Slashdot Mirror


Stimulated Gamma Decay Weapons

ExRex writes "New Scientist is reporting on a USDOD project to produce super explosives. 'An exotic kind of nuclear explosive being developed by the US Department of Defense could blur the critical distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. The work has also raised fears that weapons based on this technology could trigger the next arms race.'"

562 comments

  1. Bad news... by TopShelf · · Score: 3, Funny

    This research cannot by allowed to go forward. We all know what happens when gamma rays are used in weapons!

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    1. Re:Bad news... by KUHurdler · · Score: 1

      We all know what happens when gamma rays are used in weapons!

      They make REALLY bad/boring movies?

      --
      Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
    2. Re:Bad news... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yes, we all know what happens. A bad movie gets made that does no justice whatsoever to the original comic and several hollywood execs snort another line of coke whilst discussing what cars they are buying from the profits of the movie they managed to get people to see in the hopes that it would do justice to the orignal comic (see second sentence).

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    3. Re:Bad news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but do we know what happens when TopShelf posts an affiliate link to Amazon trying to act like he is funny and informative?

    4. Re:Bad news... by MojoMonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Damn it, man! I ran out of breath reading that. Use periods!

      --

      ----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson
    5. Re:Bad news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr Mcgee, don't make me angry, you woudn't like me when I'm angry.

  2. An even worse possibility by B+Ekim · · Score: 1

    What could happens if the robots get a hold of these weapons?

    1. Re:An even worse possibility by JCMay · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Do you have stairs in your house?

  3. Arms race indeed. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    What country is going to be able to stop the might of a vast army of Hulks once they get this gamma-process down pat?

    The only challenge is to get them to stop smashing any tank they see.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Arms race indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I for one welcome our new Gamma-Mutated-Hulk Masters

    2. Re:Arms race indeed. by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 3, Funny
      " What country is going to be able to stop the might of a vast army of Hulks once they get this gamma-process down pat?"

      I for one welcome our new Hulk over.....awww fuck it, you know how it goes.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    3. Re:Arms race indeed. by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      And thus a clique is born, brought up from infancy by a single catch phase. But as it reaches maturity it begins to develop the potential to spawn.

    4. Re:Arms race indeed. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I for one welcome our new Gamma-Mutated-Hulk Masters"

      I, for one, welcome a new Simpsons quote to wear out.

    5. Re:Arms race indeed. by r00zky · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our newly born cliche...

      --
      I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
    6. Re:Arms race indeed. by The_dev0 · · Score: 1, Funny

      We have no option but to create a race of Jennifer Connellys. I'll take 3 please.

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
    7. Re:Arms race indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "I, for one, welcome a new Simpsons quote to wear out."

      Good, because its a futurama quote"

    8. Re:Arms race indeed. by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      No, Simpsons. It's from the one where Homer goes into space. He spills the chips, starts eating them to the Blue Danube, crashes into the ant farm, Kent Brockman cuts to the camera on the shuttle, there's ants in the camera, so he welcomes our new giant space-ant masters.

    9. Re:Arms race indeed. by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      I swear I heard the I for one welcome our new robot masters on animatrix, damn I'll have to watch it again.

  4. Wow... by CoolVibe · · Score: 2, Funny
    Does that mean that the army will be equipped with mini nukes like in "Starship Troopers"?

    Gosh...

    1. Re:Wow... by saskwach · · Score: 5, Informative
      Funny, I was just reading "Starship Troopers" last night...but no, there are bans on that:
      In the 1950s, the US backed away from developing nuclear mini-weapons such as the "Davy Crockett" nuclear bazooka that delivered an explosive punch of 18 tonnes of TNT. These weapons blurred the divide between the explosive power of nuclear and conventional weapons, and the government feared that military commanders would be more likely to use nuclear weapons that had a similar effect on the battlefield to conventional weapons.
      That's what you're thinking of...this is not actually a nuke.
    2. Re:Wow... by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      They had them in the 1950's -- the article says they "backed away" from the technology because they figured a loose-cannon field marshall would go a little off his nut and start throwing around mini-nuke shells (which of course, was probably totally true).

      But, with this new stuff, I guess it won't be too long before we get a BFG-9000!!! Cool...

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    3. Re:Wow... by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Informative

      The "Davy Crockett" is more accurately described as a portable recoilless rifle launched nuke. It's about the same size as a more modern TOW setup, can go on a tripod. It probably took 4 or 5 guys to carry all the stuff on foot, so it's not really a bazooka (an anti-tank weapon).

      It had a "dial a yield" warhead from 10 to 250(1) Tons of TNT. The higher settings would cause almost certain death to the launch crew as the lethal radiation kill zone was much farther than the maximum range of even the biggest launcher (2 miles or so).

      One of the new thingies or an old Davy Crockett might be a good device to wipe out a bunch of tanks out in a desert, but it's still a friggin huge weapon compared to the precision stuff used nowdays. (I doubt any army will be dumb enough to go head-to-head against the US Army in desert tank battle for a looonngg time. Even the Iraqis didn't try it a second time.)

      Here's some links with pictures:
      http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nucle ar_device)

      http://www.guntruck.com/DavyCrockett.html

    4. Re:Wow... by Xcruciate · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gotta love Dial a Yield. I believe most of our current nuclear weopons have that feature. I wonder if it goes to "11"?

      --
      It's like "looking busy" at your employment - it's actually easier to do real work than to fake it. - bmo
    5. Re:Wow... by Xcruciate · · Score: 1

      sp: weapons...my bad

      --
      It's like "looking busy" at your employment - it's actually easier to do real work than to fake it. - bmo
    6. Re:Wow... by pyr0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he might go crazy because of the evil communist plot to take us all over through fluoride in our drinking water...

    7. Re:Wow... by fenix+down · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, they did contaminate our precious bodily fluids. That'd make anybody a little crazy.

    8. Re:Wow... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1
      (I doubt any army will be dumb enough to go head-to-head against the US Army in desert tank battle for a looonngg time. Even the Iraqis didn't try it a second time.)
      Actually they did. They sent a huge column of tanks and other armored support south from Baghdad to attack US positions. A sandstorm was covering much of their progress. As soon as it cleared, the column was promptly bombarded by B-52s and other assorted bombers. Needless to say, the column did not reach its target, instead retreating back home at about 10% its original size.
  5. GASERs.... by Jonsey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That'll be a hard name to pull by the committees. GASERS or Gamma ray Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation (I may have those last two wrong).

    So we're building gamma-ray shooting guns... Like lasers, but higher energy, and thus, with more chances of cell mutation & general badness. I'll call 'em nuclear weapons for now, and maybe later, only inhumane.

    --
    I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
    1. Re:GASERs.... by AgentPhunk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but all I want to know is if I can get them mounted on the heads of a few sharks I have.

    2. Re:GASERs.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, I'm protected by Gay-dar

    3. Re:GASERs.... by Xentax · · Score: 1

      Well, the acronym I've generally seen used (esp. in Sci-Fi e.g. David Weber) is GRASER.

      And given that they have multi-year fallout effects within the target area, I'd definitely classify them as much "nuclear" weapons as dirty bombs -- in short, any weapon with non-trivial radioactive fallout.

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    4. Re:GASERs.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, Weber's Graser are graviton-based, not gamma ray. Gamma ray's are just very highly energetic photons (i.e. light).

    5. Re:GASERs.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we should call it Gamma Amplication Detection And Ranging.

    6. Re:GASERs.... by Xentax · · Score: 1

      You sure? I coulda sworn they were Gamma Ray (outside of Sci-Fi, I'd heard them called that, along with a MASER term for Microwave-based technology).

      Oh well.

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    7. Re:GASERs.... by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Incorrect, according to the Honorverse web encyclopedia. You're probably thinking of grav lances or the fact that grasers in the Honorverse use gravity lenses for focus and aiming. GRASERs are in fact weapons based on Gamma Rays Amplified by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. This is done with nuclear stimulation because nothing else can provide the energy to stimulate the emission of gamma rays. Saying gamma rays are "just very highly energetic photons" is like say that that supersonic craft are "just very fast planes." There are engineering problems that require vastly different approaches that common, less extreme implementations of the basic ideas (lasers or planes).

      By the way, "microwave lasers" are usually called MASERs. The L in LASER only refers to visible light.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    8. Re:GASERs.... by Wandering+Idiot · · Score: 1

      Don't be stupid. Nuclear weapons involve atomic nuclei being either joined or split. This Gamma-laser, or whatever it is (article appears to be slashdotted) doesn't appear to be a "nuclear" weapon any more than dirty bombs are. Call it a radioactive weapon if you will, but don't go corrupting the language any more than it already is just because you want to use a word that sounds scary.

    9. Re:GASERs.... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      By the way, "microwave lasers" are usually called MASERs. The L in LASER only refers to visible light.

      Visible to superhumans, maybe. What about infrared, ultraviolet, and x-ray lasers?

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    10. Re:GASERs.... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Visible to superhumans, maybe. What about infrared, ultraviolet, and x-ray lasers?

      Valid point.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    11. Re:GASERs.... by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Nuclear is "pertaining to an atomic nucleus". If you want to be anal you shouldn't really even use that, it's like when they used to call them atom bombs. Technically the bomb involves both atoms and their nuclei, but the energy comes from either a fission or a fusion reaction. You should call them fission weapons or fusion weapons. These are isomer decay weapons. Nuclear's a good name for all three, since in practice, the effects are basically the same. There's an unexpectedly big boom for the size of the bomb, there's tiny things piercing your delicate DNA, you don't wanna go there without a suit afterwards. The rest of us like to use language to convey information like that.

  6. err.. by kmak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    could blur the critical distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons

    Because you know, it's not how many people died, it's the weapons used!

    Gosh.

    --

    I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.
    1. Re:err.. by JohnsonJohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because you know, it's not how many people died, it's the weapons used!

      No, it's whether the collateral damage makes the battlefield useless afterwards. Little chunks of gamma emitters with a 31 year half life lying all over the place means whoever is left around has to deal with the consequences of a fight they may have had no part in, or may not even remember what the conflict was all about to begin with.

      It seems that it will be the case that the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Chinese etc. left beautiful ruins and philosophy, and Anglo-American civilization will leave little poison pills for future archeologists to uncover.

    2. Re:err.. by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 3, Funny

      With a half-life of only 31 years, the archeologists would have to work fast.

    3. Re:err.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also tended to salt the earth of their enemies from time to time. Back then, that was one heck of a WMD.

    4. Re:err.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is great for the future of the U.S... All we have to do is fight all over the world and leave this crap everywhere.... Basically everyone else will be poisoned except US...

      Thats a really bad idea. We are doing it in other forms any way.

    5. Re:err.. by _Splat · · Score: 1

      A radioactive element is generally considered safe only after 10 half-lives have elapsed (Assuming is doesn't decay to something else radioactive, which complicates things). The half-life is the amount of time it takes for half the element to decay. It says nothing about safety.

      --
      -Splat
    6. Re:err.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Romans left beautiful philosophy? I take it you are unfamiliar with Roman "philosophy" :)

    7. Re:err.. by maetenloch · · Score: 1

      It seems that it will be the case that the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Chinese etc. left beautiful ruins and philosophy, and Anglo-American civilization will leave little poison pills for future archeologists to uncover.

      Cause it's not like the Chinese, Russians, French, Indians, Pakistanis, Israelis, or North Koreans have nuclear weapons or anything. Oh wait...

    8. Re:err.. by rsborg · · Score: 1
      Cause it's not like the Chinese, Russians, French, Indians, Pakistanis, Israelis, or North Koreans have nuclear weapons or anything. Oh wait...

      Cuase it's not like the U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war, right?

      Oh wait, they are [google cache].

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    9. Re:err.. by JesseL · · Score: 1

      Given the number of variables involved, that rule of thumb is so useless it's absurd. If somthing has a very long half-life it probably isn't too dangerous to start with. If it has a very short half-life it may still be very dangerous even when only .09765625% (the result of 10 half-lives going by) remains. Then there is the biggest factor of how much material did you start with?

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    10. Re:err.. by JohnsonJohnson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Somewhat, and no I wouldn't consider most of it worthwhile but as far as practical guidance goes Cicero and Seneca are far more worthwhile than Plato.

      This being Slashdot I was writing in a very imprecise manner, hence equating the achievements of all civilizations in all the areas mentioned. Of course some civilations were better than others in the areas of building, philosophy, art etc.

    11. Re:err.. by JohnsonJohnson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The apocryphal nuclear suitcase bomb notwithstanding, it is very difficult to make nuclear weapons small enough for tactical use. To save you from greater chance of carpal tunnel syndrome, I am aware of nuclear artillery shells, but they only fit the largest of howitzers. On the other hand, weapons based on this technology could conceivably be deployed at the squad level in a manner similar to an RPG or bazooka. It makes it much harder to control its use when deployed in such fashion. With standing armies of hundreds of thousands of soldiers the fallout from such a weapon used in combat would probably litter the countryside in a manner similar to land mines in such now forgotten conflicts (by most in the Western world) as the Namibian war for independence from South Africa.

      To join in with the amoral, technophilic point of view preferred in this forum. From a technical point of view the problem with fallout seems to be related to the rate at which the halfnium explodes compared to the rate at which its volume is exposed to an x-ray source. Thus it seems that forming the halfnium in a thin shell around, and surrounded by, an x-ray source should mitigate fallout. However, I can't think to too many switchable x-ray sources other than a fission reaction which off course will cause its own problems...

    12. Re:err.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would guess you have a sphere of hafnium which you crush into a dense ball with the help of chemical explosives - with a high enough density, the normal gamma emittions would trigger a chain reaction. Would work the same way as neutrons in a fission bomb.

    13. Re:err.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the original author was being sensationalistic by saying anglo-american, but it were the US and the UK (and the USSR) that invaded Japan during WWII, a victim of two nuclear bombs.

      The US bombed about 30 nations in the past 15 years. That's impressive.

    14. Re:err.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      reminds me of the anime Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind .

    15. Re:err.. by maetenloch · · Score: 1

      Cuase it's not like the U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war, right?

      The U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Today both cities have been rebuilt and have little or no residual nuclear contamination. I've actually been to Nagasaki, and other than the monuments and museums, you would never guess that it was obliterated in a nuclear blast less than 60 years ago. I would hardly call these little poison pills.

      If future archeologists do find areas comtaminated by weapons, it will far more likely to be the results of nuclear exchanges in Asia due to ongoing ethnic conflicts than anything due to Anglo-American civilization.

    16. Re:err.. by replicant108 · · Score: 1

      If you like Cicero and Seneca, I recommend Epictetus.

      He was considered to be among the finest of the Stoic philosophers.

    17. Re:err.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear Weapons leave radiation that has a habit of sticking around for hundreds of thousands of years. How many people dying of cancer do you want? We're talking the whole ecosystem being slowly contaminated by radioactive waste and poisons such as Agent Orange and DU, that will stick around for half a billion years, effecting billions of people in the years to come. We and our children will be breathing that dust in for the rest of your lives and suffering untold diseases as a consequence. Human kind will poison itself to extinction at this rate in 20 years.

      God bless America, you make the best weapons but can't seem to clean up after yourselves.

    18. Re:err.. by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      There was a lot of very interesting phylosophy that came out of Roman Egypt.

      Heraclitus comes to mind....

      Even some more mainstream Romans (Plotinus).

      Of course, most of this was based on Greek philosophy but it is still interesting and in many ways beautiful.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    19. Re:err.. by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "It seems that it will be the case that the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Chinese etc. left beautiful ruins and philosophy,"

      You mean like the beautiful ruins the Romans left us in Carthage? Oh, wait...

      The ability for an army to raze a city is not something unique to the past century. Or the past millenium, for that matter. The "beautiful ruins and philosophy" you speak of are only there because they were built by the winning side. Note that you said:
      • "Greeks" instead of "Iranians"
      • "Romans" instead of "Lybians"
      • "Egyptians" instead of "Sudanese"
      And the only reason I can't think of somebody the Middle Kingdom raped/pillaged/slaughtered off of the top of my head is that the schools I attended had a "Western" bias.
    20. Re:err.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You would never guess that it was obliterated in a nuclear blast less than 60 years ago. I would hardly call these little poison pills."

      It's still causing birth defects, fuckwit. Just like Agent Orange in Vietnam. Don't tell me "The trees have grown back and actually in real terms its a lot prettier than before".

      Now go and do some proper research, you under-educated, ignorant peasant.

    21. Re:err.. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      And Japan was the first and only country to use biological weapons in a war. What's your point?

    22. Re:err.. by TGK · · Score: 1

      Errr... not quite true.

      Bioweapons have been used extensively throughout modern warfare.

      They were used on both sides of the Crusades as well as other wars in mainland Asia starting just after the fall of Rome. Namely, the corpses of plague victims were catapulted into and out of beseiged cities (obviously more effective as a seige weapon than as a seige breaker) in the hopes of starting a plague epidemic amongst the opposing army.

      Cortez inadventantly used Smallpox to wipe out the overwhelming majority of the Aztec civilization. This was a major factor in his victories in the new world.

      Smallpox was used again by the United States against Native American populations. The US gave blankets used previously by smallpox victims to native tribes currently resisting westward expansion.

      The Soviets used various bioweapons against the Germans in WWII, noteably Tulmaria and other non-fatal but nonetheless debilitating diseases.

      Finaly, Ricin has been used extensively by the KGB and other intelegence organizations to carry out assinations. More than one British diplomat/operative has fallen victim to a tiny pellet of Ricin.

      Yes, the Japanese did use bio-weapons against the Chinese in WWII, they did so with a fair degree of success, but nothing like the genocidal sweep of Smallpox through the new world shortly after European contact.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    23. Re:err.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did they outlaw the neutron bomb then?

    24. Re:err.. by RayBender · · Score: 1

      Little chunks of gamma emitters with a 31 year half life lying all over the place means whoever is left around has to deal with the consequences of a fight they may have had no part in, or may not even remember what the conflict was all about to begin with.

      Keep in mind that you could go around an decontaminate the area by irradiating it with X-rays, the same way that you got the hafnium to decay originally.

      However, after searching around I found that the experiment could not be repeated by others. So I guess this idea needs to go back to the drawing board. Bummer.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    25. Re:err.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, it's not causing birth defects. In fact, it hasn't caused any increase in birth defects ever, even in the years immediately following the explosion.

      Google ("hiroshima birth defects") gives a fairly impressive list of results. This seems to give a relatively unbiased report, for example.

      Also, Agent Orange itself did not cause the cancer and birth defects you're talking about, it was actually a dioxin contaminant from the manufacturing process.

      Maybe you should do some research before you prove yourself an under-educated, ignorant asshole.

    26. Re:err.. by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      However, I can't think to too many switchable x-ray sources other than a fission reaction which off course will cause its own problems...

      A Z-pinch is pretty good. You couldn't make a pistol with one, but you could make a rifle...

      Basically you take a ring of fine wires, put enough amperage through them to vaporize them, and when the magnetic field pulse the plasma streamers together, they emit in higher and higher wavelengths.

      http://plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il/ZP/

      The only problem is repeatability... you basically need a new z-pinch for every shot. But that's no big deal... it is very switchable...

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    27. Re:err.. by andrewski · · Score: 1

      Wow, you sure are informed. Except about nuclear suitcase bombs, which do exist. They were deployed from the 60's to the late 80's in the US army.

      The Medium Atomic Demolition Munition is a small, portable nuke. Even better, the W54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition is much smaller and lighter, and is easily classified as a suitcase nuclear weapon.

      Hardly apocryphal, these units were deployed by the Army from the 60's until 1988.

  7. Gamma Radiation makes the Hulk mad! by ACK!! · · Score: 1

    Hulk Smash puny scientists and the DOD!!

    Arrgh!! Hulk hate gamma decay makes hulk look old and grey!

    --
    ACK /ak/ interj. 2. [from the comic strip "Bloom County"] An exclamation of surprised disgust, esp. i
  8. Just great... by ajiva · · Score: 1

    That's just great, now we can destroy our world *another* 1,000,000 times over!

  9. US military pioneers death ray bomb... by in7ane · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dr. Evil not available for comment.

    However, this will soon be appearing in an online marketplace near you: http://www.villainsupply.com/superweapons.html

    1. Re:US military pioneers death ray bomb... by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      They don't have as good prices and selection as this place.

      Plus, their staff is really knowledgeable and ready to help you plan everything you need for your next brutal overthrow attempt.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    2. Re:US military pioneers death ray bomb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Between this and ill-tempered rabbit-humans, he's not saying a lot.

      Slashdot's tagline should be "Read about these breakthroughs and more in the New England Journal of Evil Medicine."

  10. Is this realy a good idea? by darkstar949 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My basic question concerning this is two-fold, is this realy needed, and if it is created will we be able to control the techology. With world events the way they are now it seems like one of the last things that we end is a small high yeild weapon that can fall into the worng hands. At least with nuclear weapons there are some means of detecting their presence, but it seems that these weapons will not have the same signature.

    1. Re:Is this realy a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many US Nukes have fallen into the wrong hands before? I couldn't find info on any.

      The fact that these weapons, that haven't been designed yet, might be smaller than conventional nukes has nothing to do with it. These devices will still be trackable, they will probably be using a very specific type of nuclear fuel and of course will be very well protected.

      If you're question was to elude to the fact that this announcement, the media attention, draws other countries to the idea of developing new nuclear weapons than you are absolutely right. This is not setting a good example militarily. But overall the scientific value of this research seems really promising and validates completely its development.

    2. Re:Is this realy a good idea? by zx75 · · Score: 1

      Those answers are not difficult to provide :
      No, it probably isn't a good idea to keep developing new superweapons. Why? Think massive destruction.
      Although the flip side is that it advances knowledge, and science is a good thing.

      Your other answer is also No, it will be impossible to keep it from falling into the hands of others. Other than destroying all record of the technology and the people who built it (even then!) there will be others ambitious enough and with the know-how to recreate it, or steal it.

      And that isn't a bad thing, although from your position you likely don't see it this way, but I think that only one nation holding all the power, all the cards, and without anyone to oppose them is dangerous.
      The scary part is not one rogue group getting their hands on a single bomb, its the nation that hoards them and could destroy the world because of that one group that holds a single bomb.
      I fear the US and its ambitions more than any single terrorist group.

      --
      This is not a sig.
    3. Re:Is this realy a good idea? by evilWurst · · Score: 1

      No, we would not really be able to control the technology. We can't keep small amounts of traditional nuclear material safe right now. However, since there's no minimum amount of this new material you'd need before you could make a bomb with it, it wouldn't take much.

      That's both positive, and negative. Positive: there's no legit way to make it, so you don't need to worry about every nuclear reactor being a potential weapons plant. Negative: since this stuff is so powerful, if there's no treaty keeping us from developing it, its use will be widespread. If it gets down to being used in smaller explosives like tank shells, there's no way we'll be able to keep some from being stolen. Too easy for some low-level military type bribed for a few million to do an inside job.

      Since the article says a gram of this stuff is worth 50 kilograms of TNT... well... that means a single zealot with a special vest can take out a bridge, highway, port facility, or city block.

      On the upshot, I don't think we'll make many - maybe a dozen just to say we have them. There's very little threat of an arms race breaking out soon, because precious few countries can build and operate the particle accelerator to make the stuff - those countries already have real nukes anyway. At least, not for the next decade or two.

    4. Re:Is this realy a good idea? by startled · · Score: 1

      "How many US Nukes have fallen into the wrong hands before?"

      That's like asking how many Smith and Wessons have fallen into the wrong hands. Who cares? How many guns have fallen into the wrong hands is a better question.

      After we make them, other countries will inevitably develop/steal the technology.

    5. Re:Is this realy a good idea? by confused+one · · Score: 1
      Right now, it's not likely that anyone will be able to get their hands on it.

      The problem is, like with any technology, it will eventually become something that anyone with resources could make. Eventaully it will become possible for Bob to build a nuclear weapon in his back yard, because he can order all the parts and materials through online catalogs.

    6. Re:Is this realy a good idea? by mikerich · · Score: 1
      My basic question concerning this is two-fold, is this realy needed, and if it is created will we be able to control the techology. With world events the way they are now it seems like one of the last things that we end is a small high yeild weapon that can fall into the worng hands. At least with nuclear weapons there are some means of detecting their presence, but it seems that these weapons will not have the same signature.

      If the second procedure mentioned of bombarding hafnium by high energy photons is a goer, I can't see how the US could hope to control the technology.

      This stuff would be the proliferator's dream.

      But I might be buying some hafnium futures.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    7. Re:Is this realy a good idea? by mikerich · · Score: 1
      How many US Nukes have fallen into the wrong hands before? I couldn't find info on any.

      That's not the question. The technology and information will leak. The Manhattan Project produced the first plutonium bomb in 1945. The Soviet Union exploded Joe 1, a carbon-copy of Trinity in 1949, the United Kingdom exploded Hurricane, its own copy in 1953. The Chinese almost certainly had Soviet help in designing their first bomb. None of them used stolen American material - just ideas that had been circulating.in the scientific press, seeded with the results of espionage.

      Nor can the US hope to hold the entire stock of raw materials - deposits lie all over the World. In the post Manhattan era, the US and the UK tried to hoard the global supplies of uranium - they failed.

      If these weapons are possible they will be made, it is up to us to decide if they should be controlled or not. If we are willing, we could start arms negotiations to make these weapons illegal even before they were produced. It's been done in the past. But I don't think the current American administration believes in international treaties. Which means we might be about to allow another genie out of the bottle.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    8. Re:Is this realy a good idea? by Bobzibub · · Score: 1

      I'd say that *all* US Nukes have fallen into the wrong hands.

      -B

  11. Oh shit. by Pxtl · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I repeat: Oh shit.

    Why did this have to be invented with W in office? He's the first post cold-war president to actually be interested in nuclear weapons development.

    1. Re:Oh shit. by Xentax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right. I'm sure the President himself told the DOD to go spend money on more nuclear weapons.

      Give it a rest.

      The military is (and rightfully should be) interested in weaponry that focuses on several key factors, in roughly prioritized order from most to least important:
      1) Damage potential (military reasons)
      2) Minimizing risk to friendly forces and the delivery systems (political reasons)
      3) Accuracy and Precision (cost and political/humane reasons)
      4) Cost

      This new weapon is a breakthrough in the #1 department, and may be a better technology in every category except for the "accuracy" category, due to the fallout factor. If they can figure out how to maximize the energy release (analagous to how complete the combustion is in a conventional fuel-air combustion), they may be able to bring this factor down to levels that equate it with (for example) using depleted uranium ammunition and armor.

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    2. Re:Oh shit. by saskwach · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not only that, but I think most people have been disillusioned as to the purpose of bigger better weapons. When nuclear weapons were being developed, it was to create something that would make future warfare impossible (same with the machine gun) but we know how that turned out. Nuclear weapons technology also had applications in the private sector and may yet solve the global power problem (fusion). Meanwhile, this thing seems to be purely for killing:
      But the development of a new weapon that spans the gap between the explosive power of nuclear and conventional weapons would remove this restraint, giving commanders a way of increasing the amount of force they can use in a series of small steps.
      Why am I paying for the development of a whole new type of weapon when I can't afford school because of the resession? The cold war is over already, and massive defense spending is what caused this deficit mess we're in now...sorry for the end rant, but I'm kind of pissed.
    3. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did this have to be invented with W in office? He's the first post cold-war president to actually be interested in nuclear weapons development.

      Oh please keep your political ramblings to yourself. Do you honestly think that ALL research into nuclear and "sub-nuclear" weapons stopped after the cold war and suddenly started up again when GW took office? Even from a practical standpoint, if you had bothered to RTFA, then you would have read that there still years away from making the thing practical, by then GW will be long gone. And I guarantee whoever makes it into office in his place, rep or demo, that this research will continue.

      Insightful, yeah right.

    4. Re:Oh shit. by anzha · · Score: 1

      He's the first post cold-war president to actually be interested in nuclear weapons development.

      I think your sample size is a wee bit small as yet. Wait for the next couple. Hopefully we'll ahve a new one next year.

      However, back to the weapons, I can see the military types pitching this as something other than a nuke. Exotic High Energy Explosive or something, yeah, but not a nuke.

      Actually, I have to wonder how much radioactive material is left. If 1 gram is the equivalent of 50 kg of TNT, then 20g is all that's needed for a 2000 lbs bomb equivalent. 20g is a lot less than amount of radioactive material left in even depleted uranium shells.

      Interestingly, to get a std nuke size (200kt nominal yield), you "only" need 4kg. If they are saying that the cost per kilo is 'thousands' of dollars, depending on the cost of the rest of the apparatus, this could be as cheap as $100k for a strategic nuke yield equivalent.

      Wow. That's impressive. That's Holy Shit Impressive.

      Do we have any chemists here that can talk about the toxicity of hafnium? Or is it so rare that its simply not been studied?

      --
      Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    5. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, I think it's fair to assume the President might have "had something to do" with the US pulling out of the non-proliferation treaties that had previously prevented this kind of research.

      Essentially, the US military is replying to an "Add 3 inches to your penis" spam. It's not enough that they've got the biggest one in the global circle jerk, now they want it to be even bigger.... and they want everyone else to know it.

    6. Re:Oh shit. by saskwach · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      It's not that W told them to do it, it's that there's a war-mongering maniac (toned up for slashdot) in office and a new toy's just been discovered. Anyone I personally would have voted for would make sure that either A: this disappears or B: nobody ever uses it -- because arms races lead to arms surplusses and that is the stuff that gets sold to terrorists. But then again, if someone I had voted for were in office, the defense budget would have gotten slashed in favor of better education/health care.

    7. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laying aside whether the weapon is moral or immoral, I assume the poster did not imply W requested the weapons to be made, but rather that the president's job of keeping the military under control would not, in this case, include W actually halting this program.

    8. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That an economically illiterate comment.

      Deficits are cause by expensive entitlements. The Democrat party has enslaved it's members over entitlements. It's time to leave the Democrat plantation.

    9. Re:Oh shit. by Xentax · · Score: 1

      In that little place called Theory, this might actually work.

      But, it doesn't work that way in reality. The article mentioned this program started as a way to *store* energy, not as a weapon. I think it's safe to say a great many weapons programs start out as something that's not necessarily military in nature, and many end up having non-military uses or spin-offs (like the entire space program).

      Very little (if any) science is inherently wrong or evil (IMHO) -- it's all a question of how it's applied.

      I agree that this is not necessarily a technology we should look into putting into active deployment. But identifying the scope and nature of the technology is pretty important, since (now that the cat's out of the bag, a largely inevitable event) someone will undoubtedly be working on it as well, someone perhaps with perhaps little or no scruples about using it.

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    10. Re:Oh shit. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      This is why the founders of the United States wisely put the military under control of the civilian leadership. They knew that the military attracts pinheads who would think that a four-point list covering the technical capabilities of a weapon answers any questions about whether it should actually be deployed.

      Unfortunately, the weakness in our system of checks and balances is that it assumes that the civilian leadership is capable of performing its oversight role. One of the duties of every president is to filter out the most dangerous proposals from the various warmongers under his command. I don't see too much of that happening lately.

    11. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love that we always talk about if others will have scruples when they develop WMD--we being the only country that has ever actually USED a nuclear device. Against civilians to boot. And yes, Saddam used gas against a rebellion. Our government gassed thousands of children with DDT and other pesticides in the 50s. I mean, since when has truancy equalled rebellion?

    12. Re:Oh shit. by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, war-mongering moron I think. Hopefully the american voters can get rid of this twit the next time an election rolls around. For all of Clinton's inability to keep it in his pants, he was a helluva good president.

      Regardless, anyone who THINKS that a nuclear/radiation-based weapon won't bring down the wrath of the entire world upon the country that uses it is sadly deluded.

      All it will take is some pictures/video of children/civillians dead/radiation burned to cause a uproar of impeachment level. People just won't stand for that.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    13. Re:Oh shit. by pz · · Score: 1

      This new weapon is a breakthrough in the #1 department, and may be a better technology in every category except for the "accuracy" category, due to the fallout factor.

      Not mentioned by the article is that all of the energy-storage elements they described (hafnium, niobium, etc.) are pretty serious chemical poisons, and therefore the radioactive fallout (from leftover material of incomplete explosions) is not the only long-term threat at a deployment site. Also, gamma rays are particularily penetrating making it more difficult to target a limited volume -- unlike an accurately deployed conventional explosion which we've all seen can destroy one building while leaving the next unscathed, the gamma ray exposure would go down smoothly with distance, just like a traditional nuclear device, leading to radiation sickness, leukemias, and so forth at varying radii from the explosion site, also just like a traditional nuclear device.

      I've read someone posit (forget where now) that nuclear devices are mostly obsolete for modern warfare, given that we have the ability to so accurately place a conventional weapon thanks to things like GPS-guided bombs. The gist of the argument runs: Want to topple a government, and know which room the head of state happens to be sleeping in? Fly a bomb in through the window.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    14. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Well, war-mongering moron I think."

      You don't think, because he is not one. He's more of a peacemonger.

      "Hopefully the american voters can get rid of this twit the next time an election rolls around."

      Looks like the voters are too smart for that: the president remains popular.

      "For all of Clinton's inability to keep it in his pants, he was a helluva good president."

      He was one awful President. The Paula Jones thing was the least of it.

    15. Re:Oh shit. by avandesande · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, let north korea or pakistan develop it. Just because we don't pursue something doesn't mean it wont get created. You think the world revolves around the US?

      BTW what would your buddy al whore have done after 911? He would of sent a focus group to afghanistan to help Osama find his inner child.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    16. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the defense budget would have gotten slashed in favor of better education/health care."

      Just what we need, more spending on government schools. I guess $12,000 per student each year isn't enough. I am sure more money will help.

    17. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "massive defense spending is what caused this deficit mess we're in now"

      Military spending is 40% lower then it was 20 years ago. Maybe it is the fact that we pay4x as much on welfare for people to sit at home watching talk shows and pumping out babies.

    18. Re:Oh shit. by Xentax · · Score: 1

      What a classicly misleading position. But I'll bite anyway.

      We used DDT before we knew what sort of damage it could cause to the environment and people and animals within it. We stopped when we found out. Period.

      The use of nuclear weapons in WW2 is definitely a gray area -- there are arguments that it lowered the total loss of life of the war (and counter-arguments that Japan would have folded anyway). Of course, as you said, that's Japanese civilian casualties to prevent -- well, American military and Japanese military and civilian casualties.

      But, more importantly, it was to end the single most total worldwide war in human history. Using them in that situation was a tough call, but it's obviously not a choice for anything less serious. You won't find public support for their use in an Afghanistan or Iraq conflict.

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    19. Re:Oh shit. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2, Troll

      " But then again, if someone I had voted for were in office, the defense budget would have gotten slashed in favor of better education/health care."

      I shared your PoV before 9-11.

    20. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does this have to do with my comment?
      I was merely pointing out the misleading rhetoric of the statement:
      "Right. I'm sure the President himself told the DOD to go spend money on more nuclear weapons."

      Which was highly unlikely to have been what the parent poster was concerned about.

      Personally, I think it is a cool technology. Just wish it wasn't in military hands, seems like it'd have lots of civilian applications.

    21. Re:Oh shit. by Talinom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll bite.

      Karma burn in process. I have some to spare. Bite me.

      Absolutly correct. We should have turned our backs on nuclear technology and hoped nobody would build any. After all, if we can keep it secret it won't ever be discovered.

      To bring it down to your level, do you like security through obscurity (Microsoft) or letting everyone know what is going on (Linux).

      If you let the cat out of the bag people know that it is possible AND that you are going to be the first one on the block to have it. If you keep it secret or bury it someone else will just come along and develop it in secret.

      Karma Burn ends.

      This is a simple case of them strategically releasing information at a time when it will better them. E.G. The SR-71 Blackbird and the F-177A Stealth Fighter were created MANY years before the news knew about them. We saw them have a starring role in Desert Storm Part I. The question that went through my head was "If they had that 10 years ago, what do they have NOW?"

      Move along as this isn't news. It is a strategic news release.

      --
      "Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
    22. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because if we cut them off unceremoniously the first thing they'll do is go to McDonalds to get a job instead of, oh, say, rob your house. Robbing your house will land them in jail. Then, instead of just paying for their welfare check, you also get to pay for the security guards and the upkeep of the jail they're in.

      Perhaps if you put more thought into this problem, instead of just sniping, you'd see that the real answer probably lies somewhere between "fund them for life" and "cut off the bums" but I guess you're not the type of person that can see anything but black and white.

    23. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move to god damn France, eat stinky cheese and die you worthless mother fucking communist. I hope you die in real life.

    24. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We used DDT before we knew what sort of damage it could cause to the environment and people and animals within it. We stopped when we found out. Period.
      Utterly wrong. We used DDT safely and reasonably before some idiots tried the stupid idea of putting tons of it on every agricultural field year after year, after which kneejerk hippie idiots banned it for every purpose. Lots of countries still use it for mosquito control, to enormous benefit, and with minimal side effects. It, or a close chemical relative, will almost certainly resume use in the US in the near future to combat the West Nile virus and the probable recurrence of malaria.
      The use of nuclear weapons in WW2 is definitely a gray area...
      Again, utterly wrong. Everywhere we had to conquer the Japs, they fought to the last man, never surrendering. They assisted their women and children to commit suicide (i.e., murdered them) rather than lose face in surrender. The emperor's surrender was nearly undone at the last minute by an attempted military coup undertaken by men who wanted to keep fighting. The evidence is unambiguous that the only alternative to nuclear surrender was a bloodbath the likes of which had never been seen before, and equally unambiguous that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were barely enough, and that in retrospect the US should have waited until it had more, larger nukes.
    25. Re:Oh shit. by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Clinton did consider pre-emptive strikes against North Korea so he's not exactly a peace activist.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    26. Re:Oh shit. by Murphy(c) · · Score: 1

      I shared your PoV before 9-11.

      I still share his point of view now.

      Maybe it hasn't been really clear to everyone, but no WMD, ballisitic missile defense (AKA star wars), stimulated Gamma Weapon, Joint strike figther with uber laser onboard, would have prevented, 9-11.

      Anyone still beleiving that need a good wack of reality in the face, and a couple of box cutters.

      Murphy(c)

    27. Re:Oh shit. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "Maybe it hasn't been really clear to everyone, but no WMD, ballisitic missile defense (AKA star wars), stimulated Gamma Weapon, Joint strike figther with uber laser onboard, would have prevented, 9-11."

      Tell that to anybody that's left of the Taliban.

    28. Re:Oh shit. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      It made planes extremely hard to hijack and use as weapons.

    29. Re:Oh shit. by mboots · · Score: 1

      And your new PoV could cause more 9-11's.

    30. Re:Oh shit. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      My new PoV could also cause me to wash my car.

    31. Re:Oh shit. by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Troll?!

      What good is education and health care if extremists can come in and unravel it all?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    32. Re:Oh shit. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The evidence is unambiguous that the only alternative to nuclear surrender was a bloodbath the likes of which had never been seen before, and equally unambiguous that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were barely enough,

      Oh please. The Japanese had already tried to surrender conditionally before we dropped the bombs. The U.S. would not accept anything but unconditional surrender. So how exactly was the bomb necessary? How did using it save lives? Here's an idea: By accepting surrender, we could have saved all the lives we saved by using the bomb and all the lives we ended by using the bomb! Best of both worlds!

      Look. Japan had no navy and no airforce at this point. They were beaten. Eisenhower and the Joint Chiefs all believed that both the bomb and invasion were unnecessary. They believed we could force unconditional surrender without them. It would have been even easier to just accept the offered surrender, but hey! Even the war hawks of the day don't think that.

      But it sure does make it nice when we can tell kids in school that yes, we dropped the bombs, but it actually saved lives! So don't worry, all the vaporized Japanese kids are glad we did it, because now they're a Democracy like us (only not as great)!

      and that in retrospect the US should have waited until it had more, larger nukes.

      Ugh. Look, whatever load of history you swallowed, by your own logic what good would bigger bombs have done? Your version of Japan is the Black Knight. How is hacking off his arms and legs -more- going to convince him he's lost?

      Waiting for more bombs might have been a good idea, because then we could have demonstrated them over the ocean but still had some for actual use.

      Not that it was necessary.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    33. Re:Oh shit. by markomarko · · Score: 1

      What good is education and health care if extremists can come in and unravel it all?

      What good is living if we are doomed to die? What good is saving money if we bill collectors and the taxman is going to take it? What good is marriage if your spouse can leave you?

    34. Re:Oh shit. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "What good is living if we are doomed to die? What good is saving money if we bill collectors and the taxman is going to take it? What good is marriage if your spouse can leave you?"

      In each of those cases, one takes precautionary steps. You inadvertantly helped NG make his point.

    35. Re:Oh shit. by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blaming defense spending on the deficit is a funny thing to think about. Money spent on defense doesn't vanish. A lot of it goes to employing soldiers. This puts the money back into our system, and also trains and disciplines a lot of young men who might otherwise be getting into trouble. Much of the money goes to contractors, miners, etc, keeping more peopel in work. Yet more goes to research that hires higly educated people. Your statement that the money should be spent on education is kind of funny, because if this money were taken from defense to education, there would be a lot of educated people with no jobs. Even if you think defense spending is a complete waste, if all the people funded by defense lost their jobs, that money would be going into welfare, which is an investment with NO returns, comparatively.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    36. Re:Oh shit. by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "When nuclear weapons were being developed, it was to create something that would make future warfare impossible (same with the machine gun)"

      Wrong on both counts. The goal of both weapons was to make warfare easier, quicker, and less bloody. Dr. Gatling's concern was the number of men needed in formation to achieve X rate of fire, and his reasoning was that reducing that number of men while achieving the same rate of fire would reduce the need for men to even be there to begin with. As for nuclear weapons, peruse the internet a little and take a look at what Eisenhower's philosophy was on them (nutshell: use them early and often to reduce the need to send in actual soldiers).

      "but we know how that turned out."

      It's a little to soon to say how nukes have turned out, but in many ways Dr. Gatling was successful. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons have lowered the number of men needed to take and hold an objective, which works to lessen collateral damage. For all the carnage that happened in places like Stalingrad and Berlin during the Second World War, think about how much worse it would have been if all the troops had to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in formation.

      "Meanwhile, this thing seems to be purely for killing:"

      However, nuclear weapons (and this new concept) are different from the other two classifications of WMD in that they actually have valid military uses. Chemical and biological weapons are all but useless against a moderately prepared force, and their only real use is against civillian populations. However, there are times when you really need a powerful explosive to take out a military target (such as underground bunkers). Yes, it's meant to kill people, but it's only intended to kill certain people in certain places, not "everybody in the downtown area." The fallout is a side-effect that even the DOD wants to eliminate because it hampers the weapon's usefullness in a tactical situation (it's better to take and hold an objective than to deny its use to everybody).

      "Why am I paying for the development of a whole new type of weapon when I can't afford school because of the resession?"

      DOD = federal
      education = state

      "and massive defense spending is what caused this deficit mess we're in now..."

      FY 2001

      Medicaid: 7%
      Medicare: 12%
      Defense: 16%
      Social Security: 23%

      Source

      Personally, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

    37. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you clearly think that the world does revolve around the US.

      But have I got news for you - it's in fact flat, and rests atop a bunch of turtles.

    38. Re:Oh shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For all the carnage that happened in places like Stalingrad and Berlin during the Second World War, think about how much worse it would have been if all the troops had to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in formation."

      Actually, the bolt-action rifle was the standard infantry weapon in WWII. Small automatic weapons were simply not reliable enough to be standard issue (Owen gun excepted), and supplying the bulk ammunition needed for automatic weapons was also an issue.

      "Automatic and semi-automatic weapons have lowered the number of men needed to take and hold an objective"

      Against a poorly equipped enemy. I suggest you look at statistics for the American Pacific campaign (WWII) and the Turkish front (WWI, Google for "Gallipoli"); you will see that the percentile losses for those campaigns are higher than during the Napoleonic conflicts (Breech loading carbines have both soft shot and a lower muzzle velocity than even a Gatling gun; killing someone with one of those is more difficult than you would think, especially given the limited range). Just so you know, the Rambo movies are not an accurate representation of warfare with automatic weapons.

      "However, there are times when you really need a powerful explosive to take out a military target (such as underground bunkers). Yes, it's meant to kill people, but it's only intended to kill certain people in certain places, not "everybody in the downtown area."

      Good theory, lets see how it stands up to historical analysis:

      Number of times nuclear weapons have been used to destroy military targets: 0

      Number of times nuclear weapons have been used to destroy "the entire downtown area": 2

      Nuclear weapons are in no way appropriate for "bunker-busting"; for that you need something that explodes after impact to be effective. Even a multi-megaton ground burst wouldn't destroy a facility 50 feet underground with blast doors (unless you care to disagree with NORAD's command center design; I dare say the folks involved in that have more knowledge on the subject than you or I). Any surface or air burst, unless in an unihabited area (ie: away from anything that is likely to be an actual target) will cause fairly significant collateral damage; a far cry from "certain people in certain places".

      "Social Security: 23%

      Personally, I think you're barking up the wrong tree."

      But: How much of the social security budget goes to ex-servicemen/dependents? How much of the 19% on non-defence discretionary funding, which you failed to mention, goes on defence-related research (it just says non-DOD; are universities funded by the DOD)? With such a simple analysis as the one you referenced, there's no telling how funding has been hidden or redirected. Anyway, lets add up this balance sheet:

      Social Security: 23%
      Medicare: 12%
      Medicaid: 7%
      Means tested benefits: 6%
      Misc. Mandatory spending: 6%
      Defence discretional spending: 16%
      Non-defence discretional: 19%
      Interest: 11%
      Surplus: 9%

      If you add that up, it comes to 109%; hell, anyone can have a 9% budget surplus if you have 109% of a budget. But I agree with your implication: why should retirees and orphans get to eat when Northrop desperately needs to sell B2s?

    39. Re:Oh shit. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Number of times nuclear weapons have been used to destroy military targets: 0

      Number of times nuclear weapons have been used to destroy "the entire downtown area": 2"


      Hiroshima: Headquarters for the 2nd Japanese Army, major organization and embarkation point for troops bound for the Pacific theater.

      Nagasaki: Mitsubishi Steel & Arms Works, Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordinance Works and a major naval shipyard.

      Nope, no military targets there.

      "Nuclear weapons are in no way appropriate for "bunker-busting"; for that you need something that explodes after impact to be effective."

      And why couldn't nuclear weapons be built with such a delayed fuse? If anything, they are best suited for this role because the initial impact with the ground can't set off the explosion.

      Not all nuclear weapons are multi-megaton H-bombs strapped to ICBMs.

      "If you add that up, it comes to 109%"

      And if you had scrolled down just a few inches further, you would have seen the raw numbers before they were turned to percentages rounded to the nearest whole percent.

  12. One vision by ArmenTanzarian · · Score: 1

    Is a gun that makes people poo themselves too much to ask? Radiation is always the go-to weapon, nothing says I don't like you like feces...

    1. Re:One vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why the military has been secretly researching the Brown Noise for several years.

      Refer to South Park.

  13. Hey Mini Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop humping the friggin laser

  14. ...It starts with an earthquake, by da3dAlus · · Score: 4, Funny

    birds and snakes, an aeroplane...
    um...
    gamma weapons blow us away?

    Everybody sing: "It's the end of the world as we know it..."

    --

    Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    1. Re:...It starts with an earthquake, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the story!

      It's not "gamma weapons"!!!

      They "emit a gamma ray PHOTON"!!!

      They're making PHOTON TORPEDOES!!!!!!!!

  15. Neat by mugnyte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I don't condone weapons research, I think this is certainly interesting. If the RPGs flaunted around today were capable of Tomakawk-size destruction, i think we'd simple see skirmishes ending faster, in a "disease-burnout" kind of way. I'd hate to see this effect be used as weaponry by anyone, but if people are going to fight, the faster its over the better, in my mind. Maybe I'm mistaken?

    1. Re:Neat by mszeto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but if people are going to fight, the faster its over the better, in my mind. Maybe I'm mistaken?

      I think that if you have super fast battles (read: anti tank missles against a house, or carpet bombing) people end up forgetting that there are real people on the other side. The slower it is (and the more they see), the more people remember that war is dumb. Things are only getting faster, unfourtunately.

    2. Re:Neat by Zurk · · Score: 1

      hitting a target with coherent gamma rays (specifically water) repeatedly triggers a fusion reaction.
      i'd hate to see gamma rays used in warfare like bullets. these things contaminate large quantities of material and spontaneous fusion detonations are not something i'd like to see on the earths surface in any war. these are space based weapons and thats where they should stay.

    3. Re:Neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya cause the idea that inventing better weapons will stop fighting has always worked in the past

    4. Re:Neat by Imabug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the inventor of the Gatling gun had similar ideas. He thought that if he could create a weapon that was so devastating to use, nobody would want to go to war anymore. We all know where that led.

      --
      "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
    5. Re: Neat by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > While I don't condone weapons research, I think this is certainly interesting. If the RPGs flaunted around today were capable of Tomakawk-size destruction, i think we'd simple see skirmishes ending faster

      Yeah, 'cause the guy with the RPG launcher would blow himself up along with the target, and there wouldn't be anyone left to fight after a few days of battle.

      Ought to make an excellent additon to Quake, though.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same thing has been said about almost every weapon advancement, that it would make war unthinkable. Hasn't happened yet and it won't with this either.

    7. Re:Neat by GuanoBoy · · Score: 1
      the inventor of the Gatling gun had similar ideas. He thought that if he could create a weapon that was so devastating to use, nobody would want to go to war anymore

      The Wright Brothers had similar ideas about the airplane, e.g., they thought that armies would be observable from the air and, thus, could not hide their movements.

      --
      WWW
    8. Re:Neat by GuanoBoy · · Score: 1
      The slower it is (and the more they see), the more people remember that war is dumb.

      Also unfortunate is that a lot of suffering has to happen - years, usually - before people get to that point. That lesson seems to get lost on the following generation, too.

      --
      WWW
    9. Re:Neat by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      Just about every new and terrible weapon developed throughout the history of mankind was accompanied by the hopes that it would make war too terrible to wage. The Gatling gun, the machine gun, mustard gas, modern artillery, long-range bombers, the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, sea-launched ballistic missiles, ICBMs.

      What makes you think this'll be any different?

    10. Re:Neat by UncleMediocre · · Score: 1

      There's a sci-fi short story in which two opposing nations have become 'civilized' to the point where there is no more war. Whenever there is a dispute, the leaders play a game. The losing nation then sends 100 of their citizens to an incinerator as part of the price. The idea is that if things become to 'easy' or fast...the loss of life becomes far too acceptable.

    11. Re:Neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I think that if you have super fast battles (read: anti tank missles against a house, or carpet bombing) people end up forgetting that there are real people on the other side.
      Armies aren't just getting faster, they're getting smarter too. The missile may go from loitering B-52 to target in less than a minute, but it's targeted by someone very close to the situation (the U.S. used honest-to-God mounted cavalry in Afghanistan), who is backed up by anlysts looking at visible, infrared, and radio intelligence. The net effect is that we know better than ever who the bad guys are (instead of "Germans bad, must kill all Germans"), and we can deliver 50 pounds of high explosive exactly where it's needed (instead of "Let's see...I think we'll vaporize...uh...Dresden tonight").
      The slower it is (and the more they see), the more people remember that war is dumb.
      So what, we should just lay down and die because it would be dumb to save ourselves? I suppose rape victims must be really, really smart (or secretly wanted it).
    12. Re:Neat by pmz · · Score: 3, Informative

      The slower it is (and the more they see), the more people remember that war is dumb.

      The History Channel had a documentary about one Christmas day during World War One, where the German and Allied soldiers started singing carols and eventually met each other for a one-day Christmas cease fire (they even held soccer matches with eachother). After that day, they had trouble gathering the motivation to kill eachother, and the military leaders basically had to force the war to continue.

      Any war relies on de-humanizing the enemy, which is most often a large collection of ordinary people under different circumstances and under the leadership of a psychopath (Adolph Hitler, Osama bin Laden, etc.).

    13. Re:Neat by row314 · · Score: 1

      I think you are mistaken; history suggests that rationality is not always present in battle, and that there are always more people ready to kill without thought for consequences. It is certainly a Nobel thought, though.

    14. Re:Neat by mikerich · · Score: 2, Insightful
      the inventor of the Gatling gun had similar ideas. He thought that if he could create a weapon that was so devastating to use, nobody would want to go to war anymore. We all know where that led.

      And the developers of chemical weapons, and biological weapons, and the bomber, and the battleship, and nuclear weapons...

      I'm beginning to suspect they might all have been wrong.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    15. Re:Neat by jrexilius · · Score: 0

      Your premise sounds fine until matched against (recent) history. As weapons technology improves less people (civillians) are killed and more specific targets are destroyed. This is in relation to WWII. Early warfare involved slaughtering of villages and sowing fields with salt where as later warfare involved a group of guys standing in a field shooting muskets at each other with the occasional burning of buildings. From a historical perspective in relation to population densities the amount of non-combatants killed in wars fluctuates a bit with technology and accepted societal norms. (lets leave the discussion of diseases out of it)

    16. Re:Neat by scrytch · · Score: 1

      While I don't condone weapons research, I think this is certainly interesting. If the RPGs flaunted around today were capable of Tomakawk-size destruction, i think we'd simple see skirmishes ending faster, in a "disease-burnout" kind of way. I'd hate to see this effect be used as weaponry by anyone, but if people are going to fight, the faster its over the better, in my mind. Maybe I'm mistaken?

      Doctor Richard Gatling invented the gun that bears his namesake, and believed it would wreak so much carnage, war would become unthinkable. Well he batted .500...

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    17. Re:Neat by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      They also thought that since they owned a patent on airplanes, they could stop armies from using them.

    18. Re:Neat by Schaffner · · Score: 1

      Huh? Where'd you learn nu-cle-ar physics at?

    19. Re:Neat by composer777 · · Score: 1

      I don't think so, the facts actually support the opposite conclusion. No one in the Kennedy administration ever talked about getting Vietnam over with quickly. Dragging wars out for years wasn't even a concern, and protests didn't begin until years after the start of the war. For years you couldn't even get people to talk about the war. Today a president can't even dream of having something like that, not without the fear of major backlash. Protests start months before war is even declared. The difference is like night and day. The reason that Bush does things like declare the War in Iraq over when the occupation has barely started is because of fear of a backlash. That's the reason they focus on quick wars, it's certainly not out of the goodness of their own hearts.

    20. Re:Neat by Zenki · · Score: 1

      And here I was thinking James Cameron sent Arnold Schwarzenegger back in time to tell Dr. Gatling to invent the gun, thus seeding humanity with the technology to allow for the movies Predator and Terminator 2 to be created.

    21. Re:Neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree, the 20th century wars were measured in years, and combat was faught hand-to-hand. Things can't get much more stupid and greedy than that.

      A population with jobs and education is the best war deterrant.

    22. Re:Neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, wars were measured in years in the 20th century, but look into prior wars. When wars were seasonal affairs, they could last decades. Generations would go off to fight the same war.

      We might have trouble seeing some of these things as war, since it was more like a campaign a year each with a series of battles before they hunkered down for the off season. Wars which had to be fought by ship were even longer. One group would ship their soldiers over, they attempt to invade the opponents country, eventually get forced out, wait five years while they rebuilt the ships necesary to get more troops over there and then send them, continuing a war.

      If I remember correctly, the Rome-Carthage war was like this. And England and France seem to have been at war for one reason or another since they managed to have national identities around something like 800 or 1000AD, up until the last century or so. When you hear references to "The Hundred Years War" they more or less mean it.

    23. Re:Neat by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "While I don't condone weapons research,"

      The problem with not condoning weapons research is that it never stops. Either we do it, or someone else does. Whoever gets there first is the winner and holds a temporary advantage.

      When I hear people talk like this about military research I envision someone driving a horse and buggy...on a multilane interstate...in the left lane...ON PURPOSE!

      In other words, the idea is not only stupid, but it could get people hurt in unbelievably brutal ways.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  16. HardOCP had it at 9AM this morning by zapp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This has been happening more and more lately.. seems like half the stories on HardOCP show up on slashdot just a few hours later.

    I wonder if a few readers discovered the [H]ardOCP slashbox and decided to just submit everything they saw :p

    --
    no comment
    1. Re:HardOCP had it at 9AM this morning by Saige · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that there is a considerable amount of overlap with various web sites, and you can usually tell which ones they are by how much/how little they have in common story wise.

      Is there a sizeable overlap in readership of HardOCP and Slashdot? Probably enough to make sure all the interesting stories there end up here. I see a lot of things that are picked up by Plastic and Metafilter after appearing here, and often the other way around.

      So it's not an uncommon occurence at all... you could probably use story/topic overlap as a guide to how much of a readership overlap there is.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
  17. Potential Power Source! by Pavan_Gupta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Such extraordinary energy density has the potential to revolutionise all aspects of warfare."

    This interesting technology could potentially lead to some better new-age energy sources. I'm not sure why we always focus on warfare, when there are other ways to use the explosive power of new military technology.

    1. Re:Potential Power Source! by wavecoder · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because you have to pump energy into the system to get any back out. At best, it would be a way to increase the efficiency of existing power generators (nuclear plants, solar panels, etc).

    2. Re:Potential Power Source! by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 0, Troll

      This interesting technology could potentially lead to some better new-age energy sources. I'm not sure why we always focus on warfare, when there are other ways to use the explosive power of new military technology.

      Simple reason, money, the DOD has it and which do you think they are going to develop? A new power source to make all our lives better, or a new way to blow shit up? Unless they are looking for a new power source for a sub/tank/flying death machine, they are going to try and find a way to make things go boom. Now, it could be argued that we could divert a chunk of the money going into the DOD to something a bit more peaceful (like researching a new power source) but that just doesn't sell with the people in power. Either we get one group pumping money into the DOD and ignoring research, or we get the other group pulling money out of the DOD and giving it to the poor, while ignoring research. Either way science for the betterment of everyone loses.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    3. Re:Potential Power Source! by Khomar · · Score: 1

      I agree. In reading the article, I couldn't help but wonder what kind of side effects come from the reaction. It did mention the following:

      It would cause little fallout compared to a fission explosion, but any undetonated isomer would be dispersed as small radioactive particles, making it a somewhat "dirty" bomb. This material could cause long-term health problems for anybody who breathed it in.

      Could these undetonated isomers be "recycled" in a controlled reactor? In other words, are there any byproducts from the reaction that would need to be disposed. Could this perhaps be a cleaner method of energy production compared to our current nuclear power?

      It is frightening when considering the potential in weapons, but the same danger exists with virtually any technological breakthrough. Nanobots, hailed as possible cures for cancer and many other diseases, could also pose an incredible threat as a true virus that could kill millions. This is always an interesting point of debate. With technology comes power, and in the hands of humans, power corrupts -- but good can result as well.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    4. Re:Potential Power Source! by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      You raise a good point, but...

      Energy density != Energy efficiency.

      You want the former for weapons, the latter for commercial energy production.

      (Although in the case of fuel substitutes for cars, both are actually quite important. No matter how much you improve the efficiency and cost of hydrogen or fuel cells, its hard to beat oil's energy density.)

      Anyway, based on that article, it appears to me that it takes a heck of a lot of energy to make and "energize" the halfnium with protons (or eventually photons). A lot more than you get out when you eventually shoot the X-Ray in and get that 60-fold increase out. That 60-fold increase is just releasing energy you put in the substance gradually earlier. So it isn't necessarily energy efficient, just energy-dense. Of course, as they make the substance cheaper, that is a sign that they're improving the energy efficiency of the manufacturing process, so who knows how good they'll get at that. Clearly they have a long way to go in any case. Particle accelerators aren't cheap, either dollar-wise or energy-wise.

    5. Re:Potential Power Source! by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Informative
      This interesting technology could potentially lead to some better new-age energy sources.

      Well, it's a way to store energy, perhaps, but it can't act as a source in and of itself. Excited-state nuclei aren't just lying around in the ground--they tend to have short half-lives, from decades down to the tiniest fractions of a second. To create these metastable nuclei, you have to put in at least as much energy as you're taking out.

      Mind, these metastable isotopes already have nonmilitary uses. Technetium-99m has long been used as a radioactive tracer in medicine. It is produced from the decay of molybdenum-99, and has a half-life of about six hours.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    6. Re:Potential Power Source! by poszi · · Score: 1
      This interesting technology could potentially lead to some better new-age energy sources

      Doubtful. It can only work as a rechargable source of energy not a primary source. But it will emit gamma rays which are very difficult to screen and require huge layers of lead or other metals as a screen so it cannot work as a portable energy storage. Actually, nuclear decay powered devices do exist (Plutonium-238 is very effective because it emits almost entirely alpha rays) but they are very expensive and their application are limitted (space probes, for example). They are not rechargable, though.

      --

      Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!

    7. Re:Potential Power Source! by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      This interesting technology could potentially lead to some better new-age energy sources. I'm not sure why we always focus on warfare, when there are other ways to use the explosive power of new military technology.

      A gamma pulse is very useful as a weapon, but very hard to draw power from unless you put the gamma source inside a building-sized tank of water and run a steam turbine. This makes metastable isomers useless for compact power storage (the energy storage medium is compact, but you can't tap it with compact equipment).

      As others have pointed out, this is not an energy _source_.

    8. Re:Potential Power Source! by Guitarzan · · Score: 1

      You're new to the human race, aren't you? :)

    9. Re:Potential Power Source! by saskwach · · Score: 1

      embetterment?
      I now wait for the requisite 20 seconds before my snappy 1-line witticism can be posted. I'm not funny anymore but the time's up so oh well!

    10. Re:Potential Power Source! by kmahan · · Score: 1

      Wonder what the airlines will do if I try and carry on a laptop powered by this.

      "Yes inspector, I KNOW it is similar to a nuclear weapon. But it also lets me play DVDs while we're flying across the country."

      --
      Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
    11. Re:Potential Power Source! by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      (Plutonium-238 is very effective because it emits almost entirely alpha rays) but they are very expensive and their application are limitted (space probes, for example). They are not rechargable, though.

      the only reason the applications are limited is because
      1) plutonium is really expensive
      2) it is hard to get unless you are a government, or own a nuclear reactor.

      it isn't that plutonium decay powered devices can't be extended to other areas, the problem is that it is just so hard to get your hands on some plutonium. err...not that you would want to put your hands on plutonium...

      oh yeah, and don't forget
      3) ???
      4) profit

      there is a difference between limited use and limited supply, which is what we have in this case

    12. Re:Potential Power Source! by wiremind · · Score: 1

      I assume you read about the military robots they were playing with. a few storys down the front page.

      That right there would be a very good reason to research better energy sources instead of making things go boom.

      Information is power. Those robots are directly linked to retrieving information.

      What is more valuable?
      lots of dead bad guys, OR
      knowing the where and whens of the enemy leaders?

    13. Re:Potential Power Source! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Could these undetonated isomers be "recycled" in a controlled reactor?

      Better yet, could we use the technique to accelerate the decay of nuclear waste?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    14. Re:Potential Power Source! by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

      It's a perfectly cromulent word.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    15. Re:Potential Power Source! by bobintetley · · Score: 1

      Particle accelerators aren't cheap, either dollar-wise or energy-wise.

      Don't cross the streams!

      Sorry.

    16. Re:Potential Power Source! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you didn't get a "Funny" mod due to the late post, but I laughed.

  18. More testing is necessary, obviously... by wavecoder · · Score: 1

    ...so somebody get on MapQuest and find the SCO offices.

    1. Re:More testing is necessary, obviously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SCO Group
      355 South 520 West
      Suite 100
      Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
      801-765-4999 phone
      801-765-1313 fax

  19. Give it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Troll

    who cares? we are all just a bunch of idiots who pretend we are better than the rest of the animal kingdom because we can blow each other up. I am embarrased to be human when I read things like this.

    1. Re:Give it up by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Dunno, caring and feeling embarrased is just what separates us from animals I guess :).

      Go and watch the fifth element if you're feeling unhappy. Don't think love is what separates us from the animal kingdom though (stupid name, animal kingdom).

      Warper

  20. Next Arms Race by TrollBridge · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "The work has also raised fears that weapons based on this technology could trigger the next arms race."

    New warfare technology has ALWAYS triggered a new "arms race", starting with the first human being who ever beat another to death with a rock.

    Imagine their terror when the first knives, attlatls, and later bows & arrows started to be used in combat?

    This is simply the latest iteration of an age-old phenomenon.

    --
    There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
    1. Re:Next Arms Race by guile*fr · · Score: 1

      - except there is nobody to compete with... usa is the defacto global power but its still investing 1trillion dollar in the army.

      - the first human being could wipe out humankind and some more with his rock

    2. Re:Next Arms Race by guile*fr · · Score: 0

      it remind me of "the mother of all bombs" tested before irak invasion... it so powerful nobody can find a use for it... so they say "it will be used for psychological operations" what kind of braindead came with that argument?

    3. Re:Next Arms Race by TheFlamingoKing · · Score: 1
      Exactly.

      This just means that the more advanced nations will be able to create and perfect the technology to prevent some other nation or terrorist organization from doing it first.

      If these nations didn't lead in development, someone else would. Could you imagine the anti-terrorist units around the world missing a major weapon development completely because it was based on science that had been banned by their governments?

    4. Re:Next Arms Race by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

      Does the concept of scale exist in your tidy little jaded world?

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
    5. Re:Next Arms Race by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      No doubt. When the crossbow was invented, the Pope declared it an evil weapon.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  21. Supercomputing and small tac nukes by BWJones · · Score: 1

    This is actually a few years old in concept and the impetus behind a lot of supercomputer projects funded by the DOE and DOD to study explosions and high energy phenomena. There has been a move to miniaturize nuclear weapons for some time now for a couple of reasons 1) easier to transport and carry and 2) extremely low yeild small tactical nukes can be very effective and potentially tuneable. (General only wants damage limited to 5 sq miles and nothing beyond.) The other advantage that these folks are talking about with gamma ray based weapons is that the infrastructure is relatively spared (and why the Communists wanted these things allowing them to move into cities after an explosion and co-opt the infrastructure. However radioactive it may be).

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Supercomputing and small tac nukes by ka9dgx · · Score: 3, Informative
      Tuneable tactical nukes have been around for some time. The W31 device used in the Ajax-Nike missle programs had a selectable yield of 40, 20, or 2 Kilotons. This matched up with your first attempt to shoot down the enemy at 90 miles, or second pass at 45 miles, or last change right overhead. It as first deployed in 1958, and retired in 1974.

      --Mike--

    2. Re: Supercomputing and small tac nukes by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > The other advantage that these folks are talking about with gamma ray based weapons is that the infrastructure is relatively spared (and why the Communists wanted these things allowing them to move into cities after an explosion and co-opt the infrastructure.

      As if the Capitalists didn't want them too. In fact they turned out to be a sort of PR disaster for the USA, since the commies portrayed them as "capitalist weapons" that killed people and preserved the precious property.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Supercomputing and small tac nukes by jovlinger · · Score: 1

      I thought that was the neutron bomb.

      Neutron != photon.

      Or perhaps neutrons were the production mechanism for the photons?

    4. Re:Supercomputing and small tac nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This big points are are that isn't a nuke (as far as the DoD) are concerned, and it can be made much smaller than traditional nukes (ie hand grenade)

  22. Scary fact for those who didn't read the article by chia_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    'One gram of fully charged hafnium isomer could store more energy than 50 kilograms of TNT.'

    That's just scary. Way scary.

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
  23. Weapons of mass destruction by Rhone · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can just picture the next headline at The Onion:

    Iran Sends Weapons Inspectors to US to Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction

    1. Re:Weapons of mass destruction by indros13 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Onion previously reported that North Dakota is harboring nuclear missles. It was the United Nations, though, not Iran who sent the inspectors...

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  24. The human race will never change by YAN3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It really scares me that when a new way to release massive amounts of energy is discovered, it's first implementation is to end human lives.

  25. I'm rubber, you're glue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " That's just great, now we can destroy our world *another* 1,000,000 times over!"

    Slow death, fast death. Now we have an incentive to develop shield technology. Defensive technology, always seems to lag offensive.

  26. Everyone's favorite.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...In Soviet Russia, weapons decay you!

    Wait, I think that's the same everywhere.

  27. The decay makes it perfect by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Funny

    The decay thing is a stroke of genius. If you set the half-life right, the mighty Hulks will march out, smash puny enemy army, and by the time they are about to turn around and smash puny you, they rot into a pile of goo.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  28. NO by imsabbel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you blur the line, noone will cry if you use a bomb "just a little larger". you can always say its a very deep bunker or a big stockpile of WMD ect.

    Btw:
    Anyone still asking where you really have to search if you want to find WMD? Small hint: not in the middle east...

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re: NO by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


      > Anyone still asking where you really have to search if you want to find WMD? Small hint: not in the middle east...

      Current theory is that Saddam's dog ate them.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:NO by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyone still asking where you really have to search if you want to find WMD? Small hint: not in the middle east...

      Israel probably has some.

    3. Re:NO by Gannoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you blur the line, noone will cry if you use a bomb "just a little larger". you can always say its a very deep bunker or a big stockpile of WMD ect.

      Who cares how big the blast is? If you drop 100 small bombs or one big bomb, you're still dropping bombs. You should always be concerned when bombs are falling on people (even if you think its the right thing to do), and not care if the explosion is produced with a chemical or nuclear release of energy.

    4. Re:NO by bofkentucky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes the US, NATO countries and the former soviet republics have WMD's, but they have never invaded a neighbor for oil and port access or turned said wmd's against rebellions in their own country. Trying to equate the barbaric Huissein regime with any civilized society is an affront to humanity and submission to his vileness. As much as I hated the USSR and its socialist brethern, at least they knew better than to use such things, as opposed to fanatical islamists who seek to destroy all of Judeo-Christian society who should be their brethren if they followed their prophet.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    5. Re:NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Some people suspect the Soviet Union's little "accident" with smallpox a couple decades back may not have been an accident but an experiment on their own people.

    6. Re:NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to forget that we supported Iraq after it used chemical weapons on it's own people. You also seem to forget that we're the only country to use a WMD. Chemical weapons aren't always WMD.

    7. Re:NO by nutshell42 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      the problem is the difference in scale of small and big bombs

      When the Army introduced the successor of the daisy cutter you often heard that it's "as powerful as a small nuclear weapon", well this conventional bomb - the largest you'll find by far - has an explosive power of perhaps 50tons (it weighs thirty and I'm assuming they use something more effective than TNT). 100 of these bombs have an explosive power of 5kt, half of the Hiroshima bomb and at the lower end of what you'd expect in a nuclear artillery shell.

      1 *big* bomb would have something in the range of dozens of megatons upwards and would be 1000times more devastating than 100 of the biggest conventional bomb and I'm not even talking about nuclear fallout. An average conventional bomb is 1'000'000 times weaker than an average nuclear weapon and that's why keeping the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear clear is so important.

      That's also the reason I don't like all that WMD talk because chemical and biological weapons are nowhere near the destructive power of nuclear weapons and treating them as the same thing is quite dangerous and utterly idiotic from a danger-analysis point of view which is why you bombed the hell out of Saddam and try sweet-talking (or what W takes for it) Kim

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    8. Re:NO by Gannoc · · Score: 1, Troll

      That's also the reason I don't like all that WMD talk because chemical and biological weapons are nowhere near the destructive power of nuclear weapons and treating them as the same thing is quite dangerous and utterly idiotic from a danger-analysis point of view which is why you bombed the hell out of Saddam and try sweet-talking (or what W takes for it)

      A biological weapon could kill everyone on the planet. Chemical nerve agents dropped from a plane could kill everyone in a city. The U.S. doesn't have chemical or biological weapons, so the policy is to respond to any WMD attack with our nuclear weapons.

      Sometimes when people say "The U.S. doesn't have any chemical or biological weapons", there's a guy who will snort and say "Oh yeah, they do, they just want you to THINK they don't!"

      Well:

      1) That would be a pretty massive freaking conspiracy, don't you think?

      2) We don't need chemical/biological weapons BECAUSE we have nukes. If we were in a real fight where we needed to use every weapon available, its not like we're going to be in trench warfare taking out troops with cholorine gas, we're going to blow up military and economic resources with nuclear weapons launched from thousands or miles away.

      Thats really the reason everyone agreed to ban those weapons in the 60s, because they figured out it wasn't worth the money.

    9. Re:NO by jason0000042 · · Score: 1
      As much as I hated the USSR and its socialist brethern, at least they knew better than to use such things, as opposed to fanatical islamists who seek to destroy all of Judeo-Christian society who should be their brethren if they followed their prophet.

      Did you read the article? What we are talking about here is a bomb that kills with gamma radiation and leaves dirty gamma emiters in the environment. It is not Soviet Russia or fanatical islamists that are trying to build 'usable nukes'. It is the United States Department of Defense. Do you know what that means? It is the US that wants to use nuclear weapons.

      --
      i don't like my old sig.
    10. Re:NO by confused+one · · Score: 1

      The U.S. does have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons from the 40's and 50's. The U.S. Army is in the process of destroying them; but, there is still literally 1000's of tons of the stuff around in bunkers. The U.S. is bound by international treaty not to use Chemical or Biological weapons, ever, under any circumstances.

    11. Re:NO by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the reply to my own post, but i guessed that it would rated flamebaid.
      One Question: Why?
      I mean, WMDs are bad, you hear that 10times a day. But who didnt retify the bioweapon controll treaty, developes "conventional" mininukes, uses their fasted supercomputers for nuclear weapon research and propose a new kind of WMD?
      Not iraq....

      There are a few thousend nukes from the good old cold war days lying around, they are enough to bomb any country in the world back to the stoneage.
      Why waste ressources to develope new ones?
      Arent there enought other ways to spend the money

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    12. Re:NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you belive the US has no chemical weapons, you're fooling yourself. At the very soonest we will be disarmed by 2010.

    13. Re:NO by Shishak · · Score: 1

      The good old United States of America has WMD than any other country in the world. We have Nukes/Bio/Chem weapons that would make Saddams (if he actually has them) look like pea shooters. We have bunkers upon bunkers of highly unstable chemical weapons just sitting in South Dakota. They are too dangerous to move, to dangerous to keep in place.

      --
      Now I hope and pray that I will But today I am still, just a bill
    14. Re:NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering how old chemical weapons are still waiting to be incinerated, and how the US only promised to stop developing chemical and biological weapons, and how this is more or less common knowledge reported in newspapers, no I don't think it's much of a conspiracy.

    15. Re:NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the post-cold war world. New here?

    16. Re:NO by rbgaynor · · Score: 1

      The U.S. doesn't have chemical or biological weapons

      Not exactly true, see this story for example.

      --
      "Good things don't end with eum, they end with mania or teria." - H. Simpson
    17. Re:NO by mikerich · · Score: 2, Informative
      I think you're referring to an 1979 outbreak of anthrax in Sverdlovsk. The city housed a plant manufacturing anthrax for the Soviet Union's bioweapons programme.

      During routine maintenance, a filter was removed from part of the plant and not replaced. The shift changed, the missing filter was not noticed and evaporators which dried anthrax into spores were switched on.

      A cloud of anthrax was blown across the city, dozens of people died. The Soviet government panicked (it should not have been manufacturing anthrax in the first place) and first of all denied that there had been an anthrax outbreak. When that proved untenable - even the tame Soviet press was asking questions, they said there had been an outbreak but it was caught from infected meat (not entirely impossible).

      IIRC, the truth only came out when the Soviet Union had imploded and Yeltsin confirmed the cause.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    18. Re:NO by Mad+Quacker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sometimes when people say "The U.S. doesn't have any chemical or biological weapons", there's a guy who will snort and say "Oh yeah, they do, they just want you to THINK they don't!"

      Well:

      1) That would be a pretty massive freaking conspiracy, don't you think?


      It's not a conspiracy, it's just not advertised. FYI the anthrax that was getting mailed to democrats and liberals (did no one in the mainstream media make this connection?) previously was made in a military facility located in Utah.

      We have large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

      Here is a non-classified breakdown by type and storage location in the US
      http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm

      The Bush administration has restarted our NBC weapons program, and if they are allowed to continue on this path, they WILL use them.
      --
      "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
    19. Re:NO by goodmanj · · Score: 1
      A biological weapon could kill everyone on the planet

      Unlikely in theory, and in practice, nobody's got any bioweapons that vaccines and quarantine can't stop.

      The U.S. doesn't have chemical or biological weapons

      If that's the case, what are their chemical weapons incinerators for? Don't blame a conspiracy theory for your own ignorance.

    20. Re:NO by RealityShunt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, they do."

      "Israel Known to have nuclear weapons capability, but has never declared it or tested. It has an estimated arsenal of 100 warheads and a missile range of 940 miles."

      They've had 'em for a long time, since the late 70s IIRC.

      realityshunt

      --
      Democracy is susceptible to being led astray by having scapegoats paraded in front of the electorate.
    21. Re:NO by mickwd · · Score: 1

      "Sometimes when people say "The U.S. doesn't have any chemical or biological weapons", there's a guy who will snort and say "Oh yeah, they do, they just want you to THINK they don't!""

      Didn't that "weapons-grade" anthrax come from some sort of US-government research lab ?

      "1) That would be a pretty massive freaking conspiracy, don't you think?"

      One of the reasons I can think for whoever sent that anthrax would be to publicise the fact that the US government and military has actually developed useable "weapons-grade" biological material.

    22. Re:NO by RealityShunt · · Score: 1

      Chemical weapon effects are mostly local.

      Biologicals, OTOH, if they have a high infectious rate and kill slowly, could be incredibly devastating...potentially much more so than a single nuclear weapon if used in a crowded metro area. Fortunately they haven't been (so far - *shiver*).

      Imagine something with the infection rate/ease of the common cold virus(ii) but which kills within 1 week, and is as difficult to counter as, say, HIV.

      realityshunt

      --
      Democracy is susceptible to being led astray by having scapegoats paraded in front of the electorate.
    23. Re:NO by iCat · · Score: 1

      According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists the US was also very good at hiding WMD

    24. Re:NO by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The good old United States of America has WMD than any other country in the world.

      Actually, not quite. While good figures for Chem/Bio are a bit harder to find, at least where it comes to Nukes the Russians are well ahead of the US, at least according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. We've built more in total, but dismantled many as they became obselete.

      --
      Why?
    25. Re:NO by ectospasm · · Score: 4, Funny

      The U.S. is bound by international treaty not to use Chemical or Biological weapons, ever, under any circumstances.

      Yeah, and the U.S. is known for following international law.

      --


      We are the music makers. We are the dreamers of the dreams.
    26. Re:NO by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      This test device uses a long lived isotope. It is conceivable that someone might find a short lived isotope that could detonate, and then in an hour or day, the radiation levels would fall back to background levels. Frankly, 31 years makes these prototypes useless in a tactical manner, much the same as a pure fission weapon is worthless if you want to hold ground, but can save millions of lives if used strategically, like in WWII. I also take issue to your assertion that islamists aren't trying to build nukes. Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan have all sought or have active nuke programs in the last 10 years, and are a signifigant threat.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    27. Re:NO by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      The Bush administration has restarted our NBC weapons program, and if they are allowed to continue on this path, they WILL use them

      First of all, we never stopped our *nuclear* weapons program. Second, mind if I ask you how you came upon this no doubt highly classified information about this vast government conspiracy to hide our active offensive biological and chemical weapons programs.

      If you are in fact leaking classified information through your slashdot account, I have to wonder about your sense of self-preservation. I would imagine that you could end up either dead or in federal prison for doing something like that.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    28. Re:NO by jovlinger · · Score: 1

      but if you took those 100 daisy cutters and dropped those over a random dispersal pattern, I imagine you'd cause more damage than one nuclear bomb of similar size.

      I'm assuming that your blast radius is actually the result of a blast volume (which I'm assuming is proportional to yield), and since radius grows as the cube root of the volume, you'd be more effective if you drop several small ones.

      Lots of assumptions needed to get from there to this conclusion, tho.

    29. Re:NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Reading comprehension - 0.

      The biggest ''conspiracies'' are hidden in plain sight.

    30. Re:NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually. They Israel have tested and developed their nuclear arsenal with the full blessing and support of the USA.

    31. Re:NO by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "The Bush administration has restarted our NBC weapons program,"

      It has?

    32. Re:NO by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      Does the US have WMD/CBW stashed away in secret warehouses Yes. I know this because its never really been a secret

      Does (not did yet) Saddam H have WMD/CBW stashed away in secret warehouses Dunno yet, maybe, maybe not. Depends who you believe.

      Am I worried about the not so secret US arsenal

      No. They show no inclination to use it against anyone in particular and if they ever were to do so I suspect it would be the least of my problems by that time. And its probably well enough guarded to feel that it won't fall into the wrong hands.

      Am I worried about the oh so secret Iraqui possible arsenal

      Shit yes. None of the above feelgood factors are there.

    33. Re:NO by Lectrik · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just started thinking about this
      <Mode = "Hypothetical situation">

      Let's say you have a country with lots and lots of nearly identical desert and you're descretely making let's say 1 medium sized WMD/BCW a week.

      Now, I would have them cart the thing out to some not-previously-determined spot in the desert and descretely bury it, and take a GPS reading of the spot.

      So people don't find the GPS co-ordinates just written down somewhere, I'd make a deposit in an off-shore numbered account related to the Co-ords and let it earn intrest at a fixxed rate so it would be easy to calculate the original value.

      Then again that's only how I'd do it... not that I've tried it... yet... ummm...
      </mode>

      I've just realized this is completely off topic, but since my brain has shut back down to /. mode I guess I'll post it anyway

      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    34. Re:NO by aminorex · · Score: 1

      USAMRIID in Fort Detrick, Maryland. It was from
      the Ames strain, first cultured at the University
      of Iowa. USAMRIID is only the most visible of a
      network of labs operated by the DoD for the
      ostensible purpose of researching countermeasures
      to possible future organism-based attacks against
      U.S. or allied forces or populations. They do
      research which includes mass-production methods
      and delivery systems for the simple reason that
      understanding the state of the art and the domain
      of the feasible is essential to forming
      competent warning systems and effective
      countermeasures; however, it is certainly true
      that this development work could be very rapidly
      converted into a weapon capability, and it would
      be incompetence on the part of military planners
      if they did not create contigency plans of this
      nature. That's why Black Dog *almost* worked.
      Friendly fire was the cause of failure.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    35. Re:NO by Baki · · Score: 1

      The fact that they still exist is a proof they have them.

    36. Re:NO by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Putting aside the crazy chemical conspiracy bit, chemical weapons couldn't kill everyone in a city, even if dropped from a plane with ridiculously well trained pilots and in perfect weather. The main reason the US agreed to stop producing new chemical and biologicals is because they were largely useless as weapons, as you say. It was a trial run for negotiating a good nuke treaty.

      Look, WWI used chemicals, but WWII didn't. Why is that? You think the Fuhrer was just so much nicer than the Kaiser? (Hitler did have bad experiences with chemicals, but I'm being retorical here, we know the blindness thing was irrelevant) WWI and early II just proved that the weapons weren't worth the effort. You'd kill more people shooting out of the cockpit with a rifle than you would with a gas. Without a focused area like a building or a tunnel, chemicals disperse too fast to do much of anything. Even trenches were dissapointingly bad at concentrating chlorine or whatever.

      Nerve gas is more deadly, so you have a better chance at something, but still, look at Tokyo. Sarin in a subway, and only 12 dead. Even with a cargo jet full of the stuff, you're not going to kill a whole city. The famous "gassing his own people" thing wasn't even militarially worth much. Psychologically it was impressive, but tons and tons of gas were used on a spread of a few hundred thousand people, and the death toll is in the thousands.

      I agree with the first guy. WMD is a stupid term. They're three completely different classses of weapons with orders of magnitude between their destructive capabilities. Biological weapons alone have ridiculous differences between them, especially if you classify Botox(TM) as a bioweapon.

      I'm honestly not that worried about bioweapons though. The only useful kind is like anthrax, something in the league of chemicals. Everything else is either too deadly to spread beyond a small group, or too spreadable to either keep it away from your side or to take responsibility. Even if you don't care about your side like a terrorist, is there any satisfaction in knowing that you invented SARS if you know that telling anybody would either make it immediately much easier to cure or cause them to laugh you off?

      Anyway, yes, the US signed a treaty not to invent new kinds of bioweapons and chemicals, but not to dismantle the stocks of VX and Ebolapox that they had laying around already. Still, the standard position is that that treaty was with the CCCP and as such null and void since the CCCP is gone. The Secretary of the Army patented a rifle-mounted delivery system a few months ago in violation of it, so I think it's dead.

    37. Re:NO by Mittermeyer · · Score: 1

      Actually the warhead count is estimated to be from 200-300. Refuel range of jet-delivered munitions can extend that range greatly.

      --
      ________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
    38. Re:NO by RealityShunt · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Source on the warhead count?

      I agree about the refuel, but I most of Israel's potential targets are within the 940 mile range already ...

      realityshunt

      --
      Democracy is susceptible to being led astray by having scapegoats paraded in front of the electorate.
    39. Re:NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not bothering to sign in, but it's me, Mittermeyer.

      Here is a URL for you-
      http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/isnukes. html

      I originally read about the 150 count in 1977, so they have been well equipped for a long time.

      Don't forget their new SLCM capability. For smaller nuclear powers such as Israel and Pakistan, the SLCM diesel sub is a lot of deterrence in a relatively cheap package.

    40. Re:NO by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Haven't you heard? We're the new world Empire.

    41. Re:NO by RealityShunt · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks. Sorry for the delay in replying, slashdot's reply notification system seems to be broken...

      One does have to admire Israel for not using their nuclear capability as a political threat, despite what they face. If only India and Pakistan could be so nice...

      sigh.

      realityshunt

      --
      Democracy is susceptible to being led astray by having scapegoats paraded in front of the electorate.
    42. Re:NO by scientific2503 · · Score: 0

      WMD have only been used by christians, or non beleavers.

  29. Cool! by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1, Insightful

    An arms race? With who?

    What is this country so fucking afraid of?

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:Cool! by aerojad · · Score: 1

      Those terrorists that throw rocks at tanks...

      --

      SecondPageMedia - Wha
    2. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I'd like to know.

      Our biggest threat right now is from fundamentalist whackjobs firing off archiac Russian shoulder-mounted SAMs.

      Of course, one can argue that the march of technology of all sorts, including that of warmaking, must go forward.. After all, China, next superpower, yadda yadda.

      But tell me - is this going to do anything spifftacular that we couldn't accomplish with our current stockpile of nuclear weapons?

    3. Re:Cool! by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 1
      Or maybe terrorists who want to nuke us all.

      But I will grant you that even if we were nuked by terrorists I don't see what the use of having our own nuclear arsenal would be in that we wouldn't have a target. It seems that the new mission of the US military is to stop attacks before they happen and not to be able to defend the US from an attack which has already started. One could say that this was always their mission. Indeed, in the Cold War the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction kept the Russians in line. Something that wouldn't have happened if we didn't have the arsenal. Unfortunately, terrorists just want to get a hit in and couldn't care less if they die as a result. So other than revenge, nukes may have outlived their usefulness. Better to spend the money on black ops.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
  30. Super Batteries by notcreative · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm suprised that the potential for batteries wasn't discussed. What if this technique allowed better energy storage than we have now? What if we could store electricity when and where we produce it, and move it to where and when we want to use it? I guess what I'm asking is: when can I run my laptop off of one, and will it cause "flipper-babies?"

  31. Strictly technical discussion possible? by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

    Especially among nerds, isn't it possible to just discusss, coldly and clinically, the technology, without regards to ethics or morals?

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
    1. Re:Strictly technical discussion possible? by globalar · · Score: 1

      "without regards to ethics or morals?"

      Is that how you want weapons to be used? - Without regard for ethics or morals?

      Trolling about arms races and the destruction of the human race is one thing, but few ever seem to point out that perhaps humanity has some capability to not use these weapons.

    2. Re:Strictly technical discussion possible? by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

      I never said that's how I want them to be used, I said it should be possible to discuss them that way. Aren't we technical people? There are plenty of places to get moral and ethical discussions, but few to get scientific discussions.

      --
      -Libertarian secular transhumanist
  32. What is this country so afraid of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "What is this country so fucking afraid of?"

    Losing to the likes of Red China, which is still imperialist, or a re-started Soviet Empire (which is just one bad election in Moscow away).

    1. Re:What is this country so afraid of? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1

      Losing to the likes of Red China, which is still imperialist, or a re-started Soviet Empire (which is just one bad election in Moscow away).

      Neither country has the means, technological or financial, to cause us much harm. Nor, in my opinion, do they have the desire to do so. And the weapons we have now would take care of them both just fine should they change their mind.

      I'll restate my point: for a nation that claims to place so much value in human life and personal liberty, we seem awfully intent on finding new and innovative ways of cleansing this planet of them both.

      - A.P.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    2. Re:What is this country so afraid of? by Gannoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Neither country has the means, technological or financial, to cause us much harm. Nor, in my opinion, do they have the desire to do so.

      Neither did Germany in 1920.

    3. Re:What is this country so afraid of? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1
      I'll restate my point: for a nation that claims to place so much value in human life and personal liberty, we seem awfully intent on finding new and innovative ways of cleansing this planet of them both.

      That's the irony of the US my friend. My favorite is how we constantly talk of peace, and yet have the strongest military in the world and, especially now, have little hesitation in using it. The technology in the article sounds like a useful tool. It's difficult to work for peace while preparing for war.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    4. Re:What is this country so afraid of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the economy of Germany and France et. al. were not indelibly tied as are the economies of China and the US now. It would be economic suicide for China to go to war with us as we are a prime consumer of their industrial output. As much as I hate the imperialistic tendencies inherent in globalizing capital, it seems our best hope for real peace. After-all, how likely is there to be another great war in Europe now that the market is consolidating? How surprising would it be to see Kentucky declare war on Nevada? China is not a threa tto us. I've lived there, the Hcinese want to attack us about as much as we want to attack Canada. Oh, and last time I looked we were also an imperial power: Hello Hawaii!

    5. Re:What is this country so afraid of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor, in my opinion, do they have the desire to do so

      You need to look up from the utopian dream you think we live in.

      Try this on for size:
      http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/dod-200 3.pdf

    6. Re:What is this country so afraid of? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, your right.
      We here in europe can see what one wrong election can do....

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    7. Re:What is this country so afraid of? by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 1

      Afraid of? Terrorists. Or did you forget that millions of Islamic terrorists would love to see all Americans die, or that thousands of US citizens were killed by a terrorist attack. Yeah sure why don't we just cut the military budget that would solve everything :|. I don't think future wars will be fought between the super powers like US, China and the EU, they will most likely be fought over terrorists states and the people of these super powers. Maybe if all this wasted wellfare monery was spent on national defense the NSA, FBI, and CIA could prevent further things like this from happening. P.S. Oh yeah and for any Islam troll about to defend their faith I didn't say "all" I said millions. Oh yeah so what if it's even %1 of Islam that hate America do the math...

  33. Re:Scary fact for those who didn't read the articl by IFF123 · · Score: 1

    i know that i am repeating, but that means that 1kg of stuff + ~5 kg of storage box (the stuff that makes reaction to start) = 50 KILOTONN blast.
    Ouch...

    --
    Who took my tinfoil hat?
  34. Sounds like good news -- for the space program by Greg@RageNet · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This sounds great, could be a great source of energy for space exploration without worrying about radioactivity/fallout problems of using nuclear power for propultion.

    This technology also sounds like it could be the breakthrough for electrical storage, think laptops and electric vehicles! It could kill the whole 'hydrogen economy' stuff that was a bad idea to begin with.

    -- Greg

    --
    Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
    1. Re:Sounds like good news -- for the space program by jefp · · Score: 1

      Spaceflight - I guess, although if we really want to go we'll just use fusion bombs. The dirt/energy ratio is likely to be much better.

      Batteries - no, since the energy comes out as gamma rays. No known way to turn those to energy without tons of shielding / heat exchanger.

      Hydrogen economy - think of it as a synthesized methanol economy and it makes more sense.

  35. Exactly what we need (ironic) by panurge · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A weapon so small that a suicide bomber can use it to wipe out significant parts of city centres. So "we" have to have more and better of them first in case someone else develops them. How much security is going to be needed to make sure none of these interesting munitions escape into the wild? How much civil liberty will we have to give up so we can enjoy increased protection? I'm beginning to think what the world really needs is a development program for a weapon that destroys military installations and leaves people standing.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:Exactly what we need (ironic) by burbilog · · Score: 1

      While it's scary and surely will trigger arms race (and I as Russian will have to pay more taxes to our government to keep up with that, most probably developing asymmetrical answer, say some 100 megaton charges hidden in the ocean near U.S. coast... huge tsunami will wipe out whole coast at once, and we'll need only one submarine to plant these charges), sitting there and not researching is plain stupid. I worked with one weapon designer several years ago and he said once that if you design something it's useless to hide it in the safe, because similar ideas will independently pop up around the world. No conspiracy, no spies. Simply that's how progress works.

    2. Re:Exactly what we need (ironic) by SaXisT4LiF · · Score: 1

      I'm beginning to think what the world really needs is a development program for a weapon that destroys military installations and leaves people standing.

      Yeah, like the Vash the Stampede!

      --
      Fight or flight its all the same
      Live to die another day

      --Ryan
    3. Re:Exactly what we need (ironic) by delcielo · · Score: 1

      How much strength does the triggering x-ray need?

      What happens when a suicide terrorist carries a piece of this in his pocket through the airline gate?

      --
      Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
    4. Re:Exactly what we need (ironic) by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      The current metal detectors don't use X-Rays, IIRC.

      However, the conveyor luggage scanners, and the backscatter metal detectors in development do.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
  36. Our government is the evil empire of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we are developing super weapons to help us in our goal to keep the EU nations at bay.

    THis is fucking horrible. Ever read 1984?

  37. impress the neighbors.... by lostinchicago · · Score: 1

    talk about a 4th of july treat, set off a few small nucular explosions in yer back yard. that would impress the neighbors for sure.

  38. How dirty is this new "dirty bomb"? by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The effect of a nuclear-isomer explosion would be to release high-energy gamma rays capable of killing any living thing in the immediate area. It would cause little fallout compared to a fission explosion, but any undetonated isomer would be dispersed as small radioactive particles, making it a somewhat "dirty" bomb. This material could cause long-term health problems for anybody who breathed it in.

    I'm wondering how big a problem this "dirty bomb characteristics" issue is. How much of the isomer really doesn't detonate (and why?) Is this a 1% of the substance doesn't detonate (decay suddenly when hit with an X-ray) problem or a 50% doesn't detonate? And if the amount of the material is small enough (e.g. a gram), perhaps this falls below injurious-in-practice threshholds? I.e. how close to conventional low-yield nuclear really is it?

    --LP

  39. Yeah, I herd this before.... by Atrophis · · Score: 1

    They were called neutron bombs. Although not the same thing, I suspect the same fate. There are too many people out there that want to see nukes go, there is no way a new weapon is going to make it in this world.

    --

    i cant seem to come up with a sig.
  40. Great! Who's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We managed to end the cold war by bankrupting the former Soviet Union, now we can spend $$$$ and bankrupt the U.S., too!

  41. It's still a Nuclear device. by DRWHOISME · · Score: 1

    They mentioned it can be dirty. Doesn't have to be nuclear fission for me to call it Nuclear. I am sure the NORTH KOREANS are reading the same website as well as the USA's favorite job producer China.

  42. Arms race? by iLEZ · · Score: 1

    Arms race between who?
    Its not like Russia has any plans of global domination(c),
    and the terrorists hardly have any funds of building MiniNukes.
    Buying REAL nukes from corrupt russian warehaoused00dz, that is another story.

    Cue the Soviet Russia jokes!

    --
    You cant fight in here, its a war room!
  43. Non proliferation Treaty?? by RootMoose · · Score: 1

    From the article - "many countries which will not have access to these weapons will produce nuclear weapons as a deterrent"

    Great I dont suppose that the Gov't figured this new weapon and the reasearch into it would spark other nations to adopt nuclear weapons as a recourse to these weapons.

  44. Next Arms Race-Break out the "ludicrus" bomb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This is simply the latest iteration of an age-old phenomenon."

    Quite true. However the question that has never been answered is: Will these "iterations" end badly for the human race?

  45. nuclear isomers by jefp · · Score: 1

    Remember "red mercury"? While it was never established exactly what the stuff was, or even if it existed at all, one of the guesses was that it was exactly what this article talks about.

    The energy density of these nuclear isomers is just about halfway, on a logorithmic scale, between chemical and nuclear processes. 1000 times more power than chemicals, 1000 times less powerful than fission/fusion. Approximately.

    The really interesting possibility is what happens if you form some of the stuff into a rod and then start the emission at one end. Does it cascade out the other end like a gamma-ray laser? In theory, it ought to.

    1. Re:nuclear isomers by stripe · · Score: 1

      Are you thinking of Gamma Ray Beams? Grazers? There is also the possbility of using this as a source of spaceship propulsion. Put into Rods the energy density and controllable detonation would make it an ideal spaceship engine.

    2. Re:nuclear isomers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it wouldn't. Gamma rays are high energy photons, which have no mass and wouldn't be useful for stellar propulsion. Chemical propellant engines use combustion to expel actual massive particles, which causes the rocket to move in the other direction. Photon expulsion would have no such effect, no matter how much energy is released.

      This type of weapon doesn't really "explode" in the conventional sense. Unlike fission, in which physical particles are actually moving, this explosion is simply a release of high-energy radiation. It would burn everything to death, but it wouldn't really have much concussive force (compared to a conventional or a nuclear weapon). Kind of like a neutron bomb.

      That is why you couldn't use it for propulsion (at least directly), because outside of an atmosphere it won't produce any force.

      You could use it to generate high voltage, high current energy, and use that in conjuntion with some compressed ions of some kind to accelerate the spaceship. Ionic propulsion has always been viable except for the lack of a light, compact voltage source than can drive DC voltages of several megavolts. Maybe this could do the trick?

    3. Re:nuclear isomers by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      This article may be complete crap, but it claims red mercury is mercury antimony oxide, compressed using a primary explosion to induce fusion.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    4. Re:nuclear isomers by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      This article may be complete crap, but it claims red mercury is mercury antimony oxide, compressed using a primary explosion to induce fusion.

      And I agree with another poster about use in rocket engines. While the gamma rays my provide little boost -- and I do believe they would provide some, otherwise why would solar sails work? -- they could be used to heat some other material either to produce thrust or electricity.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    5. Re:nuclear isomers by jefp · · Score: 1

      Yes, there were many different claims about what red mercury was.

    6. Re:nuclear isomers by stripe · · Score: 1

      http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae523 .cfm Explanation of how a photon engine would work

  46. Seriously... what's the point? by aerojad · · Score: 1

    Bigger and better weapons? Does anyone really have to have the worst bad weapon out there? At the rate we're going, we might as well just wire the entire planet up with explosives and when one country disagrees with another, one country can send the other into orbit.

    --

    SecondPageMedia - Wha
    1. Re: Seriously... what's the point? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Bigger and better weapons? Does anyone really have to have the worst bad weapon out there? At the rate we're going, we might as well just wire the entire planet up with explosives and when one country disagrees with another, one country can send the other into orbit.

      Like the Simpsons episode where the therapist wires them up to the buttons they can use to shock each other.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Seriously... what's the point? by Saige · · Score: 1

      I'm just waiting until they develop the first weapons that are powerful enough to break apart the planet. Then everyone will want one, and before long, at any moment, someone could destroy all of humanity. And most likely there are people who would do so if given the opportunity.

      It saddens me that so many people look at others, and seem only interested in killing them or locking them up, and will spend ridiculous amounts of time, effort, and money to do such things. But consider trying to help people, to educate them, and suddenly there's no money available and no interest in doing so.

      I'm starting to realize that we'll never all be able to get along - because there are plenty of people who don't want such a thing to happen. And so many more that don't seem to care either way.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
  47. Arms race? What arms race? by mkro · · Score: 2, Flamebait
    The work has also raised fears that weapons based on this technology could trigger the next arms race.

    Riight... Like the U.S. would let anyone else even participate in a race. Any country going in that direction will first be nudged lightly with reminders of economic sanctions, and if that doesn't stop them, nudged lightly with a sledgehammer.

    The race is over, the U.S. won, but they seem to go on racing on their own. (No poetry intended)
    --
    I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
    1. Re:Arms race? What arms race? by saskwach · · Score: 1

      So why hasn't North Korea been nudged since we helped them set up a nuclear weapons program and listed them in the axis of evil?

    2. Re:Arms race? What arms race? by goodmanj · · Score: 1
      Riight... Like the U.S. would let anyone else even participate in a race. Any country going in that direction will first be nudged lightly with reminders of economic sanctions, and if that doesn't stop them, nudged lightly with a sledgehammer.

      Well, India and Pakistan seem to have an eye on the checkered flag. The U.S. has given a few gentle nudges, but no sledgehammer is forthcoming.

    3. Re:Arms race? What arms race? by JungleBoy · · Score: 1

      Maybe the US is just taking a victory lap.

      --
      "You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
      -Calvin
  48. Legal? by arth1 · · Score: 1

    And this is legal under international laws and multilateral agreements, just how? Even the MOAB is disputable, due to its chemical base, and this will almost certainly be disputed?

    Regards,
    --
    *Art

    1. Re:Legal? by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

      MOAB disputable due to its chemical base? How? All conventional explosives are chemical based and the result of a chemical reaction.

    2. Re:Legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the DoD, it's not a nuclear weapon.

      And they have more expensive lawyers than you :)

  49. Mod parent blablaba by iLEZ · · Score: 1

    That is scary because it is real.
    Who checks so that the USA does not handle their MWDs in the wrong way?

    --
    You cant fight in here, its a war room!
    1. Re:Mod parent blablaba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MWDs? Massive Weapons of Destructions?

    2. Re:Mod parent blablaba by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Well, nobody really needs to, you see, because the USA is, in general, the good guys who help everybody else out, fight their wars for them, and dump money into their economies, so there's really not much chance they're going to start nuking people.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:Mod parent blablaba by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Who checks so that the USA does not handle their MWDs in the wrong way?

      Define "the wrong way". More to the point, what would this hypothetical checker do if they found such "mishandling"? If you thought it was difficult to get a coalition of countries together to attack Iraq in order to produce compliance, can you imagine how difficult it would be to get such a coalition to actually take real action against the most powerful country in the world?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  50. No US empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh? The US has not engaged in imperialism since before WW2, and it fights against evil.

    1. Re: No US empire by Black+Parrot · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      > Huh? The US has not engaged in imperialism since before WW2, and it fights against evil.

      Don't bogart that pipe, my friend.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re: No US empire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come up with one example. One, humphrey.

  51. We actually DID use our nuclear arsenal... by TrollBridge · · Score: 3, Informative
    Personally, I'm glad we built up a huge nuclear arsenal; it was instrumental to winning the cold war.

    Maybe they weren't used in the way they were designed to be, but they were indeed used. The only thing deterring the Soviet Union was the understanding that if they went to war with the U.S., they would be utterly destroyed. I would submit that our nuclear stockpiling is the sole reason why the Soviets didn't take over the world.

    --
    There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
    1. Re:We actually DID use our nuclear arsenal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I submit that the Soviet Union failed because it's economy sucked (mostly do to totalitarism and communism).

      I think our build up was a big waste of money. Look at the facts and you'll find the CIA/Reagon were wrong about Russian's threat. Very wrong.

    2. Re:We actually DID use our nuclear arsenal... by aliens · · Score: 1

      The policy you are referring to is MAD. Mutally Assured Desctruction neither side would use their arms because they knew they'd both end up getting wiped out. It wasn't just our stockpile that won the war. It was our economy.

      And the threat of Soviets taking over the world was extremely exaggeratted for propaganda. If they were out to take over the world then every communist country would be under control of Moscow and that's simply not the case. China and the Soviets were always at odds, and Yugoslavia was under Tito. And the idea that if Vietnam fell into Communist hands the entire Asia/Australian region would go under (The Domino Theory) proved worthless.

      This does not mean I support the communist dictators that ruled the Soviet Union. But don't believe the old ideas that the Soviets were a barbarian horde frothing at the mouth to take over every inch of land. (Stalin was frothing at the mouth but he was insane)

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    3. Re:We actually DID use our nuclear arsenal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I submit that the Soviet Union failed because it's economy sucked"

      Correct! And do you know where a large portion of the people's money went?

      That's right, nuclear weapons.

  52. New energy source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article said that the halfnium released 60 times the energy put in. It could have a great potential for a commercial energy source.

  53. All your hafnium are belong to us. by inertia187 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is the best part of the article: "The hafnium explosive could be extremely powerful. One gram of fully charged hafnium isomer could store more energy than 50 kilograms of TNT. Miniature missiles could be made with warheads that are far more powerful than existing conventional weapons, giving massively enhanced firepower to the armed forces using them."

    In fifty years, we'll be defending our right to bare hafnium tipped bullets. God Bless America.

    --
    A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
  54. scary? Is that an intelligent thing to say? by Thinkit3 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think it's fascinating. Only stupid people think it's scary.

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
  55. No reason to be pissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " The cold war is over already, and massive defense spending is what caused this deficit mess we're in now."

    Defense spending is a relatively small part of the federal budget. If you got rid of it entirely, you'd still have the problem.

  56. You know what this means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reacting to suspscions that the United States was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, the United States invaded itself last week. "As part of its continuing mission to prevent the proliferation of high powered weaponry, we must stop these weapons at the source. We know that America has acted agressivly against foriegn nations. It's Intelligence agencies have promoted torture and despotic rule in Central America. It has supported an autocratic regiem in Pakistan. It has unapplogetically bombed factories in Sudan. " Said Attorney General John Ashcroft.

    " We also have evidence that it's trying to obtain yellowcake from Africa" Added George Tenet, director of the CIA.

    Longstanding rivalries broke into open warfare as American naval submaries launched vollies of surface to air missles at an army base on the American Mainland.

    Earlier this week, a deck of playing cards was released featuring members of congress and George W. Bush as the 'ace of spades'.

  57. Sad. by sekzscripting · · Score: 1
    I think it's really time to dump *all* nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon research. Nuclear weapons are the worst thing that has happened to modern 'war fare', it's tragic.

    What I don't get is, why make a weapon that will not only 'hurt' the country it is being dropped on - but the whole world?

  58. But more importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...will M$ come out with a new 'flipper-compatible' keyboard?

  59. Hello, North Korea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've gotta stop building those Nuclear weapons. You too, Iraq.

    What? No, we can't send you any aid. See, we're using all the money to build these funky new nuclear weapons.

  60. Re:Is this really a good idea? by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course it isn't a good idea. Inventing new ways to kill others (and therefore to be killed, yourself) has always been a human fallacy. Scientists always do such research and make such discoveries strictly in the name of science. Those guys in Texas (who observed this effect) were likely not trying to pioneer new warfare (they were working towards super-batteries), but the militant and the paranoid ones immediately took over.

    The thing that needs to happen (in order for the human race to become truly enlightened) is for science to exist apart from military and warfare. If we can use science to better our lives, and solve our disputes like the animals do (butting heads, or with tooth and nail) then I think we'd get along better. Oh, and get rid of all the lawyers, too. But that's obviously an over-idealized world.

    It is true, and frightening, that such a discovery (and the very limited distribution of the technology) could put pressure on less-developed countries to get nuclear weapons (and other lethal alternatives) as a threat against our Gamma weapons. We wouldn't want every country without Gamma weapons to turn into an Iraq, now would we?

    Well, at least we've now got the robot Air Force.

  61. One problem with the power source idea by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    Just how do you propose keeping those Hulks chained to those treadmills powering the turbines?

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  62. hey.. by Biomechanoid · · Score: 1

    New Scientist is reporting on a USDOD project to produce super explosives.

    But what does that have to do with SCO?

  63. Other than useful mass by praedor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and means of detonation, this isn't much different than neutron bombs. You could produce a small yield neutron bomb and do the same thing and be less dirty with the radioactive material.


    As a military member myself, I cannot say that this weapon is "attractive" to me. As a commander, I wouldn't want to use it as a matter of course any more than I would want to use a nuke. I WOULD use a nuke or this weapon, however, in a dire emergency, which appears to be precisely what this weapon is NOT intended for. It is seen as something with general use potential...to some in DOD halls where everything is clean theory but not to me, a line guy.


    As far as I am concerned, use of such a weapon would barely be a step up from use of a dirty bomb, which would rightly be seen as illegal and an act of terror. Not me, no thanks.

    --
    In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    1. Re:Other than useful mass by Nihilanth · · Score: 1

      i wonder if any of this will occur to the person being commanded to press the button.

      not that it matters, we're already murderers, we're just finding new and exotic ways to do it.

    2. Re:Other than useful mass by Phanatic1a · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could produce a small yield neutron bomb and do the same thing and be less dirty with the radioactive material.


      Huh? A small-yield neutron bomb?

      A neutron bomb is a fusion warhead. As such, it requires a fission warhead to set it off. A 'small yield' fission warhead is, at the very least, going to be equivalent to anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand tons of TNT, and the second stage fusion warhead, which releases the neutrons, is going to add to that. "Small-yield fusion bomb" is something of an oxymoron.

      And neutron bombs are rather dirty, indeed. In addition to the fallout from the fission primary, the intense neutron flux transmutes many substances, notably metals, in the surrounding area into radioisotopes. Some of those will have rather long half-lives.

    3. Re:Other than useful mass by praedor · · Score: 1

      Interesting. If I could have mod points after posting I would bump you up. I haven't looked at neutron weapons for quite some time (the 80's)...but I still don't like this weapon. It strikes me as ethically suspect to do everything possible to skirt the letter of the stricture against using nukes when it is clearly violating the spirit of such strictures.


      Trying to argue over the definition of the word "is", or try to argue that what you said in a State of the Union speech about Iraq and Al Queda and WMD isn't what you really said or meant, is just as suspect and indefensible. I can't see the U.N. or other countries regardless of the U.N. saying, "Oh, yeah...OK. It's not REALLY a nuke and it's not REALLY a dirty bomb/WMD. You got us on a technicality. You get a pass THIS time." They would (rightly) raise holy hell and so too, I would hope, would our own citizenry. Weasel words about it not QUITE being a nuke or WMD so its perfectly OK might be cool with slimy lawyers but it isn't ethically correct. In any case, use of such a weapon WOULD pretty much open the gates for whomever you used it against to retaliate using REAL nukes.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    4. Re:Other than useful mass by mosch · · Score: 1
      please stop comparing bill clinton lying about a blowjob to the bush administration working in unison to lie about hundreds of dead americans, thousands of dead iraqi civilians, and billions of dollars of unneccessary expense.

      There is no comparison. None.

    5. Re:Other than useful mass by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      I wasn't arguing that point, I was just saying that this technology is seemingly capable of yields far smaller than neutron bombs are.

      I, personally, don't see much of a point to this weapon. The more accurate your bombs can be, the smaller your bombs can be, and our bombs are already sufficiently accurate that they don't need warheads of 50 tons of TNT-equivalent, and they don't have the problem of radioactive waste products. Being able to store huge amounts of energy in an excited nuclear isomer is a very neat trick, but I think we can find better uses to put it to then bombs.

    6. Re:Other than useful mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't hesitate to use this weapon as a commander. Of course, I'm old school. Using the maximum amount of force at the point of decisive importance sort of thing.

      I don't get that sense from today's Army. That's one of many reasons why I didn't go to West Point.

    7. Re:Other than useful mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't hear anyone complaining about any "lies" until the whole "British intelligence" statement from the SotU speech. After that, everyone and their brother is claiming that Bush is "lying".

      The thing that gets me is that the British are standing by their intelligence. One docucument was shown to be forged. But that the bulk of their intelligence that Iraq was attempting to purchase Uranium from Africa was correct.

      So please enlighten those of us in the dark. What, specifically, did Bush say that you consider a lie? Please point out where the information he said specifically went contrary to what he knew at the time.

    8. Re:Other than useful mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Other than useful mass and means of detonation, this isn't much different than neutron bombs.
      It's hella different. Most of the radioactive decays in a plutonium bomb release alpha particles, for which your own skin provides a pretty good shield. Most of them don't even make it out of the "pit", so it gets a little warm. All the stray radiation in a gamma bomb would be gamma rays, which are exceedingly penetrative. Shielding this thing would be a bitch and a half.
      As a commander, I wouldn't want to use it as a matter of course any more than I would want to use a nuke.
      Well, the physics don't actually work so it's no more than a pipe dream. But if they did, it would be an extraordinarily clean and powerful bomb. The chain reaction in a fission bomb shuts down rather quickly, so you're left with lots of unburned plutonium or whatever as fallout, not to mention all the radioactivity induced in the surroundings. (Ground burst! Cobalt cladding!) But if the stimulated gamma bomb worked as claimed, the chain reaction wouldn't just use the primary gamma rays, but also the secondary x-rays that are scattered back by the surroundings. It would keep right on burning long beyond the point where a fission bomb had already shot its wad. It also wouldn't induce any radioactivity in the surroundings. There'd be an immense flash of light, a modest explosion, and a small mushroom carrying the radioactivity into the sky. Sure, there'd be fallout, but it probably wouldn't be too bad considering the alternative is carpet bombing or a prolonged siege. (Don't know how bad it would be, but we're talking about a fictional device so I guess it doesn't matter. A little fallout doesn't scare me too bad, since it's not like fallout is some magical thing that's only created by mad scientists. Lots of places treat radon like Cambodians treat landmines, and they're not being alarmist.)
      As far as I am concerned, use of such a weapon would barely be a step up from use of a dirty bomb,...
      A swift victory with gamma bombs would be preferrable to a protracted war that leaves plastic-cased landmines everywhere. Hell, there's still a company in London that carts off German bombs. I'd pay to go on a tour of Three Mile Island, but you couldn't pay me enough to demine a single acre by hand.
    9. Re:Other than useful mass by praedor · · Score: 1

      Off topic but...I LIKED Clinton. I was behind him all the way BUT it was nonetheless ethically wrong to try that crap. The correct action at that point was to give it up, take the lumps, and move on. It would have died (almost) right there. Instead, by doing the weasel thing and quibbling over the definition of the word "is" he made it worse and exacerbated the problem beyond what it deserved. This is quite apart from the FACT that the questioning that led to this crap response were entirely illegitimate and beyond the pale. At that point it was absolutely clear he was covering up the fact that he DID have "sexual relations with that woman" (big deal!) so his weasel wording his responses were pointless anyway.


      The RESULT of Bush's dishonesty and lack of ethics have been FAR worse than anything from Clinton so on the level of outright consequence of ethical weakness, he is worse. Both were wrong and I see it as a form of cowardess. Whether something is unethical and cowardly is not predicated on whether or not someone died as a result. It stands as unethical and cowardly quite on its own.


      You make a mistake, you freakin' own up to it lock, stock, and barrel. Take your lumps, learn from it, perhaps regain or improve the respect people feel for you (and regain your self respect), and move on. I am quite objective and fair in my expectations in this regard. If you are real man (or woman), you have the guts to NOT QUIBBLE. You have the guts to suck up your mistakes. This is something generally lacking in ALL politicians (no exceptions as far as I have ever seen), even those who may have served honorably in the military in the past and, perhaps, held such ideas and ideals close to their heart. I don't accept such moral weakness (totally unrelated to religion) and I consider it indefensible no matter what. I don't quibble, I don't try to weasel out of my mistakes with lawyer-like mush-mouthing and I don't accept it from anyone else.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    10. Re:Other than useful mass by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      please stop comparing bill clinton

      Who said anything about Clinton? Disputing the definition of "is" was a feature of Bill Gate's testimony in the antitrust suit.

      Clinton argued about what "sexual relations" means, but the award for redefining "is" goes to a different Bill.

    11. Re:Other than useful mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is quite apart from the FACT that the questioning that led to this crap response were entirely illegitimate and beyond the pale."

      The questionning was quite legitimate: it was concerning Clinton's use of sexual favors from his employees. After all, he did eventually admit harassing Paula Jones.

      "The RESULT of Bush's dishonesty and lack of ethics have been FAR worse than anything from Clinton"

      No, the results of Bush's honesty and strong ethics have been far better than anything from Clinton.

      It. took me a while to get used to the fact that Clinton was out of office and we no longer had a President who tried to make everything worse in his policies.

    12. Re:Other than useful mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not me, no thanks.

      Nobody is asking you. For everyone person like yourself who doesn't want to use this, there a dozens who would gladly put it to use to kill the enemy.

      So, if your objection was that you personally didn't want to handle this weapon, you have nothing to worry about. They won't let the likes of you anywhere near it.

    13. Re:Other than useful mass by mosch · · Score: 1
      Bush said that Iraq had developed weapons with an 800 mile range.
      Bush said that we would find weapons of mass destruction as soon as we had control of the country.
      Bush said that inspections were not keeping the Iraqis from reconstituting their nuclear program.
      Bush said that we had senior iraqi officials with proof of the reconstituted program.
      Bush said Iraq and Al-Queda work together.
      Bush said Iraq has 1000 tons of chemical weapons that it will use.
      Bush said local commanders had been given chemical weapons for use in the defense of Iraq.
      Bush said Iraq has unmanned drones capable of delivering biological agents worldwide.
      Bush said so damned many lies I can't try to list them all.

      if you didn't hear the millions of people who marched against this invasion, it's because you didn't want to. People don't like the idea that they're indirectly invading a country, killing thousands of innocent civilians in that country, failing to provide peace, security, or even water and electricity to those people.

      People want Bush to be honest, and the war to be a success, but both of these things are simply not the truth.

      As far as what he knew at the time... which option do you prefer, a leader who lies to you to get what he wants, or a leader who is so stupid that he can be convinced to go to war with evidence that millions of people clearly saw was false and inadaquate?

    14. Re:Other than useful mass by mosch · · Score: 1
    15. Re:Other than useful mass by praedor · · Score: 1

      Shows how little you know of what really goes on in the military, regardless of how quickly we can (not) vanquish an enemy.


      Every 3rd day. That was the combat mission profile for each aircrew out of Diego Garcia (B-52s) during Desert Storm. One day to mission plan (that is, plan a mission that we knew damn well we wouldn't actually fly - it would ALWAYS change in flight and new targets designated), one day to fly the mission (13 hours was the shortest mission I flew on, 16 the longest), and one day off. What went on in the off time? That means the evening after mission planning and on the day off. Some of us rode mountain bikes all over the island (commanders and peons included), spent a few hours in the gym, snorkeled at the beach, rented a small Boston Whaler for a few hours, or, as happened with a distressing number of slobs...sat in quarters playing tetris and similar games on gameboys (new at that time).


      If you are a ground pounder grunt, you don't get the luxurious free time that I mention. If you are an Air Force member, you get cush time and DO spend your time not fighting, reading mags, browsing the web (there was no web to browse of any note back then).


      Those guys in Britain during that war had the same sort of profile as we did on Diego Garcia. Their time off, however, was spent in great British pubs, cruising shops, taking in the sites, etc. Commanders included.


      You. Know. Nothing.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  64. teehee by CHatRPI · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I hear one more hulk joke, I'm going to get very angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

  65. morons re-announce newclear power programs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's right. it'll take quite a charge to disempower the unbridled/unprecedented evile that threatens to destroy the planet/population.

    no problem. those fauxking thieving murderers best get ready to see the light, as their legacy will be that they were known as the walking dead, & did immeasurable damage to all of us, to satiate their whoreabully excessive, greed/fear based squanderage.

    the lights are coming up now.

    you can pretend all you want. our advise is to be as far away from the walking dead contingent as possible, when the big flash occurs. you wouldn't want to get any of that evile on you.

    as to the free unlimited energy plan, as the lights come up, more&more folks will stop being misled into sucking up more&more of the infant killing barrolls of crudeness, & learn that it's more than ok to use newclear power generated by natural (hydro, solar, etc...) methods. of course more information about not wasting anything/behaving less frivolously is bound to show up, here&there.

    cyphering how many babies it costs for a barroll of crudeness, we've decided to cut back, a lot, on wasteful things like giving monIE to felons, to help them destroy the planet/population.

    no matter. the #1 task is planet/population rescue. the lights are coming up. we're in crisis mode. you can help.

    the unlimited power (such as has never been seen before) is freely available to all, with the possible exception of the aforementioned walking dead.

    consult with/trust in yOUR creator. more breathing. vote with yOUR wallet. seek others of non-aggressive intentions/behaviours. that's the spirit, moving you.

    pay no heed/monIE to the greed/fear based walking dead.

    each harmed innocent carries with it a bad toll. it will be repaid by you/us. the Godless felons will not be available to make reparations.

    pay attention. that's definitely affordable, plus you might develop skills which could prevent you from being misled any further by phonIE ?pr? ?firm? generated misinformation.

    good work so far. there's still much to be done. see you there. tell 'em robbIE.

    the rest of the wwworld is laughing/crying at/for US in sympathy/disgust, as we fall/jump into the daze of the georgewellian corepirate nazi life0cide, whilst criticizing their ip gangsters, which are also members of the walking dead.

  66. Stop the insanity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Especially among nerds, isn't it possible to just discusss, coldly and clinically, the technology, without regards to ethics or morals?"

    And maybe that's what's wrong with this world? Too many people sitting around, being "coldly, clinical" about killing there fellow humans, instead of being "passionatly, ethical" about putting an end to the madness.

    As long as humans are worth a $1.50 in compounds, and as easily replaced. The insanity will never stop.

  67. Re:scary? Is that an intelligent thing to say? by chia_monkey · · Score: 1

    On a purely scientific level, it IS pretty fascinating.

    Given that there are hoards of people that would love to use this to hurt, maim, and kill others is just plain scary.

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
  68. Re:Our government is the evil empire of the world. by datarat · · Score: 1

    Yes. Don't get your connection tho, unless it's blind, unreasoning panic.

    --
    If you do something right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
  69. Wiki by Detritus · · Score: 1

    According to this Wiki article, "One kilogram of pure Hf-178-2m contains approximately 900 gigajoules of energy, or about a quarter of a kiloton."

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Wiki by IFF123 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know. A bit after i submitted, I realized that it's not 50 Kilotonnes, but 50Tonnes at most.

      --
      Who took my tinfoil hat?
  70. Who cares about Bombs, what about Reactors? by kevlar · · Score: 1

    The question should be whether this is a relatively stable means of generating energy? What would be the resulting waste and can every house have its own power plant? That could be pivotal to the nations energy usage.

    Does anyone know the answers to these questions? I know its difficult to manufacture now, so don't flame me on that. Anyone know anything about the containment of hafnium?

    1. Re:Who cares about Bombs, what about Reactors? by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2

      Doubt it. From what it reads like, it seems like you need to put just as much of energy in as what you get out. The only difference is that the amount of rate of energy release is an incredible amount [ie explosion]. It's like when you overfill a balloon and it explodes.

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
    2. Re:Who cares about Bombs, what about Reactors? by DigitalReligion · · Score: 1

      Didnt it say in the article that they pumped the nucleus with energy and it gave off 60 times that?

      "The possibility that this process could be explosive was discovered when Carl Collins and colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas demonstrated that they could artificially trigger the decay of the hafnium isomer by bombarding it with low-energy X-rays (New Scientist print edition, 3 July 1999). The experiment released 60 times as much energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could be achieved."

  71. Re:Arms race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cue the Soviet Russia jokes!

    Okay.

    IN SOVIET RUSSIA, Soviet Russia joke cues you.

  72. the answer...defense technology. by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

    The answer to technology is more technology. What are ways to defend against this? What are ways to fight back (detecting stockpiles or such)?

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
  73. Re:Arms race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, jokes cue you!

  74. Detection and control. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

    My basic question concerning this is two-fold, is this realy needed, and if it is created will we be able to control the techology. With world events the way they are now it seems like one of the last things that we end is a small high yeild weapon that can fall into the worng hands. At least with nuclear weapons there are some means of detecting their presence, but it seems that these weapons will not have the same signature.

    The metastable isomers used for this type of weapon decay naturally - the new discovery is just a way to accelerate this decay so that it happens all at once. You can still detect the source material from its gamma ray glow (in much the same manner as you'd detect fissile material).

    and if it is created will we be able to control the techology

    Now that it's know to be feasible, whether the US develops it or not is irrelevant. Joe Random Terrorist State could look up the papers published on use of the effect for a power source tomorrow, and start their own bomb program.

    Control, if required, is accomplished by making sure the states your concerned about don't build the equipment needed to produce the weapons (large and expensive equipment for all methods of producing the explosives, including charging by gamma excitation).

    1. Re:Detection and control. by Imabug · · Score: 4, Informative
      It seems a group of scientists at LLNL, Los Alamos and Argonne have data from a couple of years ago that challenges the principles behind this gamma ray weapon.

      Read the story here

      Excerpts from the story:
      Using the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne, which has more than 100,000 times higher X-ray intensity than the dental X-ray machine used in the original experiment, and a sample of isomeric Hf-178 fabricated at Los Alamos, the team of physicists expected to see an enormous signal indicating a controlled release of energy stored in the long lived nuclear excited state. However, the scientists observed no such signal and established an upper limit consistent with nuclear science and orders of magnitude below previous reports.
      ...
      The team set out to verify previous findings that stated a nuclear isomer, (hafnium) Hf-178, which has a half life of 31 years, is able to release a controlled amount of energy (decay quicker) when tickled with dental machine X-rays. However, when the team turned the APS X-ray beam onto the sample of 31-yr. Hf-178, no detectable increase of the isomer decay occurred. In other words, the X-ray irradiation did not decrease the time it takes for hafnium to decay; a result that Becker and the team claim is consistent with nuclear physics.
      --
      "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
    2. Re:Detection and control. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Another quote from that article: "The tri-lab team decided to validate the earlier experiment and the conclusion of previous researchers: energy can be released in a controlled application that could be developed into a gamma ray laser."

      So although it doesn't appear to work anyway, if there is a way to make it work, it's a lot more than a mini-nuke...gamma-ray lasers have been a sci-fi superweapon for years.

    3. Re:Detection and control. by krysith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It appears there is still some controversy about those results:
      controversy
      Controversy is usually a good thing in science. It often means that there is an effect we don't entirely understand. In other words: There is a cool new effect, we don't entirely understand!!!

      Judging from the difference in results coming from sources of differing bandwidth, it would appear that is an important factor. Which makes sense since this is essentially a resonance process.

    4. Re:Detection and control. by fupeg · · Score: 1

      Gotta love their results : "All previous positive results CONFIRMED; 0.2% branch of photoionization at L1 and L3 ionization edges causes decay of isomeric state." The all caps makes this seem so scientific...

    5. Re:Detection and control. by krysith · · Score: 1

      Actually, I found the "Europhys. Lett. 57, 677 (2002)" made it seem so scientific.

      Link to Abstract

      Abstract
      A process for transferring energy from electron shells into nuclear excitation, NEET, has offered the promise for modulating nuclear properties at accessible levels of power. It had been proven recently by exciting a nuclear level of 197Au with synchrotron radiation, but measured couplings were far below theoretical objectives. Reported here is an extension of that approach for excitation to 178Hfm2 isomeric nuclei. Isomeric targets were irradiated with X-rays in the beamline BL01B1 at the synchrotron radiation source SPring-8. Energies were tuned from 9 to 13 keV. In this range an excitation branch attributed to NEET was found to have a probability of 0.002 relative to L-shell photoionization. The resulting emission of exoergic gamma-photons was observed from the target at a rate approaching the theoretical maximum.

      The full article is available online from EDP, but it is a pay site.

    6. Re:Detection and control. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LL seem to have changed their mind - given that they sent someone along to the isomer storage workshop last week, along with others from the weapons dide of the industry. This suggests something.

  75. Weapons? Why doesn't my car run on this. by ivanmarsh · · Score: 1
    The experiment released 60 times as much energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could be achieved.

    Why aren't Gamma Reactor Power Plants going up all over the country?

  76. no new president, thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Wait for the next couple. Hopefully we'll ahve a new one next year"

    The current one is much better than each one of the 9 or 10 dwarves. No thanks, the current one will do just fine. Check back in another four years.

  77. Terrorism at its best. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    One gram of fully charged hafnium isomer could store more energy than 50 kilograms of TNT.

    So, we can assume that this info will never be sold to the next round of freedom fighters, eh (anybody remember Bin Ladin in the 80's)? And it will never be the next technique to be used against the western world? Until active bombardbment it will be hard to detect. After the bombardment, it will be primed and read to go. I am waiting for when we start selling Laser technology and then act surprised that our aircraft are being shot down by a minuture sub laying off shore or by a small model aircraft.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Terrorism at its best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the good news is that we will be able to take on those pesky 2 billion reds that will be invading us soon without worrying about wether the UN will approve or not.

  78. sorry to burst your bubble by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 1

    defense is 20-25%, and interest on debt is 30%. With a lot less of the former over the last 20 years, you wouldn't have the latter and the federal spending would be half what it is now.

    1. Re:sorry to burst your bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      73.2% of statistics are made up on the spot.

  79. CNN/Fox/MSNBC had this MONTHS AGO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, what is it with slashdot getting old news on the front page? Particularly with this mini-nuke program! This is ooooold news, like your grandma kind of old.

    Shit, even the cable news networks were talking about these baby nukes MONTHS AGO and how they could blur the lines between when to use a nuclear weapon.

    Seems that slashdoters only remember "Access of Evil" from the President's State of the Union address, and NOT these nukes. Wow.

  80. Murder by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    Voltaire commented that if a person is murdered, we prosecute the guilty, unless a truly huge number of people are killed, accompanied by the sound of trumpets...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  81. The weapon is only as good as the will to use it by mattlott · · Score: 1

    I am tired of all these people whining about nuclear weapons, or this weapons system. A weapons system is only good if the enemy believes in their heart of hearts that there is a point at which you would use the. For instance during the first Gulf War when saddam had chemical warheads beyond a shaddow of a doubt, dont you think the implied threat of two or three f-111 with tactical nuke deterred his using of the chemical weapons. I for one would rather be the possesor of the technology, rather than Jahad johnny who thinks he is going to get 72 virgins by blowing himself up. Like it or not they guy who refused to develop the gun, and fight with knife is was the one who died first.

  82. Why think weapons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    With a little work, these nuclear isomers could be worked into a chewing gum that could give you icy-fresh breath and lightening bolts that shoot out of your mouth. The ravers would eat up!

  83. Re:Scary fact for those who didn't read the articl by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 1

    You'd think that would be the ultimate weapon for suicide bombers, but actually the stuff would be too expensive aqnd easy to detect from a distance with a geiger counter unless it had a few inches of lead casing surrounding it (not somehing you can hide under a jacket).

  84. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happened to ethics? Just because you can does not mean you should. I'm very sick of the "greatest nation on earth tm" making the biggest messes on earth. Perhaps a preemptive strike is in order.

  85. Tap the sun! by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

    Pump in solar energy, extract it up to 15 years later :)

  86. Peaceful use of the technology by BurritoJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why not combine this gamma producing technogy with the nuclear reactor waste processing technology (which conveniently requires gamma rays) and everyone can be happy? http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 94056> waste processing

  87. Imagine UAV's by Carbon+Unit+549 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unmanned Air Vehicles: I'm an aerospace engineer and UAV's are the next big thing. I shudder to think of swarms of semi-autonomous 6 inch UAV's buzzing along carrying a couple of grams of this stuff.

    --

    nohup rm -rf ~/. >& zen &

  88. To hell with this species by fzammett · · Score: 1

    Any species that looks at a 100-megaton nuclear explosion and thinks "yeah, that's nice, but it's NOT QUIT BIG ENOUGH" probably doesn't deserve to exist.

    I love the documentary I watched a few weeks ago on the development of the atomic bomb and the tit-for-tat between the U.S. and Soviet Union for a couple of decades. I was actually laughing. To paraphrase:

    "The United States today detonated a 10 kiloton nuclear weapon. The Soviet Union replied by saying 'that's nice, here's a 25 kiliton blast for ya'. Not being deterrred, the U.S. test-fires the first one megaton nuclear weapon. The U.S.S.R., not especially impressed, replied by detonating a 10 megaton weapon. The U.S., thinking it wasn't quite big enough, shot a 25-megaton weapon off. The U.S.S.R. snidly commented that they could do better, and moments later detonated a 50 megaton bomb. The U.S., not to be outdone, popped off the first 100 megaton blast".

    And no one looked at one of the first three and said "yeah, that'll do just fine"?!? No, let's keep kicking it up a notch, until we can eliminate an entire continent with one blow.

    Yeah, WE deserve to exist.

    --
    If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
    1. Re:To hell with this species by confused+one · · Score: 1
      Those were tests. We don't build them that big.

      So, to answer your question, Yes, someone did look at the results and "Yeah, that'll do just fine" If I remember right, the weapons in our active stockpile are in the 10's kiloton range, with a few in the 100 kton range.

      Unless someone has seen one of these go off (and there are damn few people alive who have) or has actually thought about it -- really thought about it, it's hard to image how big that really is. It's so big, it literally is beyond comprehension for most people.

      One thing we did learn, is that there's no limit in the size you can build one of these things in. Is that useful? Probably not. (unless we have to deflect an asteroid or evil aliens or something...)

    2. Re:To hell with this species by fzammett · · Score: 1

      Actually, we currently have a number of megaton+ weapons in the stockpile.

      http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/ja98 nu kenote.html

      Actually, to be honest, I don't know that they are currently in the inventory, only that they were as of 1998. But, the point is that we did build them that big for purposes other than tests (ok, not the 100 megaton test shots, they were pretty much just a political ploy to scare the Soviets, and them us), but 1.2 megatons should be enough for anyone (to paraphrase Bill Gates)

      --
      If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
    3. Re:To hell with this species by Burgundy+Advocate · · Score: 1

      You've got the jist, but there's one detail I'm going to have to nitpick.

      The 100 megaton test was not the United States. It was the USSR's "Tsar Bomba". The test was the "cleanest" nuclear explosion ever -- 97% of the energy was due to nuclear fusion. There's a lot of information on it's development here. There's mixed reports on if it was ever weaponized, but most people seem to agree that it wasn't.

      The actual test blast was done at 50% power. The overall yield was 50 megatons (or 57, if you believe Khrushchev), and it was never tested at it's full yield.

      Even so, 50 megatons is complete fucking overkill. Gotta agree with you there. But just turning our backs on a technology in hopes that noone will ever go through with the engineering -- and, for that matter, the use -- seems hopelessly naive. We are a rock-stupid race of warriors, and when we find a newer, shiner rock someone will want to bash someone else's head in with it.

      --
      Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
    4. Re:To hell with this species by fzammett · · Score: 1

      I actually thought it was the USSR, but I wasn't sure, and I was too lazy to type less than five words into Google.

      Geez, *I* don't deserve to exist either in light of that!

      Thanks for the correction though. I wouldn't want to short-change any nation in the race to see who can be the more foolish and pop off the bigger bomb.

      --
      If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
    5. Re:To hell with this species by confused+one · · Score: 1
      You're right, we did build some big 'uns (>1MTon). I believe in the current stockpile we're phasing them out... (note to self, pull out old DOE info and see if I can double check that)

      It was all a political ploy. We scare them. They scare us. Senseless really. It turns out we were scared of each other for the wrong reasons...

      BTW, there are beneficial uses for these things. If I remember correctly, the Chinese "moved" a mountain once -- using a nuke. Cleared a nice path through the mountain range, that did. (fallout, what's that. Never heard of it. P.S. I think a few kTons is plenty for most purposes...

  89. Short half life = reduced proliferation risk? by jakedata · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How long could one of these weapons stay viable?
    They said that the Halfnium component has a 31 year half life. I bet the weapon becomes non-viable long before that.

    In one sense that is good. Proliferation of this weapon might not be as much of a long term threat. When the support infrastructure is removed, the weapon might decay rapidly enough to mitigate proliferation issues when compared to Plutonium and Uranium.

    1. Re:Short half life = reduced proliferation risk? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Make the core of the weapon easily removable and thus periodically "rechargable"

  90. Domino theory was quite valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "And the idea that if Vietnam fell into Communist hands the entire Asia/Australian region would go under (The Domino Theory) proved worthless."

    This theory was quite valid. After South Vietnam was conquered, Laos and Cambodia fell next. Burma remains a socialist hellhole to this day. Thailand was endangered, but it was protected partially due to the awareness of what the Domino Theory was.

    The Domino Theory was nothing more than a realization of the reality of Soviet imperialism, announced when Lenin said his empire would take over the world (at which point he conqured a dozen nations outside of Russia's borders).

    Just because every domino did not fall does not mean that the theory is invalid.

    " But don't believe the old ideas that the Soviets were a barbarian horde frothing at the mouth to take over every inch of land. (Stalin was frothing at the mouth but he was insane)"

    Lenin frequently announced his intent of total global empire. He and each of his successors conquered and added new nations to the empire.

  91. Rock Race? by mblase · · Score: 1

    New warfare technology has ALWAYS triggered a new "arms race", starting with the first human being who ever beat another to death with a rock.

    "Chief Ogg! The Tribe-Across-The-River has a powerful new weapon! They use these things called 'stones' and carry them with them into warfare and strike our men in the head! Not a single broken finger!"

    "Put our top scientists on it right away, Urk! Dispatch spies to find out how the Tribe-Across-The-River is making these weapons -- we can't afford to be outmatched now! We must manufacture our own 'stones' before it's too late! Civilization depends on it!"

    "Er, we're not civilized yet, Chief Ogg. We haven't even discovered fire yet."

    "Don't interrupt me when I'm on a roll, Urk."

    "Sorry, Chief."

  92. Bunker-buster? by snake_dad · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Could this be the bunker-buster bomb that the militairy needs now that high-value targets are moving deeper and deeper underground?

    --
    karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    1. Re:Bunker-buster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope

      for a bunker buster you need a great deal of ground penetration. a series of these things would acoplish that but then you would be spreading the harmfull isotops even further due to the succesive explosions.

      besides the misiles that were used in this gulf war were succesfull.
      but the engeniers who build those bunkers thought about the posibilety of a bunker buster type of bomb.

      next up an active bunker ;)

  93. Misleading title? by ifwm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The effect of a nuclear-isomer explosion would be to release high-energy gamma rays capable of killing any living thing in the immediate area." They call this an explosion, and they use tons of TNT as the benchmark. Is it really an explosion? The primary killing force in this device seems to be gamma radiation. I believe when they say "energy" in this article, they mean gamma radiation, and not explosive force, but I can't confirm it.

    1. Re:Misleading title? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      The atmosphere is pretty much opaque to gammas.

      You notice how nuclear weapons create a biiiig blast? That's due to the large quantities of x-rays steaming out of the reaction, which are absorbed by the surrounding air within a very short distance, which is then heated to obscene temperatures in a very small timescale.

      That's the source of that destructive blast. X-rays or gammas, at the energies we're talking about the mean free path through the air is damned short, and you're going to get a rather large shockwave as a result.

    2. Re:Misleading title? by goodmanj · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They call this an explosion, and they use tons of TNT as the benchmark. Is it really an explosion?

      When those gamma rays strike something, they'll heat it up. If you put that much energy into something that fast, it blows up. The explosion looks and acts almost the same whether the energy source is chemical, nuclear, or gravitational. The instantaneous release of 4 gigajoules of energy in any form looks a lot like a 1-ton TNT explosion.

    3. Re:Misleading title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as the DoD are concerned, it's an explosion and measured in explosive equivalent.
      In practice, for small quantities, the radiation effects will be more dramatic than the explosive ones,

  94. Next stop Pluto? by iCat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If 1g hafnium > 50 kg TNT, wouldn't this make an excellent fuel for a spacecraft's propulsion system? How does the energy density stack up against conventional/current experimental rocket systems? As I understand it one of the difficulties in sending a probe to Pluto is not getting there, but carrying sufficient fuel to be able to slow and enter orbit once it arrives.

  95. Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by FreeUser · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes the US, NATO countries and the former soviet republics have WMD's, but they have never invaded a neighbor for oil

    *cough*

    Watch any news lately?

    *cough* USA invades Iraq TWICE in 12 years *cough*

    No, we'd never do so for oil. No, never!
    [/sarcasm]

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by randyest · · Score: 2, Funny

      [the US has] never invaded a neighbor for oil

      *cough*

      Watch any news lately?

      *cough* USA invades Iraq TWICE in 12 years *cough*

      No, we'd never do so for oil. No, never!

      [/sarcasm]

      Iraq? Neighbor?

      Seen any maps lately?

      And you really should see someoune about that cough^H^H^H^H^H liberal bias.

      --
      everything in moderation
    2. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      No. The US doesn't invade it's neighbours. It invades complete strangers on the other side of the planet.

      It's easier to get the funding through Congress that way.

      Of course, if South America were overflowing with oil, well I'm sure someone would come up with a nice excuse. It's not like South America doesn't have its share of dictators and civil rights violations we couldn't use as justifcation.

    3. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      *cough* USA invades Iraq TWICE in 12 years *cough*
      Where is my cheap oil then?


      I'm sorry, but I don't see your name on the list of adminstration sweethearts... Let's see... Haliburton... Lockheed... No bofkentucky!

      Oh, wait... You didn't think that you -- meaning the public in general -- was going to get to benefit from the war, did you? No, no, no... Silly prole!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by Troed · · Score: 1

      Read up on how you got Texas - and the lies that led up to that war. Quite similar to today and Iraq, actually.

    5. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by maetenloch · · Score: 1

      Of course, if South America were overflowing with oil, well I'm sure someone would come up with a nice excuse.

      Actually South America (and the Americas in general) is full of oil. In fact the U.S. imports far more of it's oil from Canada, Venezuela, and Mexico than it does from the middle east.

    6. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by randyest · · Score: 1

      No. The US doesn't invade it's neighbours. It invades complete strangers on the other side of the planet.

      Complete strangers? Hmm, I thought one of the arguments against the war in Iraq was that the US was in bed with them beforehand (similarly the Afghanis and Taliban). I think if we were really complete strangers they'd have been much safer. Don't you agree?

      It's easier to get the funding through Congress that way.

      Huh? Source? Basis? Clue? I think Congress usually wants a reason (and in the case of Iraq, apparently got a good enough one, since Repubnocrats and Demolicans both approved the action.) It's hard to give a reason to invade a complete stranger. Uh oh. IHBT?

      Of course, if South America were overflowing with oil, well I'm sure someone would come up with a nice excuse. It's not like South America doesn't have its share of dictators and civil rights violations we couldn't use as justifcation.

      Here's where you kill your own argument in-utero. The US gets more of its oil from Venezuela (13%) than it does from Iraq (8%). This is true now, and was true before the war. Check out that site for more surprising facts about the US and oil (some of which provide much better ammo for assaults like the one you attempted and failed at so miserably.)

      My favorite (doesn't help you at all, and is quite OT): In 1996, the USA was the world's leading [oil] producer, with about 7.5 million barrels per day

      Whether or not your intentions are good (I think so) doesn't aid your incredibly weak attempt at an argument.

      --
      everything in moderation
    7. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Whether or not your intentions are good (I think so) doesn't aid your incredibly weak attempt at an argument
      No... but it seems to have worked as a troll, don't you think ? :)

    8. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      That's just what they *want* you to think !

    9. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by randyest · · Score: 1

      A mildly-transparent troll (note my "Uh oh. IHBT?" comment. IHBT = I Have Been Trolled), but worthy of refute nonetheless. Not because of insight or accuracy, or even the rare-but-valuable troll effect of uncovering ignored relevant perspectives or information. No, only because it's so fashionable nowadays to bash the US and its motives and flippantly toss about factual-sounding allegations that, if close to true, would result in another shot heard 'round the world by now.

      Remember when we were the underdogs and everyone wanted us to do well? Well, now all that has backfired I'm afraid. We did too well, and now everyone wants us to lose again. Human nature sucks sometimes.

      --
      everything in moderation
    10. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, and how would I do that? I googled "how we got texas" and only got one hit, which I don't think (hope) is what you were aiming at.

    11. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      I admit it. It was only mildly transparent, because the underlying feeling (facts notwithstanding) is still mine.

      What gets me is the number of people who quibble over the details (the war isn't about oil, the WMD are really there, though noone can find them etc etc) and ignore the bigger picture.

      What picture ?
      The one where the US administration comes off looking like an aggressive power that couldn't care less about the sovereign rights of other nations, or the opinions of its allies.

      The picture where thousands of soldiers on both sides of an (unnecessary?) war are dying, and for what reason ?

      Perhaps we need to wonder why it's become fashionable to bash the US ? Maybe it's because the honourable "United We Stand" response to 9/11 has become a darkly tainted mandate for invading foreign powers. And maybe not everyone is so happy with that idea anymore.

    12. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The one where the US administration comes off looking like an aggressive power that couldn't care less about the sovereign rights of other nations, or the opinions of its allies."

      The US could care very much. Saddam's regime had attacked several sovereign nations in that area (and had even attacked the U.S.). He had to be stopped. The US did not come across looking aggressive at all.

      "or the opinions of its allies."

      France, which sided with Saddam in this, was not an ally, so its opinion did not matter. The same goes for Germany, which chose to act like its old Axis self from the 1940's, and also side with the Hitler of the middle east.

      "Perhaps we need to wonder why it's become fashionable to bash the US ?"

      Sometimes, blind ignorant rage is catching.

      "Maybe it's because the honourable "United We Stand" response to 9/11 has become a darkly tainted mandate for invading foreign powers"

      It is all the same: stopping the aggression of terrorists. The response is nothing but honorable, including the measured response to Saddam's terrorism and aggression.

      This "big picture" you mention is one that you have painted, and it sure looks surreal.

    13. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by randyest · · Score: 1

      What gets me is the number of people who quibble over the details (the war isn't about oil, the WMD are really there, though noone can find them etc etc) and ignore the bigger picture.

      We're too far OT here, but you happen to be the only one quibbling over these datails. Most of "the other side" just thinks we did the Right Thing(TM). In some sense and in some crowds it's an unpopular thing that we've done, but WMD found now or not, backing from France and Germany or not, attacks from the un-electable hardcore left notwithstanding, we did the Right Thing. It sucks that some people don't like us because we did what we think is right (as if they wouldn't do what they think is right?), and that we happen have the capacity to do what we think is right (aha -- the key!). Frankly, it seems to me that most of those down on the US as a result of this conflict are the same ones who have been pretty down on us for a while now.

      Anyway, sometimes you have to do that -- the right thing, and if it's important, it will be hard and you will face adversity and detractors with arguments against. Such as yours. It's OK when you voice your real reasons against all this -- I can still respect you and at worst we can disagree. But, when you tout patently false or even dubious assertions as unquestionable fact, you lose my respect, and with it the chance to convince me that you are right.

      A good argument is like a handful of sand -- the more tightly you hold on to it, the faster it slips through your fingers.

      --
      everything in moderation
    14. Re: Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > > No. The US doesn't invade it's neighbours. It invades complete strangers on the other side of the planet.

      > Complete strangers? Hmm, I thought one of the arguments against the war in Iraq was that the US was in bed with them beforehand (similarly the Afghanis and Taliban).

      Unfortunately I didn't bookmark it, but a few days ago I ran across a site parodying the proposal to let gamblers predict terrorism, and one of the parody suggestions was to let gamblers predict which current US puppet would be transformed into the next Master of Evil, a la OBL, Hussein, Noriega, etc.

      > Here's where you kill your own argument in-utero. The US gets more of its oil from Venezuela (13%) than it does from Iraq (8%).

      Yes, it looks like the motivation for the war wasn't who gets the Iraqi oil, but rather whose companies get the contracts on distributing it. Which, BTW, has been a major cause of international meddling in the Persian Gulf for about 90 years now, at least as I understand it.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    15. Re: Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Remember when we were the underdogs and everyone wanted us to do well? Well, now all that has backfired I'm afraid. We did too well, and now everyone wants us to lose again. Human nature sucks sometimes.

      I suspect that the ill-wishing isn't because we've done too well, but rather because we're too damn greedy and pushy in our drive to do well.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    16. Re: Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      but rather whose companies get the contracts on distributing it

      The US doesn't steal oil from anyone. Sure it makes money by operating the wells etc but it buys the oil the same as anyone else at world prices. It has a hugh interest in seeing the base price of oil as low as possible. Other wise Joe Sixpack will start to get pissed off as the refil price on his SUV goes up as well as effects on industry..

      The major effect of the availability of Iraqi oil on the price etc of oil will be to reduce the influence the Saudis have on supply and thereby the price.

    17. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by Troed · · Score: 1

      http://www.historyguy.com/Mexican-American_War.htm l - and other hits.

    18. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The "Right Thing"?

      You are an utter idiot. Or a Zionist.

      I don't even have to say any more.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    19. Re:Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. So where's all this oil I was promised? Wasn't Iraq selling it to us before those wars, between those wars and after those wars?

      Hint: we didn't want his oil ("for oil"). But among many reasons, we didn't want him using the $20B a year (or whatever) revenue from it to build nukes, given his rather amoral historic demonstrated tendencies. It's not a matter of appropriating a country's oil. As opposed to Saddam's original invasion of Kuwait which was expressly stated as being a dispute over horizontal drilling into shared underground oil reserves and the rate and which each country was depleting them.

      Quit listening to leftist propaganda blindly. If you do, I promise to try to not listen to the righties sometimes equally inane dribble.

    20. Re: Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by zer0mass · · Score: 1

      The US doesn't steal oil from anyone.

      No, it doesn't. It first bombs a country (using bogus evidence to support their claims), kills thousands of civilians in the process, destroys millions of $'s worth of buildings, landmarks, etc. and then sits in the bargaining table. This is not (what you are referring to) direct stealing; it's indirect stealing but stealing, ultimately.

      It has a hugh interest in seeing the base price of oil as low as possible.

      Correction: it's only interest is seeing the base price of oil as low as possible at any expense (which, unfortunately, happens to include human life). All of the rest of its claims are bogus to begin with (or haven't been proven for nearly 4 months. I suppose they'll magically "discover" the WMD's also). But that's ok by your American standards, right? After all, Iraqis aren't Americans, just like apples aren't oranges.

      The major effect ...

      More attemped justification of your dubious claims.
      You, sir, are a patriot of a quasi-facist nation and arguing with patriots is a waste of my time.

      p.s. If you aren't American, your complete lack of insight into this matter fascinates me.

    21. Re: Have you been on sabbatical since '89? by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      The major effect ...

      That is an opinion based on my understanding of supply and demand.. It is not everyones opinion but it is not only my opinion.

      I am not American. I did not support the invasion of Iraq. It was unnecessary to achieve its stated aims and it was against the basic UN Charter provision relating to interference in another country's internal affairs. The UN Charter allows a long slow oppression of a people by an unelected regieme.

      I never thought that the US would be welcomed with flowers in Iraq and I never thought the US had the brains or understanding of Iraq to ever succeed in their stated aims of bringing democracy to Iraq.

      Your one track Blood for Oil position shows no insight at all. If you truly think that this is only about Oil you are deluded. Oil was a happy side benefit .(from some US officials perspective) of the anti Saddam push.

  96. This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Humanity (sic) continued to behave stupidly and dump resources into R&D projects whose only purpose was to kill people and break things.
    In a related story thousands continue to die of starvation and live in the streets fearful that they'll never live to see the sun rise.

  97. Re:Great! Who's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then they both can be ruled by CRIMINALS!!!

  98. Quite true, it is not a war for oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "No, we'd never do so for oil. No, never!"

    That is quite true. The slogal "war for oil!" was made up by extremists to appeal to simpletons and for them to put on the signs that they wave.

    However, once you aim even a whiff of intellectual penetration at it, the "it is a war for oil" claims vanish in a puff of illogic. No evidence for it at all.

    1. Re:Quite true, it is not a war for oil by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      The slogal "war for oil!" was made up by extremists to appeal to simpletons and for them to put on the signs that they wave.

      True. Because "No Blood for Extension of American Neo-Colonial Hegemony!" was both difficult to chant and explain. Handing out annotated copies of 1984 was also prohibitive.

      However, once you aim even a whiff of intellectual penetration at it, the "it is a war for oil" claims vanish in a puff of illogic.

      Of course. It is just the simplest explanation once you've eliminated the also baseless "Iraq is an immediate threat" claim. Obviously the reasons for the war were much larger than just some silly oil fields. The portions of the adminstration with brains think much bigger and longer term than that. Though it may seem as though Cheney's energy plan was designed under the assumption that we'd have access to all that friendly Iraqi oil, and it could be argued this suggests oil was the motivation for war, I just figure that the decision to go to war with Iraq had already been made, and he was just making plans based on that knowledge. Call it a happy side effect, which I'm sure is what everyone with crude-oil-colored dollar signs in their eyes is calling it. Which just happens to be a bunch of the adminstration's friends, but I'm serious, that's really just a happy coincidence.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Quite true, it is not a war for oil by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are a clever, clever man.

    3. Re:Quite true, it is not a war for oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "True. Because "No Blood for Extension of American Neo-Colonial Hegemony!" was both difficult to chant and explain."

      That claim can't even be justified.

      "Handing out annotated copies of 1984 was also prohibitive."

      The protesters lived it with their convoluted way of saying "We love Saddam"

      "once you've eliminated the also baseless "Iraq is an immediate threat" claim."

      You can't eliminate that claim since it was well based.

      " I just figure that the decision to go to war with Iraq had already been made,"

      Of course it was not. The guy driving the decisions was Saddam, who refused to comply with cease-fire requirements despite many efforts to get him to.

      "what everyone with crude-oil-colored dollar signs in their eyes is calling it. Which just happens to be a bunch of the adminstration's friends"

      Didn't work that way, it never does. Look at what actually happens, not what you wish had happened.

  99. Its his signature by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
    He is the one getting the US out of non-proliferation treaties. Because he thinks the world needs loads more small portable nukes (and more biological and chemical weapons too of course).

    Congress on the other hand is the one who is signing money over to pay for it all.

    1. Re:Its his signature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a clueless, fuckwitted asshat

      STFU

  100. Re:Great! Who's next? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't worry, they're both already run by criminals...

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  101. Aww by Remlik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The Department of Defense notes that there are serious technical issues to be overcome and that useful applications may be decades away."

    Damnit, and here I thought we might be able to retire weapons like these in a few "decades."

    --
    Apple free since 1990!
  102. Let's not bury our heads in the sand by citanon · · Score: 1

    You are paying for the development of this type of weapon because somebody else is also paying for them. How many countries started developing nuclear weapons once it was clear that the technology was feasible? If the Manhanttan project didn't happen do you not think there would be nuclear weapons today?

    I shudder to think about the social and political implications of 500 gram weapons with the explosive power of 5 tons of TNT but stopping research will only enhance their attractiveness to our potential adversaries. The right thing to do, which is hard, is to learn as much as we could about it and proceed forward in an informed manner with due diligence.

  103. Suicide bombers. by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me introduce you to the 20th century. Terrorists have these things called "cars" which are strong enough to carry lead cannisters.

    1. Re:Suicide bombers. by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 1

      As it is, you could pack enough (very cheap) ammonium nitrate into a minivan to take out an entire skyscraper. Have terrorists done that? Nope, only these weak ass suicide bombings with a few pounds of dynamite or other cheap explosives. Why? Well, probably because 99.9% of the would-be terrorists are too poor to have a car, or too stupid to make a decent bomb, or both. The last 2 suicide bombings combined killed 2 and injured ~10. That's TINY. That's like one stick of dynamite hidden in your crotch.

      Airport Security Lady: "Is that dynamite in your underwear or are you just happy to see me... Mind if I strip search you?" :D

      Speaking of which, a compact ceramic gun like a glock 18 in your underwear could be smuggled thru airport security very easily. I don't think they would frisk anybody in the privates unless they were damn sure, but the gun wouldnt set off any of the metal detectors. Only a tiny minority of checkpoints have full-body x-rays.

      In summary, you're kidding yourself if you think it would be difficult for anybody with brains to execute a large-scale terrorist attack, despite all the new security measures. If they wanted to attack they could have done it already.

  104. How is this not nuclear weaponry? by Darken_Everseek · · Score: 1

    As far as I understand it, conventional weapons rely on a chemical reaction to liberate the explosive engrgy.

    From what I've read; this relies on the radioactive decay of a nuclear isotope. The article stated that the US has laws against developing a nuclear warhead with a yield less than 5 kilotonnes .. how are they not breaking that law?

    1. Re:How is this not nuclear weaponry? by DigitalReligion · · Score: 1

      It's not traditional nuclear weaponry because it doesnt need to reach critical mass to cause the explosion and gives off entirely gamma rays.


      It also doesnt leave fallout like traditional nukes do.

      rtfa?

    2. Re:How is this not nuclear weaponry? by Darken_Everseek · · Score: 1

      From the article - "It would cause little fallout compared to a fission explosion, but any undetonated isomer would be dispersed as small radioactive particles, making it a somewhat "dirty" bomb. This material could cause long-term health problems for anybody who breathed it in." (emphasis mine) rtfa closer.

  105. Next rocket fuel? by Shishak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could this be used for the next rocket fuel? Controlled explosion of high density hafnium-178m2. The research doesn't necessarily have to create the next bomb. Could this be the way we reach Mars?

    --
    Now I hope and pray that I will But today I am still, just a bill
    1. Re:Next rocket fuel? by RealityShunt · · Score: 1

      You'd have to have some pretty hefty shielding between the engine and the crew compartment....

      realityshunt

      --
      Democracy is susceptible to being led astray by having scapegoats paraded in front of the electorate.
  106. No thanks. by molo · · Score: 1

    This technology also sounds like it could be the breakthrough for electrical storage, think laptops and electric vehicles!

    Do you *REALLY* want a gamma ray emitter on your LAP? Not to mention it has to be stimulated by X-rays. Maybe you'll irradiate yourself and we can give you a Darwin award.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  107. Re:Oh shit. (IHBT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The U.S. has not pulled out of any non-proliferation treaty, only the anti-ballistic missile treaty.

  108. Re:Scary fact for those who didn't read the articl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why?

    A single atom has enough energy to kill thousands.

  109. Checks on the USA by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    The Russians. Because when the USA sent a copy of the microsoft spreadsheet over that the USA uses to keep track of weapons grade materials (asking the russians to use it too), the russians spotted errors in the processing which meant that the numbers didn't tally up correctly.

  110. Re:Arms race? by CowsAnonymous · · Score: 1

    > Arms race between who?

    Well...apparently the Brits ARE upping their nuclear warfare technology, and especially showing interest in this...

    --
    CowsAnonymous: We're here to help moo.
  111. War-mongerer, no, 9/11 yes. by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The more aggressive U.S. posture has little to do with the guy in the White House. It is a result of 9/11. Democrat or Republican, after an event like 9/11, the war will be taken to the enemy, and their support infrastructure, and fought on someone else's territory.

    1. Re:War-mongerer, no, 9/11 yes. by DeltaSigma · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree, Afghanistan was a sensible target after 9/11. How does Iraq fit into the equation though?

    2. Re:War-mongerer, no, 9/11 yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's to say 9/11 would have happened if Gore was in the Whitehouse?

      Remember, Osama had major issues with the Bush family...

      It's not outside the relm of possibility that if Gore was in the whitehouse 9/11 wouldn't have happened the way it did or even at all.

      9/11 was as much about hitting at the Bush(s) as it was about hitting western financial targets.

    3. Re:War-mongerer, no, 9/11 yes. by replicant108 · · Score: 1
    4. Re:War-mongerer, no, 9/11 yes. by markomarko · · Score: 1

      The more aggressive U.S. posture has little to do with the guy in the White House. It is a result of 9/11. Democrat or Republican, after an event like 9/11, the war will be taken to the enemy, and their support infrastructure, and fought on someone else's territory.

      And the war will be taken to the polls, and to Wall Street, and to your civil liberties, to your government coffers...you will be made mindless and blind by your success in toppling a government that never attacked you, and was never a serious threat. And you will do this to hide the scope of the problem that faces you. And your ignorance to this situation will cause your democracy to suffer.

    5. Re:War-mongerer, no, 9/11 yes. by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      How does Iraq fit into the equation though?

      Self-admitted financial supporter of terrorist activity. Ex. Palestinian suicide bombers.

      Potential supplier of WMD to terrorists. Admitted to having WMD a decade ago, refused to hand over materials as obligated to, refused to document destruction of materials as obligated to, played games to thwart inspections for a decade, ...

      Even the preceding Democratic Clinton administration bombed them over this sort of crap. That was long before 9/11. Some situations, but not all, warrant a different approach. All Iraq had to do was genuinely cooperate with the UN inspectors. Playing their games gave a strong signal as to their intent. Peace and diplomacy failed for 12 years, waiting for a smoking gun would be too late.

    6. Re:War-mongerer, no, 9/11 yes. by mfrank · · Score: 1

      The leaders of the tyrannies that harbor terrorists hate and loathe Al-Jazeera. The US Army was more than willing to embed Al-Jazeera journalists, but Kuwait wouldn't even let them in the country. Just think how those leaders will like a (hopefully) free and democratic Iraq.

      The people over there blame the US for their crappy lives, when really it's their own leaders' fault. If it can be demonstrated that an Arab country can actually be a decent place to live, maybe the idiots will decide to fix their own damn countries.

    7. Re:War-mongerer, no, 9/11 yes. by mfrank · · Score: 1

      So the first bombing of the WTC was because, uh, Bush was a part owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team? I get it now. They got lost on the way to Arlington.

    8. Re:War-mongerer, no, 9/11 yes. by DeltaSigma · · Score: 1

      ...

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that 9/11 required no use of WMD. That is unless we're now classifying airline jets as WMD.

      Further, I was under the impression that Saddam genuinely disliked Bin Laden and his extremist group. Just because two guys are bad, doesn't mean they're on the same team.

      Clinton made it clear that we wouldn't stand for Saddam's belligerence regarding weapons inspections.

      Bush just invaded.

      And what did we find when we got there? We found what the weapons inspectors told us we would find. Little or nothing.

      The only relationship between Bin-Laden and Saddam is that they were both war-mongering tyrants that loved to hurt/kill people, and the fact that Bush hated them.

      You tell me we couldn't wait for a smoking gun. Fine. Wise words if I've ever heard them. However, is it in our best interest to pre-empt said smoke, when there is no gun?

    9. Re:War-mongerer, no, 9/11 yes. by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      Saddam and Bin Laden not getting along is simplistic. He might be willing to sell enought material for a single strike on the US. Al Qaeda is a loosely knit organization, he might sell to a cell that is a little easier to get along with.

      Clinton made it clear that we wouldn't stand for Saddam's belligerence regarding weapons inspections. Bush just invaded.

      Bombing with no follow-up was letting it stand. In any case we have continuity. Clinton threatened military force, Bush reaffirmed that threat and set a deadline in cooperation with the U.N., when Saddam called the U.N.'s bluff Bush followed through. That is hardly "just invaded".

      We found what the weapons inspectors told us we would find. Little or nothing

      Actually I recall the inspectors saying they needed more time to do a proper search. Of course they were not supposed to have to do a search at all but I'll let that pass for now. Various U.N. diplomats thought the inspectors needed months more. So if the inspectors, the real experts, need months why are the soldiers, the amateurs, expected to find things in weeks? Especially when they are focused on security. I believe it is way too early to declare that there is nothing to find.

  112. Good Bad by panxerox · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How can this be a bad thing? It would be us that has it? (yes I'm US centric). Any weapon that can help US is a good thing. Any weapon that can help avoid US casualtys is a good thing. Would you rather our enemys were the only ones that had these? Yah I can see Al Quida not using these bombs. Yah I can see iran, northkorea (insert crazy country name here) not using them if they had them. Aint no fun being a geek in a trench with sombody throwing subkiloton handgrenades at you.

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
  113. Sam Barros' nuke labs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's gonna happen. As more tech gets developed, it will be easier and easier for the average Joe to control and manipulate nature to their whims. And if that average Joe just happens to be an escaped mental patient then too bad for the rest of us...

    The article didn't mention how the Hafnium gets 'charged' only that X-Rays were used to stimulate it to discharge, but even if this is not tech that can be easily adapted by the average Joe to make a bomb, when everyone has a Mr Fusion next to their Microwave Oven, they'll probably be able to convert it in short order to a Mr ThermonuclearWeapon.

    Ya know, I just learned Uranium ore grows around here. Some dude has a site that shows how to extract and purify the ore to metal. Enriching is getting easier too. You can basically turn it to plasma and then selectively ionize the U235 with a yellow lazer and then attract that plazma to a plate with an electric field. Maybe that's too hard for the average Joe. Maybe the lazer is hard to come by. But there are bacteria that have been engineered to metabolise Uranium waste to make it insoluable and so less environmentally toxic. I've heard Heavy Water ( D2O ) is toxic to humans because the Deuterium is metabolized slower than regular olde Hydrogen. Maybe these bacteria preferentially eat the lighter U235 over the heavier U238? You could let the bacteria eat some soluable unenriched Uranium Oxide. The bacteria would preferentially eat the light U235 Oxide. Then you would be able to just rinse away the depleted U238 Oxide ( the metabolized Uranium Oxide would be insoluable and remain.)

    Weren't the first atomic piles made with unenriched Uranium? Eventually you'd get a bunch of nasty radioactive crap just by heaping a bunch of unenriched uranium metal ( maybe with some aluminum or berilliym shavings mixed in to slow neutrons down. Makes sense, you add sawdust to a manure compost pile to help it decay, you have to add berylliym or alumnininimuminum to a uranium pile to help IT decay.

    Who knows what nasty and dirty elements would grow in such a pile.... Who knows what wierd fungus grows in a regular compost pile BTW... That stuff would prolly make a nasty dirty bomb.... Juz because you don't have uranium mines around doesn't mean there isn't some uranium ore around your house. If your area has radon, you probably have uranium ore around your house. Check the net for rock hounding info.

    Some kid made an atomic pile out of flourescent paint, and fire alarums. It's not that hard..

    If you knew what you were doing, you could prolly get yer pile to make plutonium. You could chemically seperate that pretty easily, though I have no idea what isotopes you'd get. If you knowe what you were doing, you could prolly adjust your neutron slowing 'sawdust' to favor the isotope of plutonium you wanted. If you were making an atom bomb I think the isotope is Pu238 but if you want lotsa radioactivity then it's Pu239. Think oof it, instead of a gas generator or a wimpy hippy solar panel on your roof, you could light your house off a Pu239 reactor like them space probes. But you'd prolly wanna make sure your pile was set up to make the right isotopes of the elements U wanted because enriching them could be a pain.

    There'd prolly be a bunch of other wierd elements produced that you've never heard of except by reading the periodic table. Lotsa radioactive ones too. Maybe you could mix in some random junk from around the house, a tomato, some drain cleaner, some gold plated costume jewelry, As many different elements as you can and watch em all transmute. By mixing random crap together you'd prolly create radioactive isotopes nobody ever has even thought of.

    You could try an' make yer own nuclear reactor in the woods behind your house. As long as it doesn't melt down, you could sell the power back to the power company and so get extra money for drugs and booze each month. I just paid - er - cashed the electric bill - er - check honey.... Just tell em i

  114. ...uh... by pmz · · Score: 1

    One gram of fully charged hafnium isomer could store more energy than 50 kilograms of TNT.

    I don't know what to say other than, "Oh fuck."

  115. SSTO enabler by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 1

    With such energy density, I wonder if this could be made into rocket fuel. Has anyone heard any news along those lines?

  116. Military used as a last resort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "My favorite is how we constantly talk of peace, and yet have the strongest military in the world and, especially now, have little hesitation in using it."

    Hesitation? You mean like in Iraq? The US tried non-military means to get Saddam to comply with cease fire for YEARS. He refused, and kept on killing 10,000+ Iraqis a year and attacking and threatening neighboring countries. The military use was a last resort. Afghanistan? The Taliban was given plenty of time to turn over Al Queda. Again, they refused....military was the last resort.

    "It's difficult to work for peace while preparing for war."

    It is very easy, actually. Not difficult at all. Deterrence is very effective.

    1. Re:Military used as a last resort by mosch · · Score: 1

      Well, thank god we killed over six thousand Iraqi civilians and tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers to keep... hmm... actually yes, we upped the death rate. And as far as Afghanistan... I supported that war and was pissed that we stopped before we were finished, just so we could go to a more politically expedient war. The Taliban has control of southern afghanistan, and al queda wasn't stopped Stop watching fox news and think, maybe you'll realize that you've been played.

    2. Re:Military used as a last resort by mcp33p4n75 · · Score: 1

      And as far as Afghanistan... I supported that war and was pissed that we stopped before we were finished

      Yup, the best ones are always planned.

  117. Next on the agenda: the Iron Maiden by uradu · · Score: 1

    And please no emotional bullshit, yes? Let's just admire the craftsmanship, for crying out loud.

  118. Wars end faster, but fighting lingers longer by swb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wars end lots faster than they used to; it used to take 6-12 months *minimum* to raise an army of 50,000 men that consisted primarily of poorly equipped hand-to-hand infantry. But once the hacking and slashing finished a year or so later, everybody was done for good long while.

    Now it seems that we (at least the US) can put an armored force of 200,000 anywhere it wants within a couple of months and win the war in 90 days..but the low-grade fighting just doesn't stop. The Israelis took the west bank in '67 (or was it '73? I forget), but have been essentially fighting the Palestinians for control since.

    It's the same way everywhere; we don't fight wars for a few years anymore; we fight them in 2-3 months and then switch to low-grade guerilla tactics for the next year.

    1. Re:Wars end faster, but fighting lingers longer by Suidae · · Score: 1

      the low-grade fighting just doesn't stop. The Israelis

      Yeah, but thats the middle east, they've had low grade fighting going on since before there where any Christians to fight with.

  119. wow - 50 kg of TNT per ounce by lone_marauder · · Score: 1

    Who would have thought that Rambo's bow and arrow would have been prophetic about future weapons technology?

    Nuclear hand grenades for all!

    --
    who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
  120. apparently so by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 1

    http://physicsweb.org/article/world/12/5/3Taken in isolation, one would not want to bet a lot of money on being able to exploit these gamma-rays. However, Collins and co-workers show some rather convincing gamma-ray spectra, and it should be relatively easy to generate a more powerful X-ray beam in future experiments. Collins is careful not to overstate the general significance of the measurement, but his team includes rocket scientists who would like to capitalize on the huge energy density of nuclear isomers. Such isomers may have the potential to provide new ways of propelling spacecraft on interplanetary voyages. Isomers could also form the basis of a gamma-ray laser. The energy inversion that is essential to all laser operation occurs naturally in nuclear isomers, although the route to an actual gamma-ray laser has yet to be mapped out.

  121. A Great Depression by CiXeL · · Score: 1

    Thats what are leaders are afraid of. If we don't find giant expensive projects to spend money on and employ people and the resulting trickle-down, its game over for the country.

  122. Disturbing Policies by BelugaParty · · Score: 1
    "...[small nuclear] weapons blurred the divide between the explosive power of nuclear and conventional weapons, and the government feared that military commanders would be more likely to use nuclear weapons that had a similar effect on the battlefield to conventional weapons."

    So the US government's policy is to fear "military commanders". With the way Iraq I & II and Afghanistan were handled, I didn't get this impression at all. Either propoganda kept the skpeticism between gov and mil away from the public, or the administration at large does not subscribe to this policy... not suprisingly, both possibilities scare me.

  123. Lawrence Livermore Coverup by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Some dudes discovered this with a dental X-Ray machine in like 2000 or something, and then in 2001, Lawrence Livermore tried to replicate it with a 'much larger xray machine' and said that they got nothing. This was before 9/11 when mini nukes were Taboo. But now that the gubmint wants mini nukes for bunker busting, Lawrence Livermore is researching this again, and think's it's promising.

    My conspiracy theory is that Lawrence Livermore or Area 51 or some such government run hush hush spot may have a weapon based on this on the drawing board, or even in development. When the dudes published the idea in 2000, Lawrence livermore published fake negative results to keep the other countries of the world from working on the idea, and then secretly have been working on it ever since. Now that mini-nukes are back in style since 9/11, they can even say they're working on it in public and don't have to hide their research.

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

    1. Re:Lawrence Livermore Coverup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Borne out by the fact that LL are still conducting research with stimulated emission from isomers. Curious thing to do if they were so sure it didn't work...

  124. Re:Is this really a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, I'm so glad that the US abided by that treaty with the soviets to stop development of new biological superweapons, because of that a whole class of horrible weapons was not created. WHOOOPS. The Russians DID keep developing biological weapons, and were disturbingly creative. Including infictions that trick people's immune systems into attacking the melenin protecting nerves.

    You know why little kids like to bite, why you have sharp K-9? Humans like to fight. More than any other species. And we're REALLY good at it. Then since weapons are almost much easier to make than tools, and expect the trend to continue.

  125. What about non military uses? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Of course, the Generals always want to build bombs out of stuff, but what about the line:

    The experiment released 60 times as much energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could be achieved.


    Is this counting the energy put into "loading" the isotope? Whith the kind of energy they are talking about, this could be huge for us. Think "Nuclear Fusion" without the Nuclear part!! cleaner power, and no hippy anti-nuke types protesting.. I'm trying to remember my old science classes here, aren't the "Gama" radiation bits realitively easy to block?.. A room with lead walls, a bit of this chemical, and X-ray generator, and a large vat of water to make steam... How many years have we spent trying to get Nuclear Fusion to produce more power than went in to making the reaction?! and this is 60 times the engery with a few x-rays!! Why does science always have to deal with weapons first? can't we just pretend that our planet as a whole is growing up and thinking about peace?

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    1. Re:What about non military uses? by confused+one · · Score: 1
      This isn't fusion. This IS a form of Fission. Still need the Nuclear word! It is a Nuclear reaction.

      P.S. Not all nuclear reactions produce toxic waste...

    2. Re:What about non military uses? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Note to self: Take foot out of mouth. This isn't Fission...

  126. Suck by kaffiene · · Score: 0

    The US military and Political establishment sucks.

    In a time of relative peace, they seem to be doing their best to fuck up the world for everyone.

    For god's sake America - vote the moron out... and what happened to activism? In the 60's people protested Vietnam, in the 00's your president lies to you and the public barely says 'tut tut' before going back to tv.

    What a bunch of sheep.

  127. mutually assured destruction by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 1

    The weapon is pointless: In an actual conflict, we'd bomb the enemy and they'd become a devastated nation of revenge-seeking hulk partisans. It's a textbook example of mutually assured destruction.

    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
  128. The sad thing... by certainpeople · · Score: 1

    ...about technology like this (and for that matter, most technology in general) is that discussion of its merrit and worth is almost pointless. If someone thinks it's a good idea, there's almost no stopping it's development, for good or for ill. At least that's they way technology seems to work - does someone want it? If yes, then it's built. Doesn't matter if it was a stupid idea to do it or not.

  129. oops by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 1

    http://physicsweb.org/article/world/12/5/3

    Taken in isolation, one would not want to bet a lot of money on being able to exploit these gamma-rays. However, Collins and co-workers show some rather convincing gamma-ray spectra, and it should be relatively easy to generate a more powerful X-ray beam in future experiments. Collins is careful not to overstate the general significance of the measurement, but his team includes rocket scientists who would like to capitalize on the huge energy density of nuclear isomers. Such isomers may have the potential to provide new ways of propelling spacecraft on interplanetary voyages. Isomers could also form the basis of a gamma-ray laser. The energy inversion that is essential to all laser operation occurs naturally in nuclear isomers, although the route to an actual gamma-ray laser has yet to be mapped out.

  130. Hafnium isotope good for future Orion type Rocket by techtrends · · Score: 1

    This new explosive seems like it would be great for making better rockets of the project Orion type. Cleaner than nuclear fission but still with energy density 1000 times higher than chemical. Scalable to smaller explosions (So a smaller scale rocket could be taken up to orbit). Seems like a very finely controlled hafnium injection system could be made with X-Ray ignition.

  131. Technology moving forward by xv4n · · Score: 1

    If somebody develops a bigger gun someone else is developing a stronger armor. That's the way technology *moves forward*.

    1. Re:Technology moving forward by BigFire · · Score: 1

      Armor cannot scaled up the same pace as projectile. There is a diminish point of return in terms of usefulness of armor's thickness vs. its weight. I presumed that we can get neutronium armor, but at such heavy weight, it's practically useless for mobile forces.

    2. Re:Technology moving forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That board with the nail in it may have defeated us. But the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards with bigger nails. Soon, they will make a board with a nail so big it will destroy them all.

      Muhahahahahaha......

  132. Re:Oh shit. (IHBT) by mikerich · · Score: 1
    The U.S. has not pulled out of any non-proliferation treaty, only the anti-ballistic missile treaty.

    True, but it has also refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - one of the most important treaties that would prevent new nuclear powers emerging.

    Best wishes,
    Mike.

  133. The race will be over when they find a way by melted · · Score: 1

    to stop Russian Satan and Topol ballistic missiles. So far there's no way. This means there's at least one country in the world that can fuck up the US any minute if they need to. It only takes about 9 minutes for those missiles to deliver their multiple-payload warheads over here. I've also heard they've developed some pretty bizarre schemes to cause maximum destruction, like creating a giant tsunami-like wave in Missisipi river by detonating warheads one after another upstream or something like that.

    So the point is, arms race is not won and it will never be.

  134. A bomb? by volpe · · Score: 1

    Pumping the nuclei? Stimulated emission? Are we talking about a gamma ray bomb here, or are they really contemplating a gamma ray laser? Are there any mirrors that can reflect gamma rays?

  135. Wake Up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What "bulk" of their (UK) intelligence? The only evidence of Uranium purchase that they made public was the forged document. They may say that they have other evidence, but why believe them? (for example, witness the "intelligence" document that contained large chunks of a mid-90s Ph.D. thesis).

    About Bush lying, he said that there was an imminent threat: that they had knowledge that Iraq had a large WMD capability that they might launch upon the USA at any moment. He claimed that they knew where these weapons were. Months have passed with over 100000 US soldiers on the ground, and still no WMD. Who are you kidding? Of course he lied.

    1. Re:Wake Up! by praedor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forget the key lynchpin to tie the WMD lie to swift action: Iraqi ties to Al Queda and, by extension, that Saddam would give WMD of whatever type to his "buds" in Al Queda. He did a double lie: imminent threat from use and dispersion of massive amounts of WMD including nukes (that mushroom cloud fear-raker statement) and ties to the much-hated Al Queda.


      We Americans wanted payback, we wanted the bastards that did 9/11 and Bush flat-out LIED to make people believe that Saddam and the 9/11 perps were in bed together so attacking the former was tantamount to a continued attack on the latter. LIE! Not a mistake. Not a simple difference in how one interprets intel - there was NO valid intel to support either lie. There was no valid intel justifying the claim of an "imminent threat".

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  136. Next Arms Race? by kryten · · Score: 1

    Who would the US be racing then?

  137. Not clique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you mean cliche. Right language, wrong word.

  138. Re:GRASERs.... by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, it shouldn't matter anyway; these weapons aren't true grasers, though the principle is oddly symmetric.

    A graser, like any "?aser" device works by stimulating energized electrons to transition to a lower shell immediately (instead of at a random time) by smacking another photon into it, causing the atom emit a photon (always of a certain frequency) in the same direction that the original photon was moving. The gamma decay device works by stimulating the nucleus is a very similar way with X-rays until it raises the chances that the nucleus will randomly decay.

    It's kind of like a graser, but with the nucleus instead of the electron shells. That and once an atom has served its purpose once, it's no longer useable for the same trick thanks to having decayed. Though it technically fits each letter in the acronym GRASER, the gamma decay weapon deserves another name entirely.

    My inner evil marketroid recommends Gradec.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  139. Ahem... by JCMay · · Score: 1

    None of them used stolen American material - just ideas that had been circulating.in the scientific press, seeded with the results of espionage.

    Say what?

    1. Re:Ahem... by mikerich · · Score: 1
      Sorry if I wasn't clear. No nuclear material was ever stolen from the United States, all of the subsequent nuclear powers had to develop their own techniques for producing fissionable materials.

      The ideas themselves were far more dangerous and harder to restrain (and haven't we heard that more recently with the collapse of the Soviet Union and their nuclear, bioweapons and missile specialists).

      The USSR and the UK relied heavily on pre-war research to explore the basic science behind nuclear weapons. Most of the research on fission and isotope work was published in the open scientific press right up until the outbreak of war in 1939.

      The USSR got a lot more detail from their brilliant espionage operation, which doubtlessly allowed them to develop Joe 1 in record time - after all, they knew what had worked for the Americans, 'all' they had to do was copy that design. They did, it worked, and the World was never the same again.

      The UK had many scientists who had worked on atomic weapons before the Americans even joined World War II and who then went on to work on the American bomb programme. When the UK was excluded from future weapon design, they brought their knowledge back to the UK. So it wasn't very surprising that Hurricane was almost identical to Trinity.

      And both the UK and the USSR benefited from the genius of Klaus Fuchs.

      In both cases it took enormous effort and genius to replicate the US's achievements. But in both cases, countries with relatively few resources were able to piggy back their success on the American programme.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    2. Re:Ahem... by JCMay · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought you meant. :)

  140. Home Despot vs. VillainSupply.com by RobertB-DC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Feh! Home Despot employs mostly part-time henchmen and won't accept government contracts (and don't let anyone tell you otherwise). Plus, their web site is little more than a home page with links to blank pages, and worst of all, they don't have a favicon.ico! How can you take a site seriously without a favicon?

    But seriously, folks... I did *not* expect villainsupply.com to be a real link! Too cool... in an evil sort of way, that is. Wonder if Amazon.com knows about their "Evil Amazon.com" link?

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  141. Not quite. by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    Imagine a 3gram payload in an explosive 0.50 round.
    You could equipe your air drop ranger with an anti-material rifle with a distruction force compareable to a maverick missile, plus having HUGE anti personal effect (a 3 mile shot could knock out a whole camp of soldiers via radiation damage)

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  142. Sounds so familiar... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    Sounds just like one of the weapons used in Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's science fiction book Footfall (1985, ISBN 0-7221-6339-8) against the alien invaders by the crew of the Project Orion type spaceship built to fight the invaders... it used simple nuclear bombs to trigger gamma ray lasers.

    One wonders just where this "device" will get it's X-Rays from to do the pumping and if the two authors can claim copyright on the idea.

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  143. Hafnium/Niobium/Zirconium by core+plexus · · Score: 1
    I work for a small mineral exploration company. A few years back we got a job to search for Hafnium/Niobium/Zirconium. After we found some in placer deposits, we were tasked again to find some so-called Rare Earth Metals (which is an inaccurate name for them). They seemed especially interested in Yttrium.

    I have no idea what they were up to, and haven't heard from them again.

    -cp-

  144. history for beginners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not germany as a nation, but the people who took the power to install the nazi regime had always seen the forced peace after WWI as unacceptable, since it involved almost unbearably (for the people) high reparation and stated that germany was solely responsible for starting the war.

    War and nationalism existed in the world before Hitler came to power.

    The US did the right thing when they helped Germany after WWII, instead of punishing the hell out of them, just like a helpful stance towards the Arabian/russian/chinese world would be a good idea, unless the goal is to make more enemies waiting and yearning for a chance to finally strike a blow at whoever misused their power to bully the weaker.

  145. not very plausible by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Informative
    I did my thesis research on isomers like these, and this doesn't sound plausible to me at all. Here is some data on the isomer they're talking about. The reason this isomer is cool from a basic research point of view is that it has 16 units of spin, which is a huge amount for a long-lived state; most high-spin states decay rapidly (within nanoseconds) by emitting gamma-rays, which means there's no way to store them in bulk, not even in theory. The reason this particular state has such an unusually long half-life is that there aren't any lower-energy states with similar spins, and it's hard to get a gamma ray to carry off more than one or two units of spin.

    The article says they're planning to make this isomer in gram quantities by shooting gamma rays into a sample of ground-state 178Hf, which is the reverse of the decay process. The problem is that the cross-section is going to be very low, for exactly the same reason: it's hard to get a photon to carry many units of angular momentum into or out of a nucleus. People have discussed making small (microgram) quantities of it for use as a high-spin target in reactor experiments, but nobody could figure out any reasonable way to do it.

    You also have to realize that although the half-life of 31 years is long compared to most isomeric states, it's still relatively short compared to, say, 235U, which lives for gazillions of years. The relatively short half-life means that even if you could get a gram of this stuff, it'd be virtually impossible to handle safely. It would be much more radioactive than a subcritical mass of weapons-grade fissionables.

    There's a long history of impractical ideas like this, going back to the Reagan-era idea of a gamma-ray laser. Luckily we're still only faced with the same basic bomb threats that've been around since the Kennedy administration, but that's bad enough. The real thing to worry about, IMO, is the nuclear cauldron that's shaping up in Asia: Iran, Afghanistan, India, and North Korea.

    OT: Are other people finding Slashdot extremely slow and unresonsive recently? I can hardle even access it anymore.

    1. Re:not very plausible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real thing to worry about, IMO, is the nuclear cauldron that's shaping up in Asia: Iran, Afghanistan, India, and North Korea.

      One of the things that worries me, however, is the ignorance or much of the US public.

      Afghanistan does not have nuclear wepaons, and is not likely to develop any anytime soon.

      North Korea has nuclear weapons (or at least claims to), but is nowhere near any of these other countries and very unlikely to come into conflict with any of them.

      You did however leave out Pakistan. I would judge an India/Pakistan conflict to be one of the more likely causes of a nuclear war in the next decade.

  146. A view from the [slashdot] minority by TooOldForThis · · Score: 1

    One point that most seem to be missing is the consequence of *not* pursuing this technology. Consider, for example, what would happen if a country such as Russia or China came to possess weapons based on nuclear isomer technology. Or, God forbid, a country such as Iran or North Korea came to possess them. In that case, doesn't the U.S. Government have the responsibility to its citizens to possess the means to deter an aggressive move by such a country? With the exception of Iran, each of these countries has demonstrated an aggressive desire to dominate and enslave its neighbors at one point or another in the last 50 years. (Russia may be an exception here - there seems to be a genuine change taking place in Russia that is quite promising. I suppose time will tell whether they have truly turned the corner.) This nation, on the other hand, has demonstrated its commitment to protecting, where strategically feasible, the victims of such aggression.

    Its naive to believe that other countries aren't pursuing nuclear isomer weapons. Just prior to and during WWII, several countries (Germany, the United States, Great Britian, and later the USSR) recognized the weapon potential inherent in emerging atomic theory. Does anybody think that the same thing is not happening now? I suppose we should count on these countries to abstain from such research out of their profound respect for the peace and prosperty of mankind!

    Granted, this country has the economic resources that few other countries have, and those resources give it an advantage in the pursuit of new technologies. But, contrary to the cries of the radical left, that is a good thing! While we may stumble from time to time, the goodwill of the people of this country, the desire to protect the values of freedom and self-determination is unrivaled in history.

    Simply ignoring this beast, or any other, won't make it go away. Rather, we must master it so that our children don't live under the thumb of those whose only desire is to conquer and destroy.

    -k

    1. Re:A view from the [slashdot] minority by dolbywan_kenobi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dont forget about the mine gap. -Dr. Strangelove allusion.

    2. Re:A view from the [slashdot] minority by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I've never understood the mentality of having exactly the same type of weapon as the enemy, and having more of them. Just because your enemy has developed biowarfare, does that mean you need it? Instead, for example, couldn't you just develop good suits and breathing gear, while continuing to improve your say nuclear or chemical or near-lightspeed hand held projectile launcher.

  147. Some metastable nuclei live longer.. by Benm78 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Although 31 years is extremely long a halflife for a metastable nucleus, there are some that last even longer.

    242-Americum has a metastable isomer with 141 years halflife, and there are probably more nuclei with a long-lived isomer.

    Also, from what i can find out aboutt this weapon, it is not required to achieve population-inversion, which is different from LASERS and MASERS. Radiation is stimulated by photons diffrent in wavelength than the output wavelength.

    I this case, a weapon would loose half of its effect in 31 years, but would probably not become totally ineffective due decaying below a certain 'critical point' (50% in true *ASERS).

    With those factors combined, I'm not so sure a its impossible to create a durable weapon with this technology.

  148. How's one gauge ethical levels in weaponry? by ediron2 · · Score: 1

    {gets can opener out...)

    Um, I have always had trouble wrappin' my brain around issues as simple as full-metal-jacket ammunition being more ethical than other ammo, I've also seen what an apache's gun does at 100 rounds/sec, and so I would appreciate it if you could tell me,

    (pierces can... mmm, smell them nightcrawlers!)

    How exactly does one prioritize ethical levels in war? I mean, I understand that a dirty bomb is more lethal and less swift in killing. Are there other nuances? Because to me, blasting a nuke would be pretty much an act of terror no matter how clean or how 'deserved'.

    (... opens, then dumps can of worms all over desk)

    I'm not trying to troll. I didn't take the bonuses, I'm not AC'ing. I mean, the closest I come to understanding is a hunting lesson my dad taught me: 'once you decide to kill, do it as swiftly and mercifully as possible'. You're apparently not a diplomat (the other area I'd expect to have expertise here), but you seem to be thinking this thru after having had a military education so I thought you'd maybe have some insights. Really: what nuances matter in wartime? Phosphorus, depleted-uranium, chem/bio agents, dum-dums, mines, napalm, and deceptive acts all come to mind as I run into this and my nonmilitary education didn't give me the tools.

    A 2nd question I have: how do these ethical equations fit into a battle between a superpower (a dozen safe/remote attack mechanisms available) and an ill-armed 3rd world combatant?

  149. Re:GRASERs.... by jovlinger · · Score: 1

    Is there a physicist in the house?

    I'm trying to figure out how you stimulate the nucleus, and then have it decay, without fissioning, and how this can be anything BUT nuclear. Perhaps nuclear has shifted meaning to denote precisely chain fission reaction.

    anyways. Are we sure they don't just mean that hafnium atoms are more stable than others at keeping electrons in exited states, and that the device is pumped by priming all of them to a high energy and then causing them all to collapse simultaneously? That I could easily fit into my phy-100 framework.

    Otherwise, if the energy is stored in the nucleus... where does it go? Are there different nucleus configurations (protons/neutrons packed differently), or do we change isotopes, losing a neutron?

    Lastly, how likely is it that the high energy density during the explosion causes som fission, thereby dirtying the bomb? (the article talks about dispersing excited halfnium: not the same thing).

    TIA

  150. accident potential by alizard · · Score: 1
    Imagine hyperexplosives + Windows CE controlling the warheads.

    If anything goes wrong with this, this appears even more destructive to the users than to the targets, and this looks to me like something that makes an ordinary atomic bomb look like a monument of stability.

    Imagine being next to an ammo depot full of these things and having one of these warheards go off.

  151. The problems... by The+Eye+of+the+Behol · · Score: 1

    It is not always the biggest weapons that makes the victor, rather the way the way the are used. Potentially something could go wrong and we would have a worldwide disaster on our hands. We do not need bigger and better weapons, we need rational thought and collective agreements.

    --
    ----- Friends, l33tists, l4m3z0rs! Lend me thy keyboards.
  152. Just don't put them into grenades. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the thing's gonna have a blast radius of 50 meters, it'll be a little too dangerous for troops who can only toss it 25 meters.

    1. Re:Just don't put them into grenades. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      That's what water baloon launchers are for. Basically, a three maned oversized slingshot.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  153. Timeline by Oestergaard · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article claims that the AF supplier, SRS Technologies, said that technology to provide the materials needed in "gram quantities" would be about five years away (he say they "would exist within five years").

    Certainly, for a project such as this, it is completely unbelievable that one of the key entities in the weapon development would give anyone and everyone a remotely precise estimate as to when larger scale production (and real weapon production) could possibly begin.

    The true timeline must be years away from that. In one of the two directions possible... Which poses an interesting question: are real weapons based on this technology available today already, and did they agree to participate in the story simply to "prepare" the general public for real-world testing which will happen in the following year or two? Or do they know that others are working on this technology as well, and therefore need to tell their nation that "they're right on it", when some other country launches their tests within the next year or two?

    That's speculation. Time will show.

    What will be interesting to see, too, is how the real testing will commence. Currently they are working on three possibly viable materials. Most likely they will have different characteristics, and their exact effects in a real-world scenario will be impossible to simulate.

    In 1945, there were two materials available for fission weapons - uranium and plutonium. One bomb was made with each, and the two bombs were dropped on each their civilian target. Hiroshima got Uranium, Nagasaki got Plutonium.

    Which three cities will this new weapon be tested on? And to raise the bar, which city will get Hafnium, which one will get Thorium, and which one will get Niobium?

    Oh, and don't tell me war has gone soft and that the weapon would not be tested on civilian targets this time... A gamma discharge weapon has many of the properties of a neutron weapon - it is extremely useful mostly against people (and electronics - it will kill you *and* your Aibo, oh the wonders of modern civilization ;).

    On a second note... Did anyone notice how there is no longer anything called a "neutron bomb"? It is, today, called a "low yield" bomb. In the media at least. Because it's blast and heat isn't as great as "real" fusion weapons. Neutron weapons are now almost politically correct - at least, the public wouldn't raise an eye if they were told a low-yield bomb was dropped to stop riots in some third-world city.

    Now, to go find lead coating for my tinfoil hat.

    1. Re:Timeline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look closely though: the article does not say that SRS are the only or the major suppliers, or even what technology SRS are pursuing (charging up with gamma rays is the writer's speculation).

      There are other uses of isomers, military and otherwise.

      All this tells us that we have AT MOST five years. The guys in the secret labs, in the black end of the market, may be able to produce larger amounts sooner. The project has been going on several years, so the actual state-of-the-art may be well ahead.

  154. Yeah! by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You're absolutely right! Look how effective our sanctions have been with Cuba! Why they capitulated after only... oh... wait... Well the invasion was very... um... Well you see they don't really have oil...

    While we're on that subject (Since I'm gonna get modded down now anyway) did anyone read between the lines with the recent Liberia situation? I could just see Bush talking about how we were considering sending troops (Translation: "I asked for an oil report on the country, and if it looks good I might do my good friends at Hallow-Burton a favor.") Then it got bad and he couldn't wiggle out of sending a couple of marines over. Did anyone else read it that way? That's sure how it looked to me.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  155. human nature by MegaFur · · Score: 1

    Why can't we focus more energies towards improving the quality of human life? Why do they insist on spending so much time and money finding new ways to kill people?

    --
    Furry cows moo and decompress.
  156. Errr, and which enemy by bankman · · Score: 1

    are we talking about here?

    1. The alleged terror network that was funded by the CIA until more recently.
    2. The country in the Middle East, who's dictator was supposed to own huge stockpiles of WMD (provided by the US), which accidently can't momentarily be located even though the war is over and the country is at this very moment in the process of becoming a democracy.
    3. The US people, whose rights and freedoms are abused, and furthermore have to cope with a government that is trying their best to keep them paranoid.
    4. The "Coalition of the Unwilling", ie. the vast majority of the world's population who is increasingly frightened by a unilaterally acting US government that is very successful at pissing everybody else off.

    If the "guy in the White House" and his bunch truly don't matter that much, and if a Democrat or Liberal government wouldn't have acted differently, then shouldn't the US people do something about their politcal system to provide measures to control these representatives? If the US really is a model democracy and therefore its government represents the populations will, then is it any wonder that many people are pissed off with Americans in general?

    Disclaimer: I have close friends in the US and know many people to be as reasonable as the next European, Asian, African or Australian, but I am beginning to understand some of the Anti-American sentiment and reasoning. I don't accept these generalizations though.

    --
    I feel so sig.
    1. Re:Errr, and which enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ", who's dictator was supposed to own huge stockpiles of WMD (provided by the US), "
      Supposed to? He actually did own them just before the US invasion. Most of them were not provided by the US.

      "government that is trying their best to keep them paranoid"

      No, the government is doing nothing other than keeping us informed.

      "1. The alleged terror network that was funded by the CIA until more recently."

      Alleged is right. The CIA has never funded any terror networks, ever.

      "The "Coalition of the Unwilling", ie. the vast majority of the world's population who is increasingly frightened by a unilaterally acting US government that is very successful at pissing everybody else off."

      More like "coalition of the ignorant". These anti-American views are based solely in ignorance and hatred.

      "If the US really is a model democracy and therefore its government represents the populations will, "

      Yes, our government does represent the popular will here, including George Bush's excellent foreign policy.

  157. More info by dmiller · · Score: 1

    There is a research proposal on this and other interesting things. While I abhor the military focus, there may be useful scientific or civilian uses of this technology (e.g. energy storage for space propulsion systems).

  158. Just one wrong election? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We here in europe can see what one wrong election can do.... "

    Just one? Europe has been going down the tubes because too many people in too many countries make the wrong decision and put socialists in power.

    1. Re:Just one wrong election? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      I meant the election of gwb.
      Thats the one who put the idiots in power

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  159. Wake up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You forget the key lynchpin to tie the WMD lie to swift action"

    Bush did not lie about anything. Stop making things up.

    "there was NO valid intel to support either lie"

    because there were no lies.

    "Bush flat-out LIED to make people believe that Saddam and the 9/11 perps were in bed together so attacking the former was "

    Bush said Osama and Saddam were sleeping together? Of course not. You don't have a case, so you make things up.

  160. Japan was not giving up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Oh please. The Japanese had already tried to surrender conditionally before we dropped the bombs. The U.S. would not accept anything but unconditional surrender"

    As they were the aggressor and had no legitimate stance in the matter, they had no right to apply "conditions". They should have never attacked in the first place. They should have given up any of the hundreds of days after. They had plenty of time to do the reasonable thing.

    They refused to knock off their stupid war until the United States dropped those bombs. Don't forget: they were warned.

    1. Re:Japan was not giving up by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      As they were the aggressor and had no legitimate stance in the matter, they had no right to apply "conditions". They should have never attacked in the first place. They should have given up any of the hundreds of days after. They had plenty of time to do the reasonable thing.

      You are absolutely correct. But we were speaking of saving lives. Accepting their surrender would have saved two hundred thousand. If saving lives and ending the war were truly the rationales for dropping the bomb, then it seems "accept the enemy's offer to surrender" would have been a far more reasonable choice.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  161. Oh, We Do... by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

    It's called an electromagnetic pulse. Can be generated by different means, such as a nuke, an "e-bomb", or a HERF gun. Any of which destroy unhardened electronic systems, and play havoc with electromagnetic communications.

  162. War-mongerer, no, never. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "you will be made mindless and blind by your success in toppling a government that never attacked you, and was never a serious threat"

    The Iraqi government had up until attacking an important ally. They had attacked US peacekeepers dozens of times in recent years ("never attacked"? Ha). As a major terrorist leader, it was a serious threat. No more, thanks to effective action to stop terrorism.

    "And you will do this to hide the scope of the problem that faces you. And your ignorance to this situation will cause your democracy to suffer."

    Seems like you have no idea what is going on. Cure your ignorance and learn some things, will ya?

  163. US scientists are assholes by prime2003 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They should use that development to produce electrical power instead of smashing things and polluting the whole planet.

    --
    Regards, Prime
    1. Re:US scientists are assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the Islamic threat exists, nukes will remain a necessity. If you do not want the US to smash people and things, discourage beliefs that warrant the death of the believers such as Islam and Communism.

  164. Not that similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nivens xray laser acts more or less like a one shot ruby laser.

    This thing is acting more like a lithium battery. You can regulate its output by stimulating it. It's rechargeable. But stimulate too much and it will release all at once - KaBoom. Kinda like lithium without any short circuit protection.

    Has anyone brought up the fact that if developed enough as a fuel, It could make manned travel to Jupiter possible? Mars would only be a handful of days away. Mining the asteroid belt would be feasable.

    All without violating the space anti nuke treaty..

  165. Neutron Bomb by blair1q · · Score: 1

    We've been through all this before.

    The only question is whether the Bush administration is as moral as the Carter administration was. ...

    Oh crap. I crack me up.

  166. KARMA WHORE!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats what you are. A karma whore.

  167. Re:GRASERs.... by pyr0 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Hmm, perhaps you missed the point here. The nucleus itself is not decaying. Rather, the atom itself is decaying from a high energy state to a low energy state, and emitting gamma rays in the process. It's like when you have an atom in an electrically excited state, where one electron has jumped up to a higher energy level (or electron shell if you want to simplify it), and then it jumps back down, releasing energy in the process. In the case of the Hafnium bomb they are proposing, this decay occurs at a first order exponential rate, however they have figured out how to get it to happen all at once, releasing lots and lots of gamma rays all at once.

    It seems perhaps you are hung up on the term decay. Nuclear decay can be several things. Alpha decay, beta decay, gamma decay, fission decay. Chemical reactions also decay at a set rate. Many are just much higher order than the first order nuclear reactions. Pick up a chemical kinetics textbook sometime and read it. :)

  168. Re:GRASERs.... by jovlinger · · Score: 1

    not hung up at all on decay. I am hung up on nucleus tho. Is the energy stored in the nucleus somehow, or in the electron shells? The latter I could understand, but that isn't the nucleus...

  169. Islam and socialism are alike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "beliefs that warrant the death of the believers such as Islam and Communism. "

    When in government, islam and socialism are quite alike. Both enforce a belief system on people against their will. Both negate people's rights (religious and economic, respectively). Both often result in genocide. Both should be left to individuals, and have no place in government.

  170. It worked by lommer · · Score: 1

    Well, actually, the principle has held true. Perhaps not for chemical and biological weapons, nor bombers and battleships, but certainly nukes.

    The last time nuclear bombs were used during warfare occurred over 50 years ago. Though they have been developed by at least 9 nations* so far, not one has used them since each has realized that the ensuing devastation would outweigh whatever they were fighting for. So no, actually nukes did achieve what that ever-elusive state. Of course, now we just agree to go to war without using nuclear weapons. :-P

    *my count is USA, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, Isreal, and South Africa (disarmed). Did I miss any?

    1. Re: It worked by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Well, actually, the principle has held true. Perhaps not for chemical and biological weapons, nor bombers and battleships, but certainly nukes.

      > The last time nuclear bombs were used during warfare occurred over 50 years ago. Though they have been developed by at least 9 nations* so far, not one has used them since each has realized that the ensuing devastation would outweigh whatever they were fighting for. So no, actually nukes did achieve what that ever-elusive state.

      Pretty much my thoughts, e.g. if Saddam had gotten The Bomb he so eagerly wanted he probably would have figured out that he couldn't actually use it. (Yes, he's evil, but not obviously suicidal.)

      However, the situation seems to be very unstable. It's only a matter of time until some member of the Nuclear Missle Club gets an insane Hitleresque play-Wagner-while-the-world-burns type, and then we'll make up for all those years of not using nukes in short order.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:It worked by mikerich · · Score: 1
      Oh its worked so far, but the problem is that some people at the Department of Defense are feeling a might bit constrained by convention. The idea that nuclear weapons are so terrifying that they can't be used is gradually being eroded by the hawks. We hear that the US is planning mini-nukes, okay they're not big, but they are nuclear weapons. By deliberately building small nuclear weapons, the policy is not only to make the use of nuclear weapons acceptable, but to make their first use acceptable. (A policy that was immediately followed by Mini-Me Great Britain in the run-up to the most recent war in Iraq). People are now seriously thinking that nuclear weapons can help win a war.

      It sounds awfully like the policy of the Reagan era for battlefield-nukes. The US believed that the use of nuclear weapons could be limited to the battlefield and that strategic weapons would live in their silos. The Soviet Union told them firmly that the detonation of a single nuclear weapon, no matter where, would result in a strategic retaliation. The US (wisely) backed down.

      The people around Rumsfeld who are tripping so lightly down the path of mini-nukes might pause to consider that where the US goes, other countries will follow (and none faster than Britain which appears to be incapable of holding a single independent policy these days).

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

      PS. Countries with nuclear weapons, you should probably add North Korea to that list.

  171. The bigger picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " attacks from the un-electable hardcore left notwithstanding, we did the Right Thing. "

    Looks like you see The Big Picture, for sure.

    I think if it was late in WW2, the same folks would be defending the soveriegnty of Nazi Germany and how dare the allies invade it, Hitler never harmed anyone. It's a war for beer.

    1. Re:The bigger picture by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Great ! Lets bring up WWII. Because, really Saddam was obviously bent on world conquest and genocide. His forces had already rolled over most of the middle east and were encroaching on Russia and Europe as we speak.

      If we were to take a leaf from the US populace of that time, we should have waited until Saddams allies had bombed US soil before getting involved.

      You can't have it both ways.

  172. Linked article by lommer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Beyond the obvious Hulk jokes, did anyone follow the link in the articles? This story describes how this technology is slated to be used in powering UAVs that could stay aloft over a combat zone for months at a time. IMHO, channelling and controlling the energy in a useful way such as this is much cooler than being able to build a straight energy-release bomb.

  173. Curse You, Department of Defense! by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

    I've been working on a science fiction novel that featured nuclear isomer-powered weapons of various sorts. Grumble.

    The story also involves parallel universes. Any bets on how long it is before the DoD pre-empts that concept as well?

  174. speaking of starships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the article: The hafnium explosive could be extremely powerful. One gram of fully charged hafnium isomer could store more energy than 50 kilograms of TNT.

    What would be the specific impulse of this as a rocket fuel? Answer: really really REALLY large!! It seems that the max velocity achievable by such a craft could make an unmanned interstellar probe a quasi-realistic possibility...

    1. Re:speaking of starships by hplasm · · Score: 1
      Yes! True Flash Gordon Atomic Rocket Engines! At last!

      "Stoke the Atomic Furnace! Fire Atomic Engine! Blast Off!"

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  175. No US puppets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "current US puppet would be transformed into the next Master of Evil, a la OBL, Hussein, Noriega, etc"

    Except there are not any US puppets at this time. So much for that theory.

    "Yes, it looks like the motivation for the war wasn't who gets the Iraqi oil, but rather whose companies get the contracts on distributing it."

    It was about neither. After all, Saddam would have offered nice sweetheart deals to the companies.

    "Which, BTW, has been a major cause of international meddling in the Persian Gulf for about 90 years now, at least as I understand it."

    It hasn't. Time to get rid of the alternate reality.

  176. Re:Scary fact for those who didn't read the articl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy shit really!!!?? We should outlaw atoms!

  177. Re:GRASERs.... by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

    I have a physics degree, but it is over 20 years old so bear with me here if this is out of date.

    I will speculate a lot based on what I know and the article.

    The material works like a battery. It is possible to blast the nucleus with gamma rays and pump the nucleus up to a semi stable state. (the nucleus has energy levels just like electrons but they are not effected by the surronding atoms like electons are.) the math for these levels was concidered extremely difficult if not impossible when I was in school many years ago.

    They stay excited until they randomly decay through quantum effects or until additional gamma radiation allows a down state transition which releases the stored energy.

    now a little wild unjustified speculation:

    I would not be too surpized if they could find a nucleus which was stable in the higher energy state. It might also be possible that gamma rays needed to cause the state transition could be of higher energy than the rays emmited by the atom naturally.

    this could be a very nice battery (except for being radioactive when in use!)

    I would like to see this looked as a possible source of energy for satellites

    Now to get really wild.
    If an element has truely stable excited states, you would expect to find excited atoms in the wild. It might be possible to bombard the atoms with gamma rays of the correct energy level and get fossil energy from them. This would be very wonderfull as the energy would be free and the total long term radation levels would be reduced. (long term in this case meaning 1/1000 of a second)

  178. Idiots by future+assassin · · Score: 0

    Hopefully when its done, someones gonna use it on the White House.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  179. Fusion by nberthaume · · Score: 1

    Could these weapons be used as a new form of triggers for thermonuclear weapons and if so would it decrease the amount of radioactive material that they produce?

  180. Which makes me wonder... by Firefly1 · · Score: 1

    ...as to the viability of the plasma-yield weapons described in Dale Brown's novel 'Battle Born' {official site; Amazon.com entry). Basically, these weapons consume everything within a hard radius of ground zero with pretty much no blast/overpressure effects, and negligible residual radiation.
    Even better, in 'Wings of Fire' (Amazon.com entry) the same effect is harnessed to pump a ten-million-wall airborne laser...

    --
    - White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
  181. Extremely long loiter UAV's. by DoraLives · · Score: 1

    Looks damn good on paper, and you can bet that certain quarters in DOD are slavering over it, but the Radiation Problem is not going to go away. People just HATE radiation and there's nothing that anybody can do about it. Any gain that extremely long loiter might give would surely be offset by worldwide outcry over the fact that the thing was spewing radiation (and it really doesn't matter how little might be actually spewed) the whole time, and could concievably dump a serious load of the stuff on somebody's head if it was to fall out of the sky in a nonscheduled way.

    --
    Is it fascism yet?
  182. Wow! by OPTiX_iNC · · Score: 1

    This sounds a lot like a weapon of mass destrution. Good thing it's in th right hands!

    This is scary, think of how long it would take a spy that is in the DoD, or a developement lab to bring this information back to (in thick accent, of your choice) "home country" and make one of their own.

    It's just a matter of how long it will take for someone to get a copy of the mini harddrive it's plans are stored on...

    1. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Good thing it's in th right hands!

      Yeah, sure, just like the bombs your army launched on the people of Irak (and the journalists there), or the napalm it used in Vietnam, or the...

      The _right_ hands... mwhahaha...

      I think Nazis thought their V2 missiles were in the right hands too ...

  183. Iteration Schmiteration by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    The problem with this kind of blase argument is that it does not take into account the fact that the latest generation of weaponry has the capacity to kill / maim / sicken for generations after it is used, inflicting its awful energies on people who may not have been even remotely party to the original dispute.

    My using an atlatl today is not going to kill your unborn grandchildren.

    --------
    If I can own an idea, does that mean I can legally claim some portion of your soul once I tell you that idea? Or even if you just come up with it on your own? Heck, who needs contracts written in blood...

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  184. Damn! Not again! by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    I just collected 100+ old microwave ovens, I am in the process of building a private army
    of Pissed-off Old People (POP) and arming them
    with the secret auto-thumper HERF ray guns.

    We'll patrol the streets in Lincoln Town cars and Buick Roadmasters listening for offenders of the "Too damn loud law".

    When an offender is spotted they will be sumarily HERFed and possibly cooked (just a little).

    Now I suppose that there is a better and more effective way to shut down these noisy little bastards with their loud music and baggy pants half off their asses.

    Maybe with the new ray guns we can drive by and do pre-emptive strikes by HERFing automotive stereo stores and melting the inventory before it hits the streets. Or better yet, melt it in the containers, right on the ship before it hits the dock.

    Sooner or later POP will put a stop to these annoying, loud punks..

  185. cradle2grave anyone ? by skelley · · Score: 1

    Saw this movie tonight on DVD. Change around the movie pseudoscience mumbo jumbo and it is the same thing.

  186. Why we should continue to develop arms... by Gigantic1 · · Score: 0

    Interesting posts on this board concerning the evils of weapons research, but the question remains: what do we do about it? Perhaps we could peaceably approach those foreign powers whose philosophies are concerned with our destruction, but has that ever worked? Did it work with Hitler, Stalin? Did it work for anyone when Imperial Rome "came to town": and conquered hundreds of people? Of course it didn't. If someone is hell-bent on your destruction, then no amount of pleading, reasoning, negotiation or sacrifice will save you: it's a fact as old as recorded history. And they will continue to develop weapons.

    Perhaps we could ignore the situation and hope it all goes away. Of course, this approach only works if there is a power willing to make the sacrifices to keep you free - like today's United States. Of course, the United States is primarily concerned with it's own self-interest, so you'd better hope that your interests stay common - otherwise, you are toast, as the United States will not play World Cop everywhere and all the time - no country would. Ultimately, for this reason, this approach doesn't work as the miseries of history's billions of conquered people can attest.

    Perhaps we could try to change our Foreign Policy? Again, this approach can be lumped with the first - "the pleading, reasoning, negotiation or sacrifice" solution that has forever ultimately failed. Hey...did it stop Hitler, Rome, Greece or the other conquers? Did it - all that money, aid and patronizing - persuade North Korea's Kim Il Jong from developing nukes and threatening to turn his his neighbor's cities into "...lakes of fire"?

    Perhaps if we didn't develop weapons, then the technology wouldn't be available? Well...there's a strange thought as Russia had ICBM capability before we did and Nazi Germany developed the Jet Engine, Crude Radar, Modern Rocketry, Inertial Navigation and the Panzer Tank without our help: borrowed or otherwise. No, the bad guys will keep developing arms with or without or help - that's a historical fact.

    Perhaps we can take out all the bad guys at one stroke. Yeah, with nukes this is close to possible, but would it be accepted? Look at the furor that taking out a couple of bad countries lately (i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan) have cause and ask you if it can be applied indefinitely. As of this moment, we know that Iran is developing Nuclear reactors (the Enrichment Kind that can make Bomb fuel) and yet we are hesitant to fully address the fact of what will probably have to be done: bomb those plants to smithereens. Of course, countries like Israel can afford no illusions: they know that to lose once is to lose everything. So...the world is probably relying on them to bomb the Iran's reactors like they did Iraq's reactors 20-years-ago. Then, the world will point at Israel with righteous indignation and say, "...you terrible war-mongering, land-stealing Jews", while quietly thinking, "..thank you, Israel, for your courage": the is the typical moralizing reaction of those so-called intellectual cretins who think they are "...above it all".

    Or, Perhaps we can do what we are doing now: stay prepared and stay ahead. It's not an ideal solution - peace is the ideal solution - but it does seem to keep us ready for what comes and, ultimately, able to deter wars before they start. Say what you want, but or nuclear and conventional development programs probably saved us from a very nasty war with the Soviets. Hey, when Ronald Reagan was in office, I thought he was just a loud-mouthed, saber-rattling cowboy, but now I realized that he was a man ahead of his time when it came to deterrence (i.e. preventing war). Seems like relatively free and honest societies can typically out-produce, and subsequently out militarize", their foes and, as a result, either drive them into bankruptcy or submission (change their ways). This is exactly what ended the Cold War without a shot; the Soviets felt they could not militarily keep up with us and that we would continue to outpace them militarily as time progressed. In other words, conviction and long-term focus peacefully won the day - the exact elements we need now to continue to develop armament, and the reason we should continue to develop arms.

  187. Re: employing soldiers by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The ones that don't trip over their rifles and kill themselves (there are some) end up better-off for the experience, sure. They come back with the will and discipline to, I don't know, manage a Taco Bell or something. I guess that's better than having them spend four years committing crimes back in the states. That I really don't care about.

    Meanwhile, though, anyone who's smart enough *not* to join the imperial guard gets put into 'weapons design'. That's what pisses me off. We have more advanced weaponry than anyone on the face of the earth, yet not enough manufacturing capacity or energy reserves to last more than a couple of years, and all of our research capacity goes towards designing new weapons. We leave the energy production to the Middle East and the manufacturing to the Far East and resign ourselves to being the world's policemen. News flash: real wars aren't won without steel and oil.

    If the US were cut off from the rest of the world economically, we would all just stand around with our 'rail guns' in our hands wondering what to do with them. That's not a good thing. That means that, like it or not, we sit atop an 'empire' that keeps us dependent upon the fruits of the entire world's labor and resources. In the coming decades, we will be forced to maintain that empire at all costs or give up the lifestyle that it provides and to which we have become accustomed.

    Maybe a few hundred thousand dollars gets thrown into subsidies for solar panels or research into some new windmill technology that would be absolutely *crushed* by cheap oil prices if it ever made it to market. Meanwhile, billions of dollars goes into design of weapons that we couldn't even use without the oil provided by those we point them at.

    I mean, what does the US produce other than power, or at least the perception of it? Of course, that's the reason terrorism is such a threat. That's why bin Laden spends all his time calling the US a 'paper tiger' and goading Arab leaders into fighting with the US instead of cooperating with it. He's betting that we're simultaneously stupid enough to try to fight the entire world and too lazy to give up our position as the recipients of the world's productive capacity.

    Seriously, let's say you could give a damn about the environment or who we have to bribe, threaten, or kill to get cheap gas prices and want nothing more than to drive your SUV and buy cheap electronics and fill your house with little plastic trinkets 'till you die. Terrorism should make you wet yourself. History has shown that armies do not defeat terrorists. Even if we bugged the entire planet and tracked people 24/7, the cost would be much more than a simple, sane policy of self-sufficiency.

    If we really set out to do so, we could have the entire country automated and isolated in sight of a decade. I'm talking robots mowing yards and growing crops and stamping out cheaply-made crap powered by sustainable, renewable energy and everyone sitting around on sofas surfing for porn eating soy-burgers (it's all going to be soy pretty soon anyways). That's really the goal we should be setting for ourselves; not "to be the world's target for terrorism".

    After that's done, maybe we can go about trying to clean up the rest of the world. That would be a noble way to spend our time if we didn't have alterior motives for controlling every politico from here to Bangkok. Besides, everybody knows that the whole 'information economy' thing is a load of shit. Any self-respecting towel-head isn't going to pay for a legitimate copy of The Matrix or Windows Me anyways. We need to give up the whole "look at us, we're productive" myth and stop playing GI-Joe long enough to accept the facts and get to fixing things.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  188. Woah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're arguing that 9-11, the bali bomb, the riyadh bomb were just half-assed?

  189. Re:Arms race? by iLEZ · · Score: 1

    Well, looking at the current relationship between USA and great britain, i see no risks of warheads being pointed at anyone.
    But as another poster pointed out, every new step in weapons tech triggers an arms race in some form.

    --
    You cant fight in here, its a war room!
  190. Woohoo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The nuclei later return to their lowest energy states by emitting a gamma-ray photon.

    Photon Torpedos! YES!

  191. Practical Military Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, so you wonder about ethics. Well, so do I. Consider these simple facts of military do's and don'ts:
    dum-dum bullets: kills quickly because, well, basically your body is instantly shredded. It is banned.
    napalm: kills slowly bacause you are put on fire slowly and die agonizingly. This, however, is quite legal.

    Next question?

  192. Check out US Patent 6,252,921 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,252,921.WKU.&OS=PN/6,252,921&RS =PN/6,252,921

  193. and you are a Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You are an utter idiot. Or a Zionist"

    And you are a neo-nazi. They are the only ones who whine about "zionism" and see it everywhere.

  194. Re:GRASERs.... by jovlinger · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the reply. However, you (and the previous poster) both STATE that which I want explained:

    >the nucleus has energy levels just like electrons but they are not effected by the surronding atoms like electons are.

    How? In electron shells, the energy is stored in the potential energy of the shell, which is due to the charge attraction between the electron and the nucleus. We can thus model('cause it's actually a wavefunction...) the electron's potential energy as a small orbital system, with s/gravity/charge attraction/g.

    Now, if a nucleus has energy levels these need to be stored somehow. Possible candidates are: 1) E=mcc, using a neutron for storage. Quite a large quanta... 2) different configurations of the nucleus, as different arragements of protons and neutrons (think particle buckyballs) will have different potential energies of the strong force, or 3) something completely different.

    Any thoughts?

  195. Re:Arms race indeed (Not Enough Weapons?) by kukiszabolcs · · Score: 1

    Ups, just when I though we have enough weapons ...

    (The text below might belong to another issue, but somewhat is related to this one so I'll post it).

    Oh and by the way who is our enemy?

    I might be superficial but I think those who:
    - make profit on weapons
    - leaders that shift control by this (and enjoy it). Of course all in the name of ... (not even they care as long as they obtain it)
    etc ... (your opinion?)

    I might be superficial but the solutions as I see it:
    1. communication (understanding the problems)
    2. better technology which solves real problems not creates them

    I might be wrong so your opinion is?

  196. Mod parent up by krysith · · Score: 1

    please

  197. Am I the only one thinking ``red mercury''? by gacp · · Score: 1

    Yes, a hoax. Or so they say. But the description of this is strongly reminiscent of that infamous ``red mercury'' that supposedly Russians had created.

    Alas, this one, at least, is real. More technological horrors from Usans' pathological fear.

    --
    ``L'imagination au povoir.''
  198. Great by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

    Just what we need more new weapons. Isn't the US army powerfull enough. Nothing can stop them at the moment. Never in history has one army had such a command over the others. Stick to conventional weapons. We don't need toxic stuff lying around for thousands of years. And again this isn't going to stop terrorists.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  199. This could lead to Nuclear Engines...! by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking that an ultra high velocity explosion (in a contained environment) could create a very POWERFUL replacement for the combustion engine.

    Neat possibilites.

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  200. Re:GRASERs.... by jovlinger · · Score: 1

    turns out it's no. 2. Interestingly, this strong-force potential is what gives us fission. It turns out that when a Uranium atom decays to two smaller atoms (call them X and Y), the potential energy in X and Y doesn't add up to the potential energy of Uranium. The difference in energy in released as kinetic energy, temperature, and gamma rays.

  201. UTD Gamma Researchers by Mittermeyer · · Score: 1

    I knew that UTD did Star Wars research and that it was gamma-related, so UTD has been into military research for a long time.

    I've lived around the UTD area for over 25 years, it's strange to think of it as the birthplace of a new power source/weapons system.

    --
    ________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
  202. What about civilian uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We desperately need a powerful, portable power source for such things as space probes, general-purpose autonomous robots, pitbull-cyborg guard dogs, etc.. Can this type of energy be released in a controled fashion?

  203. You're wrong by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

    We didn't get Texas that way, you Eurotrash idiot. Texas defeated Mexico and became its own country. Then Texans voted in favor of annexation some years later and President Polk annexed Texas.

    Look it up, jackass.

    1. Re:You're wrong by Troed · · Score: 1

      :)

      When I grew up I was taught that in the wars between Sweden and Denmark, the freedom fighters (called "Snapphanar" by the Swedes) were "terrorists" who raped women etc. Of course, that was how the winning side depicted the resistance. I now know better, since I've bother to look up the real history - not only the winner's side.

      When's the last time you looked up how the US provoced a few wars to gain a few states from Mexico and Spain?

      (I'm well aware about Texas btw, that example was a bit of a stretch)

    2. Re:You're wrong by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1
      I'm well aware about Texas btw, that example was a bit of a stretch

      More like a lie you got caught telling.

    3. Re:You're wrong by Troed · · Score: 1
      No, sorry. Dive into the history and the two lebensraum-wars.

  204. microwave on high for 3seconds by call+me+crack+monkey · · Score: 1

    it's noon and i just woke up,i'm about to go take a long nap after i write this,ooo-look at me i'm so worried,,everyone says things are getting too fast now days,thats cause you are all impatent,,how many of you own a microwave or have ever used one?how many of you own a new(er) computer,ie. over 500mhz?yeah,u like those special efx in the movies dont ya?! as for this making a good power sorce,,get off your lazy butt and figure out how to do this..i'm all for screwing the power company.like "hal" (home automated living)-btw,you should reopen the forum on that-just about everone ignores the good things it can do,like ASSIST THE ELDERLY--think about it,u WILL get old,think about that when you grab your walker and try to turn on the lights or close your shades!and remember enstine(pardon the missspelling of a great man) he opened our world perspective to wonderfull things and new ideas that have helped many-even though he had that little boo-boo,he did great things,,,WAKE UP PEOPLE AND PUT DOWN YOUR CRACK PIPES!!!! thats all for now,i'm going to bed,,wake me up when you have something improtant to say...nighty nite! DOWN WITH STUPID PEOPLE !!!

  205. microwave on high for 3seconds by call+me+crack+monkey · · Score: 1

    it's noon and i just woke up,i'm about to go take a long nap after i write this,ooo-look at me i'm so worried,,everyone says things are getting too fast now days,thats cause you are all impatent,,how many of you own a microwave or have ever used one?how many of you own a new(er) computer,ie. over 500mhz?yeah,u like those special efx in the movies dont ya?! as for this making a good power sorce,,get off your lazy butt and figure out how to do this.if it's possible.i'm all for screwing the power company.like "hal" (home automated living)-btw,you should reopen the forum on that-just about everone ignores the good things it can do,like ASSIST THE ELDERLY--think about it,u WILL get old,think about that when you grab your walker and try to turn on the lights or close your shades!and remember einstine(pardon the missspelling of a great man) he opened our world perspective to wonderfull things and new ideas that have helped many-even though he had that little boo-boo,he did great things,,,WAKE UP PEOPLE AND PUT DOWN YOUR CRACK PIPES!!!! thats all for now,i'm going to bed,,wake me up when you have something improtant to say...nighty nite! DOWN WITH STUPID PEOPLE !!!

  206. Gamma decay...as an ignition source by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting that this material has such a high energy density...I wonder how much research has been done into making this material the trigger for a nuclear weapon? If you have read anything about fission-fusion weapons, you know that it takes a "primary" fission weapon to compress the fuel capsule of the "secondary"...which makes the big bang. The Tsar Bomba used a three-stage design...wherin a primary ignited a secondary which ignited a tertiary. Normally, high-explosives are used to start the fission reaction. If these could be eliminated, we could have a single-stage fusion weapon, which would be much smaller, and, due to the fact that fusion is usually a complete process irrespective of ignition velocity, just as powerful. There is the potential for multi-megaton weapons that would be vastly more compact...and not necessarily used for war, but perhaps asteroid defense.

  207. Re:GRASERs.... by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

    Sorry it took so long to reply to this. I got busy

    Electrons are not really charged particles moving in orbit around the nucleus. If there were moving electrical charges, magnetic waves would be generated and the loss of energy would cause things to decay. It is just an easy model to explain things. energy shells are a better model, however still not what is really going on.

    electrons shells are potential energy situation, however the orbit model breaks down here

    This is also some sort of potential energy situation involing the strong and/or weak forces. My knowledge is somewhat out of date.

    I do not think that there really is a true physical description of what is happening at these quantun effects levels. You just use math to describe stuff and predict results.

    the other reply I see here is informative as well