known as the neutron bomb was proposed as a way to stop Warsaw Pact tanks without devastating Germany.
Since tanks are resistant to damage by blast and thermal radiation, conventional nuclear warheads with explosive yields of 10 or more kilotons would be required to destroy them in large numbers. A 10-kiloton-yield conventional nuclear warhead could destroy or incapacitate tank crews within a 1.5-square-kilometer (0.6-square-mile) area but would destroy or damage buildings in an area of nearly 5 square kilometers (2 square miles). A 1-kiloton-yield neutron bomb could deliver a prompt neutron dose that would incapacitate any tank crew within the same 1.5-square-kilometer area, but it would destroy or moderately damage urban structures only within a 1-square-kilometer (0.4-square-mile) area. Fallout would be only one-half that of the larger weapon, and within a few hours radiation levels would be low enough for people to pass safely through the area.
Clearly, neutron bombs should be able to halt an invasion with less environmental damage than would be caused by conventional nuclear weapons. Advocates of developing these weapons argued that since the use of neutron bombs would be less costly to Germany’s cities and countryside, the Warsaw Pact nations should believe that NATO would be more likely to use them, and this belief would deter a Warsaw Pact attack.
Opponents argued that the Warsaw Pact forces could reduce the effectiveness of neutron bombs by spacing their tanks farther apart and adding neutron shielding. Opponents further noted that the environmental advantages of the neutron bomb made it more likely that NATO would consider using it, and they feared that once nuclear weapons were used in a conflict, the side that was losing would resort to larger nuclear weapons. The confrontation could quickly escalate to full-scale nuclear war, possibly the ultimate human-made environmental disaster.
Beginning in 1981, the United States equipped 40 howitzer projectiles and 350 Lance missiles with neutron bombs. These warheads had yields of 1 kiloton or less. All were withdrawn from service and dismantled at the end of the Cold War in the 1990s. The Soviet Union, France, and China tested enhanced radiation weapons and may have produced them, but by the end of the twentieth century no nation had deployed such weapons. By 2020, it was rumored that China and Israel may still be in possession of such weapons.
Bibliography
Kelley, Robert E. "Starve Nuclear Weapons to Death With a Tritium Freeze." Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 28 Aug. 2020, www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2020/starve-nuclear-weapons-death-tritium-freeze. Accessed 19 July 2024.
Muller, Richard A. “Nuclear Madness.” In Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008.
Wittner, Lawrence S. Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2009.