Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Official Newspaper of Victoria University of Wellington Students Association. Vol 40 No. 19. August 1 1977

The Atom Bomb thats "Humane" to Property

The Atom Bomb thats "Humane" to Property

In their 22 years of existence, nuclear weapons have only been used in a war situation twice. That sort of average might get you an insurance policy, but it won't get rid of nuclear stockpiles and even then it would probably have to have an extra premium added for the recently publicised neutron bomb.

The neutron bomb was first tested in 1963 but had been shelved until recently when a request was made in the budget of the US Energy Research and Development Administration for further funds to develop it. This touched off a debate in the US Senate which resulted in approval of funds for developing the neutron bomb, after President Carter had intervened on the pro-development side.

Even for those of us who have grown accustomed to the threat of our nuclear umbrella changing to a nuclear mushroom, the advent of the neutron bomb should be enough to set off a string of nightmares.

Diagram of atomic bomb radiation zones

What is it that makes Nuclear Warfare Unlikely?

While it seems the wrong question to ask in an article stressing the likelihood of nuclear war it is vitally important to answer this question first if one is to understand the real dangers of the development of the neutron bomb.

Nuclear weapons are like all other weapons — they are made to be used [or threatened with use] in persuing the political aims of their owners. In today's world the major nuclear powers, the U.S. and the USSR, are both either seeking or holding world empires.

The US already has a worldwide empire of economic and political dependencies which it is seeking to protect from the twin threats posed by the Soviet Union and the peoples of the Third World.

The Soviet Union from its domination of Eastern Europe is seeking to expand in the same way the US expanded throughout of the world after WW2. Its' sponsorship of invasions of Angola and Zaire and its expanding and ravenous economic appetite are examples of this. The US and the Third World are the main stumbling blocks to this policy.

The competition and contention of these nuclear giants all around the world is no different from the great power rivalries before the 1st and 2nd world wars. If a war breaks out it will be of the same nature — the mutual striving for conquest of economic territory and spheres of influence.

Nuclear weapons are not easily adapted to this type of war. While they can be used to destroy the opposing military, they also have the unwelcome side-effects of destroying vast amounts of property and leaving huge tracts of territory economically worthless through lingering radiation.

The widespread use of nuclear weapons (a limited nuclear war is unlikely), would leave the victor power in possession of an economically useless wastelend. This end result, tied to the destruction inside the victor nation from the opposing sides weaponry; has made the use of nuclear weapons an unlikely option even in the event of hostilities between the superpowers.

A Victim of the Atom Bomb.

A Victim of the Atom Bomb.

The use of nuclear weapons would certainly be counter productive in an area such as western Europe where current page break weapons would destroy a massive amount of fixed assets and productive capacity in even a limited exchange.

So far nuclear weapons have solely used for blackmailing non-nuclear nations by nuclear powers and for mutual threatening of, the nuclear powers. Hundreds of instances of nuclear blackmail were revealed in a recent US study. Many people still remember the US threat to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

The NATO Deferent and Russian Armour

The troops of the superpowers are concentrated in and around Europe — if is there that any likely conflict would be fought out.

At the moment [unclear: warsaw] Pact forces are preparing for a lightning type attack into Western Europe, through West Germany, based on their superiority in conventional forces. NATO has traditionally "deterred" such an attack by the presence of a qualitatively and quantitatively superior force of tactival nuclear weapons which it could use to destroy such an attack.

But, while James Schlesinger was US Secretary of Defence in the last Nixon administration, it was noticed that these battlefield nuclear weapons would be used in a battlefield that was within NATO lines — West Germany. The dropping of these weapons on a NATO member, with the resulting immense irreparable destruction, was seen as unacceptable. The value of the tactical nuclear weapons as a "deterrent" to an invasion of Western Europe seemed to be negated.

Two 'cures' for this situation were simultaneously embarked upon. The first 'cure' was a building up of NATO's conventional forces. The second 'cure' was the development of a nuclear weapon that would serve as an effective battlefield weapon without destroying the nation they were intended to save thus bringing back credibility into the deterrent.

The latter 'cure' resulted in the neutron bomb.

What the Neutron Bomb is

Technically the neutron bomb is an extremely small hydrogen bomb. Its explosive power can be matched by some conventional non-nuclear bombs. The "beauty" of the bomb lies elsewhere — its ability to kill large numbers of people while leaving property etc. largely intact and radiation free.

Thus "it is a good battlefield weapon" as "it avoids collateral damage and does not wipe out towns or other built up areas" according to one nuclear weapons expert.

The effect of the bomb lies in the deadly stream of neutrons produced at the moment of a hydrogen blast. These will not destroy property but will penetrate protective shielding and kill people in a wide area. Many others will not die immediately but suffer from lingering ratiation sickness for months before they die.

Needless to say a bomb that is "humane to buildings" (as one ex-CIA official described it) but not "humane" to people is extremely attractive to the war planners in the US as well as property owners in [unclear: West] Germany.

Why the Neutron Bomb is so Dangerous

The neutron bomb is being developed as a warhead for the tactical Lance missile or to sit atop an artillery shell and will eventually be deployed in western Europe — if we let it.

Its danger lies in that the size of its explosion lowers the threshold of an all out nuclear conrrontation. Also, its lack of some of the adverse side-effects of normal niclear weapons makes its use more inviting in event of a confrontation situation. But the danger of limited nuclear warfare escalating to all out nuclear warfare remains the same.

The sheer hypocrisy of weapon — supposedly to defend a people-orientated political system — which aims at destroying human life without attacking captial assets deserves all the opposition it can get. But the real danger of the neutron bomb is as outlined above — the lowering of the threshold for a nuclear conflagration.

Photo of a neutron bomb

The bomb used at Hiroshima — the neutron bomb can be placed atop a 12 inch artillery shell.

On this August 5 there will be a march against the continued existence of nuclear weaponry and for a Zone of Peace in the Pacific Ocean. It needs your support.

The neutron bomb is still being developed. It is only one such development by the superpowers as part of their war preparations. Their madness threatens our environment, we must make them stop.