Slashdot Mirror
Destroying Nuclear Weapons with High-Energy Neutrinos
TheMatt writes "As reported by PhysicsWeb, physicists are proposing a "futuristic but not necessarily impossible" method of destroying nuclear weapons via high-energy neutrinos sent through the earth. Based on
current planned efforts, this 'vast extrapolation' of current technology would use 1000 TeV beams. This would require a 1000-km diameter storage ring using magnets orders-of-magnitude stronger than currently available. The cost would be around $100 million-plus and it'd use 50 GW of energy, the UK's current consumption. (And the slight problem that the process might set off the nukes, instead of just melting them...)"
And how do you lock onto the targets? If you can get a conventional radiation detector close enough, you might as well just send in the Marines to pick up the nuke. You can't use neutrinos to detect them because (1) detector efficiency is abysmal and (2) fission reactors and the sun provide a tremendous background signal.
And suppose you do somehow build an aimable neutrino beam. What happens if a rogue operator points it at a fission reactor? You're right that it almost certainly cannot ignite the pit of a bomb because the storage configuration has a low reactivity. Reactors, on the other hand, operate near unity reactivity. I don't know enough about reactor physics to say what is possible, but I'd be very worried that the neutrino beam could liberate enough unexpected heat to put the reactor in a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity regime. Boom. Like the Chernobyl disaster, but potentially much bigger.
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
There is a bad taste in our mouths from the wild anti-nuclear BS thrown about.
It all started with the film the China Syndrome.
There are over a hundred operational energy nuclear plants in the US and about 3-4 times that many research and isotope production plants in the US and about a thousand military reactors and there has been 1 problem with them since 1975.
One problem - Three Mile Island.
Burning of coal produces more radiation every year in the United States than all the hundreds of reactors put out.
In Japan there have been some problems with poor handling of fuel.
In France there have been no significant problems.
In Russia, well they don't build very smart reactor complexes sometimes now do they?
For every lie the nuclear industry and government put out there is a lie put out by the Anti-Nuclear Movement.
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
1) Only a few countries are big enough to hold such a device. They're already nuclear powers, and they're pretty responsible users thereof.
2) Because of how huge it is, it's probably not going to be near a coastal region. So you gotta bomb it or ICBM it (short range ballistic missiles aren't gonna cut it, nor is a flotilla of cargo ships with smuggled weapons. :)
3) It's a lot easier to defend a 1000km ring with anti-ballistic missiles for 15 minutes than it is to defend an entire continent. (You only need to set up your ABM tech every 100km or so around the circumference.)
4) For superpowers, the countermeasure is to build your own 1000 km neutrino ring. (And short of starting WWV, there's no way for Superpower Foo to prevent Superpower Bar from building one!) Two superpowers with such rings have effectively rendered each others' nuclear arsenals obsolete. That's effective deterrence without the sword of mutually-assured destruction hanging over everyone's head.
5) Meantime, all rogue nuclear states' base are belong to the superpowers, because rogue states don't have the land mass to ever build a countermeasure.
6) $100B isn't that pricy if you amortize it out over 10-20 years. And much like nukes, even though the weapons haven't been used in 60 years, one hell of a lot of science has been done along the way. Your MRI and PET scans are as much an offshoot of nuclear weapons research as the fission plants that provides a good chunk of your electricity without a gram of CO2 (for those that believe CO2 is a hazard).