Building a Better Bomb

dr who and the darlix writes "There is a nice article here about carbon composite warheads being tested. They destroy their targets while minimizing collateral damage."

well...

[NotAnotherReboot]

I'm still waiting for a bomb that doesn't destroy its target while maximizing collateral damage.

Re:well...

[AntiOrganic]

We've got politicians for that, silly.

Re:well...Bean bomb.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm still waiting for a bomb that doesn't destroy its target while maximizing collateral damage."

Farts.

Re:well...

[Frymaster]

every bomb, whether dropped or not, has collaterol damage: the citizens of the nation that decided to spend tax dollars on weapons of mass destruction rather than on meaningful social programs.

don't take it from me. eisenhower said it first:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
president eisenhower

Re:well...

[1029]

Actually, bombing some people is a "meaningful social program." Perhaps you need to live under tyranny for awhile to understand, but sometimes blowing some person/government to little pieces is just about the best thing that can happen. We don't live in a world where everyone agrees to sit down at a table eating danishes and sipping tea while discussing ways to feed the poor. And no matter how badly lots of us want others to be peaceful, it simply isn't ever going to happen. As long as humans have free w

Re:well...

[composer777]

That's right, the solution to Saddam cooperating with the weapon inspections was to blow him to oblivion. I guess next you're going to say that he wasn't enthusiastic enough when we supplied him with the poison gas that he used to gas his "own" people. Oh, but gee, Bush found two tractor trailers that might have contained weapons of mass destruction. And, I need to remmember that we weren't there for WMD's, unless we find them, then of course we will be. And, our goal is to find Saddam, unless we don't, of course. Just like our goal in Afghanistan was to find Bin Laden, unless we don't, then it's still victory, since the goal of course was destroy the Taliban, not find Bin Laden. I guess you just can't lose a debate when lying is not only an option, but also policy, right George?

Re:well...

[delong]

Economics is not zero-sum. A large defense expenditure, like any other large government infrastructure project, acts like a tax increase on the sly - it pumps money into the economy which eventually comes back as increased tax revenues from a larger economy. More money for social programs. This is incredibly oversimplified, but it makes the point. The economy is not a fixed pie.

Derek

Re:well...

[Alien Being]

(Ignoring the bigger questions about war and just following the dollars here.)

Take $1B and employ a whole bunch of people to make 1000 cruise missiles. Now shoot those missiles somewhere that we don't really need to shoot them. So now the missile makers have the dollar bills, but there's no product to show for it. It does nothing for the GNP. The potential of those dollars has been wasted.

Now the missile makers bring the dollars back to the market, but there are fewer goods to buy because instead of ma

Re:well...

[Idarubicin]

It's a good question. The short answer is probably yes, but there are other considerations. IANA economist, but it could be argued that the destruction of significant infrastructure and property in Iraq (much of which will have to be repaired or replaced, at tremendous cost) adds significantly to the cost of the cruise missiles.

Although expensive, the Apollo program generally wasn't used to destroy goods elsewhere--the designed purpose of cruise missiles.

Cynics might note that the destruction of prope

Re:well...

[Mostly a lurker]

Short term, I believe you are substantially right. However, I think it is interesting to look at the long term big picture.

Most would agree that, in all nations, a certain amount of military expenditure is necessary to national defense. How much depends on the threats a nation currently faces. What I think you are concerned about is the effect on a society when military spending exceeds what is needed for national defense: when it becomes part of the leadership of a nation's attempt to project power outside its own borders. In the short term, this is mostly detrimental to both the citizens of that country and the citizens of the other nations the military power threatens. Paradoxically, though, I think excessive military spending and international adventurism act to sap the economic strength of countries that undertake it. In the long term, this has the beneficial effect of tending to prevent those countries' ability to indefinitely control the destiny of others.

One of the finest books ever written is Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. In it, he clearly demonstrates, based on historical experience, the importance of economic power in being able to maintain military strength (and thus the means to project power outside one's own borders).

Thus, while sorry for the citizens of any country whose lives are damaged by their leader's power ambitions, I recognise that the consequent damage to their countries' economies is in the world's long term best interests.

Re:well...

[awol]

I think that the interesting thing is that the nation state standing army concept is a relatively recent phenomenon (ok so the nation state is pretty recent but even so...). I was as recent as the 17th century when the standing army was not a familiar concept, indeed it was an actively discouraged thing because of the negative imapcts.

I think the critical problem is that since the industrial revolution it has been, to paraphrase Churchill, that never in the field of human endeavour have so few been able to kill so many with so little. And this principle has become even more pertinent in our current world. As such a standing army is a necessary thing and whilst I agree with the sentiments of Eisenhower I find it difficult to reconcile the disaster that would result from an inability for the "enlightened" to protect the weak from the evil. And you can take that anyway you like.

Re:well...

[Frymaster]

guns bought by individuals are the same as any other hobby.

if your government is indulging in "hobbies" you need another government. i think ike was referring to the military, not private gun owners. in which case, the purchase of armaments takes tax dollars which could be used for:

1. more or better programs
2. tax reduction

or some combination thereof. you obviously, would prefer the later - but that does not invalidate the original statement.

you look at the "social" programs that work, they are the programs where volunteers or workers take the time to form a relationship with those they help and simply love and care for them.

ah, yes, the "thousand points of light". remember that? great. let's give those people some tax assistance or direct funding to buy materials or specialized services.

that would be a better use of cash than coming up with more efficient ways to kill people in countries where the "elite guard" means "soldiers with shoes". dontcha think?

Re:well...

[Migrant Programmer]

I am simply stunned at the quality of your education. Do you even know who Eisenhower was? Here's a hint: before he was a President, he was a General.

Before you try to play the history card, make sure it's in your hand.

Re:well...

[noewun]

And Eisenhower's final speech as President warned about the creation of a military-industrial complex and the ways this could damage our democracy.

As an ex-general, Ike knew the dangers of limitations of military power.

...and just for those wondering

[aerojad]

...we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

Taken from here [msu.edu].

Real Generals are never hawks

[Jonathan]

Do you even know who Eisenhower was? Here's a hint: before he was a President, he was a General.

Yes. That's the point. Real generals don't love war -- notice that the only person in the Bush admin that wasn't too keen on the whole Iraq fiasco was Powell, who realized that it was going to be another Vietnam-style guerilla war. It's easy to support war when your only experience is watching CNN.

Before you try to play the history card, make sure it's in your hand

This is just too funny. Really, had you ne

Re:Real Generals are never hawks

[Xabraxas]

And in case you haven't noticed, we won.

Do you want to tell that to the parents of soldiers still dying over there?

They single out two or three people who want the U.S. to leave, while ignoring the all the people who realize we need to stay to rebuild the country.

Please get out from under your rock. There are more than just a few people who want the US to leave.

While he (and most people) hate the fact that there's an arms race, it's still a sad fact of life that there IS one, and we have to compe

Re:well...

[murdocj]

If the US did not join the allied forces, then it is save to say that Hitler could have send more force to the east and probably could have conquered Russia. I know it is all speculation, but so has the above quote.

Germany had very few divisions in the west to send eastward. I think something like 10-20 divisions in the west vs a couple of hundred in the east (and I'm sure some slashdotter will correct me if I'm wrong). I have heard that the allied bombing campaign diverted a lot of resources to prote

Re:well...

[composer777]

Umm.., Saddam didn't attack the WTC, but I'm sure you already knew that, or did you?

"You mean Saddam didn't attack the WTC? Whah?"

Re:well...

[composer777]

Yeah, but why are they spending so much on bombs? Why aren't they applying more technology to the true solution to terrorism, which is of course, spying on the American peopple? I mean, that is part of the solution, is to spy on us right, and just like the war on Iraq, it's because we all love democracy so much, right?

I hate it..

[Anonymous Coward]

...when human lives are abstracted almost entirely out of the discussion of weaponry. What makes it so difficult for them to say, "a bomb that kills the enemy more efficiently and minimizes the loss of innocent civilian's lives?" Guilt, perhaps?

Re:I hate it..

[AntiOrganic]

Not guilt. PR.

Do you think Bush's approval ratings would be so high if everyone knew that we've killed 6,000 civilians in Iraq? I vote "no."

Re:I hate it..

[corbettw]

"Do you think Bush's approval ratings would be so high if everyone knew that we've killed 6,000 civilians in Iraq? I vote "no.""

Do you think most Americans care about dead Iraqis? I vote "no."

Think about it, newspapers and cable news make money when more people read/watch their news. If 6,000 dead Iraqi civilians were as newsworthy as you think, wouldn't it be plastered all over the news?

Re:I hate it..

[AntiOrganic]

I do think it's rather amusing that despite all the "9/11 NEVAR FORGET" patriot propaganda plastered everywhere, killing twice as many civilians as died on September 11th is completely acceptable for us.

And we wonder why terrorists are trying to kill us?

Re:I hate it..

[composer777]

Yes, one might argue that there will always be someone with a grudge. However, I don't see you arguing that we should bomb Montana, since "there will always be someone who hates us." After all, weren't they responsible for one of the last major terrorist bombings, that of the Federal building in Oklahoma City? The truth is, without the support of the people over there, the terrorists would get nowhere. Most people throughout the world want to raise a family, be part of a community, etc. Fundamentalism

Re:I hate it..

[RobinH]

Terrorist groups have been killing nothing BUT civilians for a lot longer than 9/11. Where's your argument now?

I'm trying to see your point... are you saying that as long as the U.S. kills soldiers, then they also have the right to kill civilians? What kind of argument is that?

This discussion isn't about whether 9/11 was justified; killing people can never be justified, particularly when they're civilians. Perhaps you're saying that all that matters is who you target. If I target a soldier, and kill a

Wrong. He has a valid point.

[0x0d0a]

I certainly agree with the parent poster. The US *has* taken a high-handed approach, and *has* been able to convince its own citizens to ignore many of its own excesses and abuses.

What I get from this post is that you're upset at being presented with the fact that *you* may also be guilty of helping along the same killing of civilians that you find distasteful, and would be happier having it not brought up. You find it easier, more comfortable, to avoid it that way.

Re:I hate it..

[Frank of Earth]

Do you think Bush's approval ratings would be so high if everyone knew that we've killed 6,000 civilians in Iraq? I vote "no."

This will be automatically be modded down because as soon as you say the word Fuck, you get killed by liberals.

Anyways, get a fucking clue

Read this [iraqfoundation.org]

6000 civilians died and that's a tragedy, however, Saddam has killed far more of his own people that the US will ever kill.

Perhaps we should plaster on the front of every paper that 6000 Iraqi civilians have died due to the US led

Re:I hate it..

[vandan]

You're getting your issues confuses, which is exactly what Bush camp want. You see all the above issues have nothing to do with WOMD - the reason Iraq was invaded.
And by the way, I don't wear a tin-foil hat. But I assume you make use of a penis-extender.

Re: I hate it..

[Black Parrot]

> It doesn't seem like anyone really cares about Iraq any more. The protests were heavy and numerous leading up to the war, but once it began everyone seemed to abandon the cause all but entirely.

There's a curious phenomenon at work here. IIRC, a couple of weeks before the war started the only way you could squeeze > 50% US public support out of the polls was to qualify the question with "with UN authorization", and even then the support was only about 60%. Without UN authorization it was somewhere

Re: I hate it..

[Frank of Earth]

" It doesn't seem like anyone really cares about Iraq any more. The protests were heavy and numerous leading up to the war, but once it began everyone seemed to abandon the cause all but entirely."

Yeah, and now all we care about is fucking Kobe Bryant. A soldier dies in Iraq and there is a courtesy mention on the news, while there are entire specials dedicated to Kobe's rape case.

Perhaps we should just ignore all the war coverage and just watch continuous 24hour VH1 specials on J-Lo/Ben and Kobe.

Re:I hate it..

[Anonymous Coward]

Bombs are rarely used for the purpose of killing people these days. They're used to destroy facilities, bridges, buildings. That kind of thing.

Consider the bombing of Baghdad. Generally speaking, most bombing raids were conducted during the middle of the night, local time. Why? To avoid surface-based defenses? Partially. But our forces are essentially immune to ground-based attack. We could bomb any time we wanted. We did it in the middle of the night so we could destroy buildings without killing people.

Bombs are designed to destroy, not necessarily to kill. Killing's an important part of war, but not the only, or even most important, part.

Re:I hate it..

[Wyatt Earp]

"Generally speaking, most bombing raids were conducted during the middle of the night, local time. Why? To avoid surface-based defenses? Partially. But our forces are essentially immune to ground-based attack."

That's not true.

Aircraft were lost to Iraqi SAMs (and American SAMs) so don't say that our forces were immune to ADA/SAMs.

The real reason we did alot of our operations at night is the danger to large, slow aircraft to optically guided SAMs. Modern Russian, European, American SAMs can be directed ei

Why we bombed at night...

[Tranvisor]

Less chance of being hit with optically guided missiles was probably a reason why we contacted a lot of activity at night, but there were other signifigant reasons.

The war was conducted in a way that was designed to try to make the enemy give up and run as quickly as possible. Constant neverending attack is an important part of this stratedgy. Never being able to sleep because of constant bombing destroys morale alot faster then actually trying to kill them. Bombs that target at night just as well as th

Re:I hate it..

[no-body]

"Bombs are rarely used for the purpose of killing people these days. They're used to destroy facilities, bridges, buildings. That kind of things."

Very good, who told you that? Look there [newhousenews.com]. Amazing technology. This shows what a bomb really does and the effects are very well known and intended. The damage to humans is so immense, would the real effects shown on TV, people in US would not support this.

Why do you think that napalm-like fire bombs are developed and used? Probably to surgically melt down bridges and buildings at night;)

I find it interesting that in almost all press reports in USA only US losses are counted and never the total count of injured and killed humans is mentioned. Could it be that the numbers would not look very good?

It is talked about 60-something billion $'s of cost for this war - the total material cost of destroyed infrastructure, building, bridges, equipment is completely unknown.

Human losses are not publicized either the www.iraqbodycount.net [iraqbodycount.net] tries to get number but those are only civilian deaths. How many are injured and to which degree is unknown.

The total count of humans killed in this escapade is intentionally kept quiet, or maybe the corpses of "other" soldiers dug under somewhere are not even counted.

I guess, it would be simpler, to lock the "leaders" causing wars into a room and only let them out again, once they get along. This would save all this stupid and destructive war making and weapons developing.

Re:I hate it..

[Threni]

"Why do you think that napalm-like fire bombs are developed and used? Probably to surgically melt down bridges and buildings at night;)"

Napalm was used in the recent Iraqi war:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/america s /story .jsp?story=432201

---
"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love

Re:I hate it..

[0x0d0a]

Let's reverse the question. Why hamper a technical discussion about bomb efficiency with irrelevant issues and issues of morality? There are certainly times and places for discussions of the morality of weaponry, and this is not one of them.

Not a couple hundred years ago, if someone mentioned evolution, someone would pop up and ask why you aren't inserting the word "heretical" into the discussion. And if they aren't...well, is that because of guilt? Fear of God? Same thing you're doing here, different topics involved.

Re:I hate it..

[carpe_noctem]

I think the difference is that while a few hundred years ago, most people did believe that evolution was heretical, and that opinion has (for the most part) changed since then. However, I think there's no question about the fact that a few hundred years ago, or hell, even back to as long as recorded history goes, humans have questioned the morality of killing and warfare.

I find it rather startling that you seem to believe that popular opinion as to the "social acceptability" of war will change any time in

Re:I hate it..

[1029]

You know what else sucks? When people talk about computers without mentioning the huge cost to human life and the great depleation of our environment that they bring along with them.

Oh yeah, this is slashdot, where it is in generally (obviously not everyone thinks this way, but it seems most do) considered the "in" thing to bash any war related tech topics... all for "the innocent people being killed."

Guess what you narrow minded sheeple, you are killing [tufts.edu] plenty of people and ruining the environment

Re:I hate it..

[delong]

Because it takes fewer words to say the same thing? Efficiency in language?

Derek

The word you are looking for is...

[usotsuki]

euphemism n. The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive: "Euphemisms such as 'slumber room'... abound in the funeral business" (Jessica Mitford).

Look it up yourself [reference.com]

-uso.

Don't rent the DVD

[Anonymous Coward]

I minimize "Collateral Damage" [imdb.com] by not renting the dam movie in the first place. Yet, it IS a bomb; this is not off-topic.

Building a Better -edited-

[MongooseCN]

Great title michael. You forgot to use the words Terrorist, Airplane and President in the title too.

Make your time

[RealisticWeb.com]

If we keep minimizing colateral damage, then by A.D. 2101 no one will be able to say:

Somebody set up us the bomb.
All your base are belong to us.

By the way

[RealisticWeb.com]

For any of you who don't catch this reference that is endlessly quoted on slashdot, you can learn about it here:

http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/story.shtm l [planettribes.com]

This is good and all...

[Valar]

but
a) It doesn't do any good if you hit the wrong building.

b) It doesn't do you any good if you mean to hit the 'wrong' building.

Furthermore, if a civilian happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, this still won't help... such is the nature of war I guess, though.

Oh Great

[Matt_Fisher]

So does this mean there will be bombs that only kill one person and cost 20 billion to make. ALRIGHT!!

Re:Oh Great

[dicepackage]

"I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt." - George W. Bush

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

At last... we can kill all the fucking arab and saudi terrorists without damaging the oil wells.

Allah be praised!

Funny?

[Tharn]

Come on, this is flamebait and not at all funny. /. IS too Americentric (though why America would want to kill people is beyond me).

Re:Funny?

[Adam9]

It's funny because it's mocking a view that is unfortunately held by too many U.S. citizens.

Re:Funny?

[marauder404]

Come on, this is flamebait and not at all funny. /. IS too Americentric (though why America would want to kill people is beyond me).

Flamebait, yes, but insisting that Slashdot shouldn't not be American-centric is a hollow argument. It's, after all, published in the US. It has no obligation to take into account all world views. On top of that, Slashdot, as you speak of it, is really comprised of its users, not so much Slashdot as an organization. You think the editors actually do something here?

Howeve

Collateral damage

[donnz]

Does "collateral damage" still mean maiming and killing people these days? If so, why is US media so afraid of saying so? Or is that just something the evil doers do?

Re:Collateral damage

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's part of it. But it also includes the destruction of buildings, property, cables, pipes, etc. So the killing of people just is too specific; it's but a subset of "collateral damage".

Re:Collateral damage

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Collateral damage means just what it says: damage that's collateral, in other words damage that wasn't intentionally caused, but rather came as a side-effect of whatever caused the damage that was intentional.

Sometimes people, such as yourself, like to paint military jargon as being full of euphemisms for killing and whatnot. Ain't so. Military jargon is exactingly precise. We say "collateral damage" because that is precisely what we mean. We say "civilian casualties" because that is precisely what we mean. ("Casualty" means a person killed or injured. Which is why we don't say "people killed.")

It's just precision of language. I'll give you a non-military example. My wife's a surgeon. Sometimes she works in the emergency room. When somebody wrecks their car, the incident is referred to as an MVC: motor vehicle crash. It used to be called an MVA, for motor vehicle accident, but the fact is that when somebody comes in from that kind of thing, you have no idea whether what happened was accidental or deliberate, act of God, whatever. So "motor vehicle crash" is more correct.

Why not simply "car crash?" Because a boat wreck is an MVC, too. So are motorcycle accidents. MVC's aren't limited to cars.

It's about precision of language, not euphemism.

Thanks for trying to slip a shallow and thoughtless political remark into the discussion, though. Appreciate you trolls keeping the rest of us on our toes.

Re:Collateral damage

[Corgha]

wouldn't "accidental casualties" be even clearer than "collateral damage"?

RTFA -- "casualties" does not encompass damage to buildings and equipment, which is part of "collateral damage". Such damage was specifically mentioned in the article:

In addition to providing more safety to soldiers and civilians on the ground, the new, low collateral damage munitions will also minimize the rebuilding that is needed after a war.

After all, most people (including myself) don't know that collateral = accidental

Re:Collateral damage

[_xeno_]

As the ACs above have posted, "collateral damange" means what it has always meant - causing damage to an object, be it a building or person, where no damage was intended. Civilians by default fall into that catagory - as far as I know (although I'm sure someone can drag up a counter-example) the United States military does not intentially target civilians - therefore, any civilian casualty is callateral damage - damage to an object where no damage was intended.

While the war in Iraq has had a lot of talk

Oh shit!

[RealBeanDip]

"In the present effort, a Livermore team led by engineer Michael Murphy"

They've got Murphy involved already...

Hmm. Efficiency.

[jpsowin]

I mean, if you're going to devise a device to kill people and blow up stuff, you should make it as efficient as possible, right?

Cost?

[RyanFenton]

I wonder how much these new shells would theoretically cost. I wonder how much of this cost would be for various intellectual property issues. Anyone know how the approximate cost of a current steel-and-explosive shell?

I'd definetly prefer soldiers using the best equipment that is feasible, and I support the basic research here, of course, but I'm just curious.

Ryan Fenton

Re: Cost?

[Black Parrot]

> Anyone know how the approximate cost of a current steel-and-explosive shell?

I don't know about artillery shells, but for ariel bombs there's a nice chart in the February 2003 issue of Scientific American. Range varies greatly, from about $1000 for a dumb bomb to $700,000 for a cruise missile.

The JDAM "strap-on" combo uses a $20,000 guidance kit on a $1,000 - $3,000 bomb. There are other more expensive systems listed in the table as well, e.g. various types of cluster bombs cost $14,000 - $300,000 b

Can we use these...

[Powercntrl]

...on spammers?

Shades of the `70's neutron bomb

[Paul Bain]

This development reminds me of the "neutron bomb" that the defense establishment developed in the late seventies. It was a small, nuclear warhead meant for use on the battlefield (i.e., against soldiers and tanks, etc.) that killed not through a combination of blast-&-heat (that would destroy structures) but, rather, by unleashing a lethal flood of neutrons that destroyed the cell walls of nearly all animals (humans included). The neutrons could penetrate tank armor and the walls of buildings, killing tank crews and infantry inside the buildings, respectively. Think Star Trek, First Generation, the episode where Bones says, "Jim, every cell in his body has been disrupted!!". The bomb did not, however, destroy as many structures as a traditional, tactical nuclear weapon.

The defense establishment tried to sell the virutes of the neutron bomb with this pithy point: "It destroys humans but leaves buildings intact," minimizing collateral damage. Aping this thought, in college, some of my acquaintances developed a powerful alcoholic mixture that they dubbed "neutron punch." Their rationale? "It destroys your mind but leaves your body intact," they said.

Did the Neutron Bomb exist?

[Latent Heat]

We all know about the neutron bomb, that was supposed to kill the crews of Warsaw Pact tank columns crossing into West Germany while leaving the civilian infrastructure intact, and we all know the propaganda about the "Capitalist Bomb" that killed people but left their property standing. But was the neutron bomb itself a deception campaign or is their some "physics" for building such a thing?

The Ulam-Teller H-bomb is this Rube Goldberg contraption of a series of effects: a good-sized A-bomb to give off x-rays, a casing to channel the x-rays into Styrofoam, a blanket of deuterium (or lithium deuteride) to be compressed by the Styrofoad given oomph by the x-rays, a central "sparkplug" of plutonium to be compressed and give of yet more neutrons, and finally a U-238 jacket to take all those neutrons and convert them into explosive power.

Is a neutron bomb something as simple as an H-bomb with the U-238 jacket removed? With the plutonium sparkplug (essentially the second A-bomb imploded by the first A-bomb?) removed? Does this thing still work with those modification? If you take off the U-238 jacket and keep the sparkplug, you still have a very dirty bomb with a lot of fission effect. If you take out the fission secondary, are you even able to ignite deuterium to any effect? You can boost an A-bomb handsomly with lots of tritium, but that is an expensive, messy thing with a short half-life to use a lot of.

But the original H-bomb took essentially two, staged fission devices to get anything going with the deuterium (which fuses to produce a lot of energetic neutrons), and the original Teller idea of sticking an A-bomb at one end of a can of deuterium got nowhere -- the thing would have just fizzled. Is it possible that the "neutron bomb" was a fiction? I am thinking that a flood of fusion neutrons from a very low fission yield has to be, otherwise efforts to control fusion for power generation wouldn't be so difficult.

The neutron bomb existed - good link.

[caveat]

The High Energy Weapons Archive has a good rundown [membrane.com] of neutron bombs. They're a bit more complicated than just taking the jacket off a hydrogen bomb (still needs the jacket to get the fusion going) - see the FAQ for a rundown. The Mk 70-0 nuclear artillery shell was apparently a tactical neutron device (~1kT yield); I dont know if it was ever tested. I wouldn't really call a staged implosion H-bomb a Rube Goldberg device, though..its a bit more complicated than you paint it to be; the tolerances are on the order of a few microns and nanoseconds. See the rest of the FAQ for a hugely in-depth discussion of the physical principles and engineering that goes into one of these things (you need a grasp of thermodynamics and physics, though).

Another "thing" they are working on

[CharlieG]

A few months back, I saw a tech article about another type of bomb they are working on, that is very related - Small bombs!

Right now, the "standard" US bombs are 500 lbs, 1000lbs or 2000lbs. Bombs this big were needed so that the blast/schrapnel would take out the target even if you hit 10-20 yards from the intended target. (talking blast effect here)

As the latest generation of bombs got more accurate, they started to realize that this was SERIOUS overkill. If you can hit the exact building you want, there is NO need for a bomb that big. So, for the first time since Pre WWII, the USAF is working on designs for bombs in the 50-100 lb class.

It gives them a BUNCH of advantages

1)Less colateral damage - yep, I'll be blunt - we kill less of the people we don't want to kill
2)Less danger to our own troops working close
3)The odd one - if we develop new load racks, you should be able to carry approximately 10 times more 50 lb bombs than you could 500 lb bombs

You see, even back during "Gulf I", we had to send multiple aircraft against one target to destroy it - it didn't make sense to worry about it. Now, we actually task one aircraft to destroy multiple targets. If you can carry 10x more bombs, you could (in theory) attack 10x more targets per mission. In reality, the fact is that the bombs have NOT become so accuate that each 50 lb bomb will hit exactly on target, and the kill radius is small enough, that even a small miss wont work. So they will probably task 2 or 3 bombs to each target, so figure each aircraft can attack 2-3 times more targets per sorte

Like it or not, it's interesting technology. You may not like what it's used for, but it is "cutting edge"

Re:Another "thing" they are working on

[WegianWarrior]

The odd one - if we develop new load racks, you should be able to carry approximately 10 times more 50 lb bombs than you could 500 lb bombs

Not quite - there is way more to a bombrack than an eyebolt screwed into the wing of an airplane. For each bomb you'll need a pair of swaybraces to stabelice it while it's mounted on the plane, you'll need two plungers to ensure a clean seperation, you'll need two cartridges to produce the gas needed to operate the plungers (you want two to make sure the weapon lets

Re:Another "thing" they are working on

[Mike1024]

A few months back, I saw a tech article about another type of bomb they are working on, that is very related - Small bombs!

Reminds me of a British invention, inert bombs [bbc.co.uk] - laser-guided 1,000lb blocks of concrete.

No word yet on if they'll be anvil-shaped.

Michael

Building a better..

[OmniVector]

We can rebuild it.
We have the technology.
We have the capability to make...

bah nevermind.

Building a better bomb?

[Bowie J. Poag]

For a second, I thought this article was gonna talk about a sequel to 'Gigli'.

Design criteria

[CaptBubba]

These bombs aren't being designed because people like to live next to military outposts. People don't wander into potential bomb sites to look at the big guns...

What does happen is that certain militaries will deploy their equipment where the most collateral damage will be caused. The civilians are being used. When they die the occupying power can come on TV and rant about the US "murdering innocent civilians". Never mind that they stuck an AAA battery in a residential neighborhood, that's not important.

I think these bombs are a good curiosity to have but would be too expensive for general use. I hope that these bombs will make a commander think twice about using civilians as a shield. Unfortunately I think the effect will be the opposite, and military installations will get even more integrated with the populace for defense. Sometimes cause and effect really sucks...

Re:Design criteria

[delong]

Yep, like the Serbs parking tanks between houses and mixing military convoys with refugees. Or the Taliban setting up AA guns next to mosques. Or Iraqis setting up military headquarters and fedeyeen bases in schools and hospitals. Our enemies learn from our "weaknesses."

Derek

Tired politically correct warfare....

[shri]

(Ok.. having a bad day .. just posting a bit of a rant)

What is wrong with collateral damage when you're out there killing people and destroying large portions of their country?

I'd be happy if someone admitted that they were creating the perfect doomsday device which would take out all of civilisation if everyone didn't behave. :)

On a side note.. One of the most amusing comments about bombs was TheOnion bomb that created 1500 new terrorists when it exploded...

Re:Tired politically correct warfare....

[revscat]

What is wrong with collateral damage when you're out there killing people and destroying large portions of their country?

Because, see, most people thing it's wrong to kill people. But since we all know about war, those same people understand that if you're gonna do some killing, at least try to minimize it if you can. If you can, and don't, that's a bad thing.

I tend to agree and vehemently support this position. War may occasionally be necessary [wasn't in Iraq - ed.] but that doesn't mean you have the

Re:Tired politically correct warfare....

[GlassUser]

For the most part, "killing people and destroying large portions of their country" IS collateral damage. They want to reduce that.

This is old news, sort of...

[phillymjs]

In Tom Clancy's Clear and Present Danger [amazon.com] (the book, not the movie), they had bombs with a cellulose casing to eliminate shrapnel. They used them when they wanted to make a single-bomb surgical strike look more like a car bomb.

I don't know if we really had munitions like that at the time when that book was written, but considering Clancy's attention to detail I wouldn't discount the possibility. Either way, the idea of a shrapnel-less bomb has been kicking around for a pretty long time.

~Philly

Well, we're all screwed

[LittleGuy]

Thanks to this story, all of ./ can be accused of deep linking to terroristic activities [slashdot.org]. I guess we need to disassociate from changing the government or society....

at least...

[quick_dry_3]

all those friendly fire deaths caused by the yanks will be more efficient...

collaterla damage, dead civilians and all that aside, US forces seem to target and attack way to many friendly forces

Though maybe these new bombs are a good thing, smaller kill radius takes out less of the troops

We don't need better bombs we need...

[xutopia]

better breeds of politicians (not politicians that get rich thanks to a war).

AC's

[Internet Ninja]

Can someone tell me the AC/non-AC ratio here?

Amazing that so many AC's have been modded up. Must be a first.

Put your name where your mouth . It shows gumption and conviction. So important if you're discussing a sublect like collateral damage.

Concrete Bombs

[Detritus]

The USAF already has concrete bombs [fas.org]. They contain no explosives. They use kinetic energy to destroy the target and are useful for attacking air defense sites in populated areas.

just what we need...

[Angry Black Man]

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein

Einstein. Pah!

[PHAEDRU5]

He did all his great work around 1905. From then on he was spent. No more great ideas, just religiious critiques of better ideas than his.

Take his comment on WWIII. It's being fought right now. When it's over, the entire world will be better off.

- The world will be safe for American liberal democracy.
- European Corporatism (Fascism dressed in Prada) will be contained.
- Islamic lunatic fundamentalism will be tamed.
- Baathism (Arab Fascism) will be dead.
- Saddam will be dead.
- The Iranian mullocracy wil

Great... except:

[Alex Belits]

1. Collateral damage is usually NOT produced by bunker-busting bombs that actually hit the bunkers. First of all, there usually isn't much to damage around the bunker, that does not happen to be another target. Second, it's usually produced by things that _miss_ the target -- what in this case will cause the same effect.

2. Last time I have checked, most of bombs that produced huge amount of damage to civilians, were dropped on civilian targets, or poorly protected military ones, to begin with. Often with the primary goal to cause massive damage to civilians.

"bomb" -- nice going

[nuwayser]

do you know how many people surfing /. from work are now going to have their browsing activity flagged because they loaded the front page of yr freakin' site. Hel-LO??? Note to self -- don't visit /. for another 36 hours.

If its the US army launching them...

[neostorm]

Then it depends greatly on if they can hit their target in the first place, doesn't it?

Other Types of Bombs

[frank249]

Reducing collateral damage is becoming more and more important as military planners realize that the war is not over once you capture the territory.
You want to win over a people's hearts and minds by changing the regime but not levelling their cities a la carpet bombing Dresden in WWII. Killing citizens does not shorten a war and the London Blitz and Berlin showed that enemy soldiers will fight harder if they know their families are being killed too.

There are lots of different types of bombs that try to reduce collateral damage. The most infamous was the Neutron bomb [manuelsweb.com] that limited a nuclear bomb's blast and heat damage to a few hundred yards but killed people through the use of radiation.
The electric power distribution munition(ph) [npr.org], can knock out a whole power grid. This bomb scatters spools of carbon strands over a target. In Vietnam the US developed Hyper baric Fuel Air bombs [washingtonpost.com] that used a high pressure wave to kill people in tunnels or create helicopter landing pads in the jungle. The latest improved version is the thermo baric bomb [globalsecurity.org] that uses extremely high temperatures to create a blast wave and also suck the oxygen out of enclosed spaces.

War is not glorious but it is necessary from time to time and if you can defeat the enemy without killing non-combatants, I am all for it.

Re:Misguided....

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Sorry, doesn't work that way. As long as there are people out there who can think independently, there will be some who want to kill you, take your home, rape your children, whatever. As long as human beings have free will, there will be people who wish you harm.

This has nothing to do with what you do or do not do. You can make more people dislike you through your choices, but you can never make no people dislike you. You can never be loved by everyone. Sooner or later, somebody's going to come along who hates you, hates your way of life, and wants to kill you.

Societies that fail to defend themselves from these kind of people inevitably fall to them... or wake up and start hammering their plowshares into swords.

The best way to guarantee a war is to be unprepared for one. And the best way to prevent a war is to be absolutely, undoubtedly ready to wage one if called upon to do so.

Welcome to Earth. Enjoy your stay.

Re:Misguided....

[p2sam]

I agree completely. Ever considered yourself to be one of those exercising that free will?

Just a thought.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Misguided....

[delong]

This is Slashdot, you're wasting your breath.

Americans were obstinately isolationist until after WWII. We still are, given a percieved lack of threat - George Bush ran in 2000 on an isolationist platform: bring the boys home, let the world look after it's own ass, the Cold War is over. After being dragged into two World Wars and Soviet expansionism threatening to drag the world into a third, it became US policy to maintain a large standing army forward deployed in Eurasia to actively deter the Soviets and Chinese and to de-militarize European states (and specifically, Germany) by assuming the majority of Europe's defense burden.

America is the reluctant Superpower. We could have had tributary states like the Soviets after WWII, and ruled half the world. We didn't. We chose the Marshall Plan, and helped western Europe and Japan rebuild as liberal democracies. If the world was such a Pollyanna place some people think it to be, Americans would want their sons and daughters back home, permanently, and wish the world to come visit, but leave us alone behind our oceans.

Derek

Let's not lose track of the real world...

[composer777]

In the real world, Saddam was capitulating to every single request.

The reasons for war in order..
1. To get Saddam to comply with Weapons Inspections, of course, he did that, soo....
2. To get Saddam to destroy his WMDS', of course, the inspectors couldn't find any, so...
3. To get UN approval to let us go in so we couldn't find them, but we had no suppport, so....
4. To go in and find WMD's, unless, of course, we don't, in which case, we bombed them because we love democracy so much..

Did I leave anything out?

Re:This strikes me

[Phroggy]

as being very expensive, implanting this technology into every bomb *will* become painful to us tax-payers. And we are not getting these money back just because of a decrease in collateral damage.

And how bad is really some collateral damage?

A decrease in collateral damage means fewer innocent civilians getting killed or wounded. How much money is that worth?

Casualties makes the enemy frightned and less willing to fight.

Really? Sure doesn't look that way...

And the enemy should expect some collat

Re:This strikes me

[Frank of Earth]

"Who exactly started the war with Iraq?"

In case you are so blind by the liberal media, ie cnn.com, let me refresh your memory.

1) Iraq invades Kuwait
2) "We" kick Iraq out of Kuwait
3) In the course of 10 years, Iraq violates the no fly zones numerous times
4) Sept 11th, the BJ president is gone and there is new outlook on national security.
5) Iraq refuses to disarm and continues to violate sanctions
6) "We" invade again, this time finishing the job
7) Unrest continues throughout Iraq.
8) TBD

God Bless A

Re:This strikes me

[Phroggy]

Whose idea was it to put Saddam in charge of Iraq in the first place? [cnn.net]

Re:This strikes me

[blincoln]

And the enemy should expect some collateral damage when they start a war, collaterall damage will in fact make them less willing to start a war next time.

That's funny. ~3000 pieces of "collateral damage" a few years ago didn't seem to make the US less willing to start a war.

Re:This strikes me

[Jad LaFields]

As has been said before, collateral damage is not necessarily the killing of innocent civilians, but rather the destruction of what the attacker does not intend to destroy.

Those guys on those airplanes sure meant what they were doing.

Re:This strikes me

[Pharmboy]

The JDAM is the most cost effective weapon now, and incidently, its one of the more accurate since it doesnt require a laser or any visability. its a $20k piece of hardware on an otherwise dumb (and cheap) bomb.

One of the advantages is the accuracy tends to produce lower collateral damage by itself. The primary benefit being the locals tend to rise up less when you don't kill lots of them, which is a good thing when you have to hang out for a few years.

There is also some degree of usefullness when the enemy knows you can program in coordinates x y z and the type and depth of penetration for the bomb, and make the bad guys eat it. The best bomb is one powerful and accurate enough that you don't have to use it. Using collateral damage as a form of control of the masses is one of the things we try to frown on now that we are all civilized, since it smacks of terrorism itself, although I would not rule out bombing civilian facilities myself, under certain circumstances.

Re:No Chance

[Erwos]

And if you look at any other recent, "real" war, you'd see how amazing that low a figure is. Compare that ~7000 figure to pretty much any other ground campaign in recent history - you'll see that it's really quite low. That's assuming their figure is accurate, too, which there's no real proof of.

War isn't safe. It isn't fun. It's hell for everyone involved. But the fact is, sometimes, it really is the last option left (in this case, I'm not sure it was, though). Would you prefer to go on living the dream t

Re:no way

[stienman]

" this is not an improvement.
An improvement would be a reduction in bombs, not an improvement in technology."

improve

1. To raise to a more desirable or more excellent quality or condition; make better.
2. To increase the productivity or value of (land or property).
3. To put to good use; use profitably.

The word improve is subjective - depending on your perspective something which one may feel is an improvement may not be seen as such to another. I know that people have gotten in the habit of expressing opin