Skip to comments.
COOL TECH THIS WEEK: Antimatter Weapons, Space Wars, "Bunker Buster" Nukes
Military.com ^
| 10-16-2004
| Noah Shachtman
Posted on 10/17/2004 2:49:44 AM PDT by Navydog
No way. "The U.S. Air Force is quietly spending millions of dollars investigating ways to use a radical power source -- antimatter, the eerie 'mirror' of ordinary matter -- in future weapons," the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
Beyond the pointed-ear cool factor, antimatter would make a powerful weapon -- at least in theory. "If electrons or protons collide with their antimatter counterparts, they annihilate each other. In so doing, they unleash more energy than any other known energy source, even thermonuclear bombs," the Chron explains:
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Technical; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: antimatter; nationaldefense; usaf; war; weapons
1
posted on
10/17/2004 2:49:44 AM PDT
by
Navydog
To: Navydog
2
posted on
10/17/2004 2:52:15 AM PDT
by
billorites
(freepo ergo sum)
To: Navydog
Wait until ya get a look at the chameleon suit they're working on... You can find all sorts of neat stuff at F.A.S.
3
posted on
10/17/2004 2:54:57 AM PDT
by
wrbones
(Where'd I put my tin foil hat....)
To: Navydog
That is most logical.
4
posted on
10/17/2004 3:17:45 AM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(Who would the terrorists vote for?)
To: Jet Jaguar
5
posted on
10/17/2004 3:25:40 AM PDT
by
fuzzy122
(GBGB [God Bless George Bush] and the Armed Forces ... Arnold and Zell too!)
To: billorites
6
posted on
10/17/2004 3:25:54 AM PDT
by
fuzzy122
(GBGB [God Bless George Bush] and the Armed Forces ... Arnold and Zell too!)
To: fuzzy122
7
posted on
10/17/2004 3:29:24 AM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(Who would the terrorists vote for?)
To: Jet Jaguar
"Thus, in principle, a positron bomb could be a step toward one of the military's dreams from the early Cold War: a so-called "clean" superbomb that could kill large numbers of soldiers without ejecting radioactive contaminants over the countryside." I dont see how this will be helpful, we already have the capability to kill lots of soldiers but we wont do it because THEY are violating geneva conventions.
Unless we are willing to use the weapons we already have, it is a waste of time to even consider upgrading.
8
posted on
10/17/2004 3:35:51 AM PDT
by
Samurai_Jack
(I pray that Im wrong about alot of things.)
To: Jet Jaguar
"Enjoy it! LOL!" Yipee!
9
posted on
10/17/2004 3:39:02 AM PDT
by
fuzzy122
(GBGB [God Bless George Bush] and the Armed Forces ... Arnold and Zell too!)
To: Samurai_Jack
I disagree completely.
We must have the resources to obliterate our enemy.
If the military leaders and the executive leaders choose to use it, we have it available.
10
posted on
10/17/2004 3:46:34 AM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(Who would the terrorists vote for?)
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
To: AKSurprise
so do we get lazer tanks and particle cannons? i really mis those prizm tanks that were in command and conquer red alert2
I play way too much command and conquer generals.
12
posted on
10/17/2004 4:31:52 AM PDT
by
Kewlhand`tek
(What the hell was that? I hope it was outgoing!)
To: Samurai_Jack
The entire point of this weapon system is that you can obliterate your enemy and occupy hsi former terrain and beging reconstruction almost immediately. Whereas ith current nuke technology, the terrain is unusable for a rather lengthy period of time.
13
posted on
10/17/2004 4:39:03 AM PDT
by
roaddog727
(The marginal propensity to save is 1 minus the marginal propensity to consume.)
To: Navydog
Larry Niven ping for a TC weapon
(total conversion)
14
posted on
10/17/2004 11:02:43 AM PDT
by
ASOC
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson