A former Labour defence minister has suggested threatening to drop a neutron bomb on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in order to crack down on terrorism by creating a impassible barrier between the two countries.
Speaking in the House of Lords on Thursday, Lord Gilbert said Britain could use the radiation warheads "to create cordons sanitaire along various borders where people are causing trouble".
"Your Lordships may say that this is impractical, but nobody lives up in the mountains on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan except for a few goats and a handful of people herding them," he said.
"If you told them that some ERRB warheads were going to be dropped there and that it would be a very unpleasant place to go, they would not go there.
"You would greatly reduce your problem of protecting those borders from infiltration from one side or another.
"These things are not talked about, but they should be, because there are great possibilities for deterrence in using the weapons that we already have in that respect."
Neutron bombs are a type of thermonuclear weapon designed to kill people while leaving physical structures such as buildings in tact.
Responding for the government Lord Wallace said the coalition did not share the "rumbustious views" of Gilbert.
Gilbert, who served Tony Blair in the late 1990s as a defence minister and was a member Intelligence and Security Committee while he was an MP, said he did not favour a nuclear-free world.
"I am absolutely delighted that nuclear weapons were invented when they were and I am delighted that, with our help, it was the Americans who invented them," he explained.
"If we think of a world in which they had not been invented, it is very easy indeed to see world war three starting on many occasions after 1945."
This was in the context of nuclear disarmament.
I was under the impression most countries don't keep a neutron bomb in their active stockpiles because with thicker tank armour, it effectively reduces their range of effect meaning that neutron bombs have to be used closer to the target (utilising heat and blast effects), in which case you may as well use a conventional one.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Isn't the whole point of a neutron bomb that it doesn't create any kind of impassable barrier, only killing people in the area when it explodes and not rendering a whole ton of infrastructure unusable? Pretty much any other sort of nuclear weapon - whether it's a dirty bomb to irradiate the area or an ordinary nuke to dig a big-ass trench between the two countries - would seem a more practical choice.
We don't need a neutron bomb, we just detonate that guy's ego over the border. Sure there'll be some fallout in the press, but we, as a planet, would be much better off.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
Even if we did what he was suggesting, wouldn't the irradiated area only be lethal for a couple of weeks, tops? Or is this part of some larger plan to get the government to develop cobalt bombs?
DaveJB wrote:Even if we did what he was suggesting, wouldn't the irradiated area only be lethal for a couple of weeks, tops? Or is this part of some larger plan to get the government to develop cobalt bombs?
Yeah, it's effects supposed to be mostly gone, except the limited amount of fallout. As far as I know, you'd have to either drop very dirty bombs, which generate great amount of fallout or practically use the area as a radioactive waste dump. Neither is as clean as the good Lord Gilbert would think or even acceptable. Most likely his lordship said something really stupid without thinking through it.
The (in)famous War Nerd blog had a pretty funny post about seven years ago where he commented on how the British Empire would have behaved if it had been armed with nuclear weapons, the tone of it was eerily similar to this guys stupid rant.
Simpler solution: Leave Afghanistan.
Brilliant. You could even explain this to your friends and make a joke out of it. Something like, "what is ruined and deserted and glows at night? The border of a country we call an ally." The sight of the West using nuclear weapons, without even a formal declaration of war, will not be recruiting poster-worthy for the terrorists. And importantly, it won't scare the shit out of other nuclear powers. It all makes sense, folks!
Dr. Trainwreck wrote:Brilliant. You could even explain this to your friends and make a joke out of it. Something like, "what is ruined and deserted and glows at night? The border of a country we call an ally."
Considering how two-faced the Pakistani government is- receiving BILLIONS in $$$ from the US, even as it supports enemies of the US- I'd hardly call the nation an ally.
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
Sidewinder wrote:Considering how two-faced the Pakistani government is- receiving BILLIONS in $$$ from the US, even as it supports enemies of the US- I'd hardly call the nation an ally.
I could say the same thing about the US. Hard to call them an ally when the CIA starts targeting your civilians with "signature strikes".
Grumman wrote:Isn't the whole point of a neutron bomb that it doesn't create any kind of impassable barrier, only killing people in the area when it explodes and not rendering a whole ton of infrastructure unusable? Pretty much any other sort of nuclear weapon - whether it's a dirty bomb to irradiate the area or an ordinary nuke to dig a big-ass trench between the two countries - would seem a more practical choice.
That was never the point. The point was to kill tanks, who are surprisingly resillient to the "conventional" heat and blast effects. Alas, modern tank armor is becoming thicker (and more importantly, a lot denser) so neutron bombs are now a tool in search of a job...
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small. - NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11
Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.
MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.
Considering how two-faced the Pakistani government is- receiving BILLIONS in $$$ from the US, even as it supports enemies of the US- I'd hardly call the nation an ally.
Quite obviously, the very people giving the billions of dollars away don't give a fuck about whether you or I consider Pakistan an ally. If the US is stuck with backing a corrupt government with hidden agendas, well... they chose so.
As for "supporting your enemies", I think their government tries to play off both sides. They know that you may win, or you may be forced to pull out, so they prepare for both options. They want to be secure, no matter who the victor is. You may think, of course, that it is bad when the brown people do it. And to get back to the original topic, do you think that using atomics in their country will make the government decide to back you more strongly? That it will make the people prefer you over the terrorists? If so, does your last name happen to be Tarkin?
Dr. Trainwreck wrote:And to get back to the original topic, do you think that using atomics in their country will make the government decide to back you more strongly? That it will make the people prefer you over the terrorists? If so, does your last name happen to be Tarkin?
Even if they decide to still back the USA, we'd probably see something making Arab Spring look like innocent peace march in comparison.
And they might be playing both sides, but Pakistan is still the country killing most Taliban supporters and losing most soldiers in War on Terror.
And they might be playing both sides, but Pakistan is still the country killing most Taliban supporters and losing most soldiers in War on Terror.
So, there goes my 'playing both sides' argument. Still, it means that some Americans whine about the loyalty of the people who fight their wars for them. The people who already have a country and a nation to be loyal to above all else. This makes those few Americans look like insufferably ungrateful bitches.
sn't the whole point of a neutron bomb that it doesn't create any kind of impassable barrier,
No. As far as I know, a neutron bomb is just a fission bomb using transuranic elements heavier than plutonium (such as Americanium). This reduces the critical mass of the bomb and would allow for easier deployment, such as being fired by artillery canons. I don't know about the canon thing.
If I am wrong, please free feel to correct me.
Either way, the reasons why the idea is stupid isn't just political: what happens if the political climate changes and we no longer want a border marked by an irradiated landscape? Or: won't the radioactive dust spread else where where we don't want to? And other obvious problems. Like the costs.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
And to get back to the original topic, do you think that using atomics in their country will make the government decide to back you more strongly? That it will make the people prefer you over the terrorists? If so, does your last name happen to be Tarkin?
