blike Posted August 14, 2003 Posted August 14, 2003 Excerpts From NewScientist 19:00 13 August 03 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. The explosive works by stimulating the release of energy from the nuclei of certain elements but does not involve nuclear fission or fusion. The energy, emitted as gamma radiation, is thousands of times greater than that from conventional chemical explosives. The technology has already been included in the Department of Defense's Militarily Critical Technologies List, which says: "Such extraordinary energy density has the potential to revolutionise all aspects of warfare." ---- Scientists have known for many years that the nuclei of some elements, such as hafnium, can exist in a high-energy state, or nuclear isomer, that slowly decays to a low-energy state by emitting gamma rays. For example, hafnium-178m2, the excited, isomeric form of hafnium-178, has a half-life of 31 years. 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.
YT2095 Posted August 15, 2003 Posted August 15, 2003 Interesting how it Instantly becomes a potential for another weapon and not a portable power generator for 3`rd world countries or space stations!
Erador Posted August 29, 2003 Posted August 29, 2003 yeah its pretty wierd how the government always looks at new technology as a weapon to harness when will they realize, that the more they close thier fist, the more their power will slip between their fingers?
YT2095 Posted August 31, 2003 Posted August 31, 2003 here`s an interesting (maybe) thought, grounded in fact. MANY of yesterdays explosives (still currently used) circa 15 to 20 years ago, were the exclusive domain of the Military only, and some others (mostly heaving charges) for industry, mining etc... these things are NOW in the hands of the public or garage/basement chemists. such things as RDX, PETN, C4. OCTAGEN, ANNM, PE4, I could continue! were exclusive THEN! I or anyone else with basic chem 101 can make these things in a kitchen now! I just wonder how long before the substance mentioned in the topic can be replicated by such teeny bombers or terrorists in a basement/garage somewhere!? and never say never! C4 was classified for the longest time!
Hades Posted December 1, 2003 Posted December 1, 2003 YT2095 said in post #6 :these things are NOW in the hands of the public or garage/basement chemists. such things as RDX, PETN, C4. OCTAGEN, ANNM, PE4, I could continue! were exclusive THEN! I or anyone else with basic chem 101 can make these things in a kitchen now! the earlier half of the century, rontgen came upon x-rays.... im sure his laboratory was no more sophisticated than a mcdonald's kitchen.
Sayonara Posted December 1, 2003 Posted December 1, 2003 You can make all sorts of evil weapons in a McDonald's kitchen.
Sayonara Posted December 1, 2003 Posted December 1, 2003 I'm imagining what you could do with such varied resources and it scares me more than any US weapons project.
apollo2011 Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 We are invading Iraq afraid they have WOMD and we are making and are the only country to have used WOMD. That is just great!
YT2095 Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 erm... WHOS side are you on again??? remind me
apollo2011 Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 I am a US citizen but I thin Bush is an idiot. I wish we had Tony Blair as president. The only thing he has done wrong is agree with Bush. Also, I wanted to say what Sayanora3 said in post #2. We don't need more WOMD
Sayonara Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 Tony Blair lied outright to the UK to justify invading Iraq. Are you sure you want him? (If you do, you can have him).
apollo2011 Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 He had to do that. He did that because his one mistake was going along with Bush. Then Britain hated him (as you show in your post). Yes I do want him. Even Rush Limbaugh is better than Bush. :jk: But Rush is pretty close to being better!
Sayonara Posted December 19, 2003 Posted December 19, 2003 Even if I said I hated Blair in my post, which I did not, I would hardly say that my views are representative of those of the average UK citizen.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now