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.'"

Comments

err..

[kmak]

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.

Re:err..

[JohnsonJohnson]

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.

Next Arms Race

[TrollBridge]

"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.

Re:Neat

[mszeto]

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.

Re:Oh shit.

[Xentax]

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

Re:Oh shit.

[saskwach]

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.

Short half life = reduced proliferation risk?

[jakedata]

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.