by: Joe Dunphy

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:41:57 +0000

The claim by the Iraqi Republican Guard general about the alleged use of a neutron bomb has been examined on Wikipedia, and these claims are reported as unsubstantiated. Wikipedia asserts that there were no reports of acute radiation syndrome in the aftermath of the alleged attack on Baghdad International Airport in April 2003.
In the event of a neutron blast, the radiation, heat, and blast damage is likely to kill all living things within 500 meters, and radiation would do severe damage for at least 2 kilometers (depending on the -MX factor, which reflects how thickness, mass, and chemical structure resist to some extent the radiation damage) As an example, foxholes might only protect troops about 20-30 percent better than soldiers standing in an open field.
The last US neutron bomb (W79 Mod 0) was reportedly dismantled years ago, further making the Iraqi claim suspect. France has discontinued making neutron bombs, and China reportedly has the technology to make such weapons.
As tritium used in the neutron bombs has a half-life of 12.3 years, it is still theoretically possible to conduct a scientific examination of the alleged neutron bombing site to gather evidence.
It seems to me that this would be something more properly done by the IAEA, or similar authority, with an expertise in weapons with radioactive components. Certainly, Scott Ritter would be an excellent person to ask about such claims.
If a neutron bomb was used, even for “experimental purposes,” it would be hard to justify from a strategic military viewpoint. Such weapons were contemplated for use against Soviet conventional armor, such as T-72 tanks, where the Soviets had a large strategic advantage by the sheer number of armor that could be brought to bear against NATO forces. In Iraq, that was hardly the case, as much of Iraqi armor was destroyed or degraded in Gulf War I in 1990-1991. Even more compelling, use of neutron bombs was feared to drastically lower the threshold for nuclear retaliation (especially Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD), as it triggered a threshold for first-use of nuclear weapons, which provided justification for an opponent–at that time the Soviet Union–to legitimately reply with a large scale nuclear counter-attack, up to and including MAD. The tactical advantage of killing a few more tanks became overshadowed by the strategic disadvantage of triggering all out nuclear war, or, if you prefer, nuclear winter.
Given that Russia and China have vital strategic interests in the Black Sea, Iran, and India-Pakistan area, it seems unlikely that US generals would risk provoking a nuclear counter-strike, even if they had verbal assurances that these countries would not retaliate.
On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that the US has used phosphorous bombs in “shake and bake” artillery shellings. It may be that false claims of use of a neutron bomb might unfortunately take away some of the public outcry against the somewhat lesser war crime of using phosphorous bombs against humans.
Serious claims need to be investigated, but this one seems to have failed the first test of public scrutiny. Proceed with an appropriate level of skepticism.

Comments on: Senate Passes Iraq Withdrawal Measure; Dems Debate War

by: Joe Dunphy