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.'"
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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
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.