Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Military Science Fiction Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: is the USA developing a Anti Matter Bomb?
metalfan182    8/24/2007 3:51:36 PM
I have recently heard that the USA has dedicated an entire particle accelerator to the manufacture and study of Anti Matter. Could this be for weapons purpose? I have heard that Anti Matter doesn't give off harmful amounts of radiation on detonation and just generates pure energy. Could this mean a clean nuclear weapon?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
andyf       8/24/2007 4:42:58 PM
errrr, no.
antimatter is astonishingly energy intensive to make , and expensive.
utterly inneficient as a weapon
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       8/24/2007 5:38:40 PM
So in what form is this "pure energy"

Plus, who told you this?
 
Quote    Reply

andyf       8/24/2007 5:56:16 PM
far as I know its hard gamma rays
owww
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       8/24/2007 6:12:01 PM
Shhh! You'll spoil my fun.

I'd further note that antimatter would be spectacularly effective as a weapon, but equally effective at crashing your economy. Not to mention monsterously unstable - if the containment went wrong it would always detonate - no fizzle.
 
Quote    Reply

metalfan182       8/24/2007 6:40:39 PM
 

Yes it’s expensive to produce now but so was the original uranium made for the little boy bomb. Actually most expensive military project in history. I heard it from the history channel and from what my understanding of the stuff is it is pure annihilation resulting in pure heat and light energy. Nothing left at all to make radioactive fall out.

 
Quote    Reply

Treadgar       8/25/2007 10:15:34 AM
Antimatter is expensive to make, just like everybody has said so far. Even if you do make enough of it, you have to contain it up until the detonation point. The only way I know of that is through electromagnetic containment fields, and the ones I've heard about don't work well over long periods of time, and these "long" periods aren't very long at all. It seems like a foolish way to spend the tax payers money...

Treadgar
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       8/25/2007 11:56:00 AM

 

Yes it’s expensive to produce now but so was the original uranium made for the little boy bomb. Actually most expensive military project in history. I heard it from the history channel and from what my understanding of the stuff is it is pure annihilation resulting in pure heat and light energy. Nothing left at all to make radioactive fall out.



 
The matter / anti-matter reaction is a pure matter to energy conversions, each particle becoming a single photon with an energy equivalent to the particle's mass. 
 
Any heat results not from the annihilation but the interaction of the photons with other matter.  It is similar to the production of the fireball from a nuclear explosion in atmosphere, except a nuke ONLY produces soft X-rays (10-100KeV).
 
Electron / anti-electron annihilation produce ~0.5MeV hard gamma photons (2 per annihilation)
Proton / anti-proton and neutron / anti-neutron annihilation produce ~900Mev gamma radiation (actually in the cosmic radiation range).
The "clean" weapon aspect comes from the fact that the basic reaction does not produce the free neutron that react to form radioactive fallout.  However, this is only really the case for hydrogen / anti-hydrogen reactions, reactions  between anti-hydrogen and heavier elements should produce some spectacularly unstable nuclei.
 
Quote    Reply

metalfan182       8/25/2007 12:14:13 PM
well if we study it maybe we will discover better ways to contain the stuff. The USA is studying it, they don't deny that.
 
Quote    Reply

the British Lion       8/25/2007 1:55:40 PM
All of the above points aside, what the hell would possess someone to make one of them? What, the ability to destroy all life on Earth several times over not quite enough firepower for you?!?
 
Seems like a pointless exercise to me.
 
B.L.
 
Quote    Reply

metalfan182       8/25/2007 4:00:57 PM
because if we don't build it then some one else might. Its called MAD, Mutually Assured Distruction. If we can figure out how to use the stuff then who know what the possibilities for it as a weapon are.
 
I see it as a opertunity to build the next generation of WMD. Last great  invention was the H-Bomb and that was only about 5 years after WWII. I think that its time to make something new.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy