I have always favored building Nuetron bombs. I don't know if the U.S. has any of these weapons today. In the war against terrorism today, time is NOT on our side. Sooner or later, one of these organizations will obtain and deploy an effective WMD. We may be forced to respond with nukes. If this is the case, Nuetron bombs just may be a good choice. At least in some areas.
The Neutron bomb is a tactical nuclear weapon. The blast area is small for nuclear weapons. The weapon has such a design as to produce intensive radiation that decays rapidly. This produces a high fatality rate for those who are inside its blast area. Those who are outside of its range can safely enter the area within a short period of time. One argument against this weapon is that it is more likely to be used than the other weapons that are available. This would make the use of WMD more likely. The area impacted by these weapons is relatively small. The use of these weapons would require more of them to obtain the same overall damage. An argument for the use of this weapon is that if you do need to use weapons of mass destruction, then this has the most limited ecological impact in both the short term and long term. In addition, relatively small targets may not require ‘larger’ nuclear weapons.
We will more than likely see another world war. Human nature almost demands it. The next world war will most likely see the deployment of weapons of mass destruction. Should Neutron bombs be available? The risk of the war becoming more likely is offset by the advantages in potential limits of long term ecological damage that exclusive use of neutron bombs could realize.