Anti-energy Weapons

[aman]

Some day we will be blessed by the ability to sustain energy fields and contain forces like pieces of neutron stars and maybe black holes. As we miniturize our containment, do you feel this is the direction for explosives to go? If we just release containment, we release energy.

Just aman

[fafalone]

I for one don't think weaponized black holes should be tested anywhere near our solar system. An accident with one of those could make the nuclear bomb look like a cap.

[JaKiri]

I think they'll continue in the same way as currently; advanced reactions stored in neutral conditions.

 

You need weapons that are safe to store, above all else. Whilst the reaction mechanism may change, the general theme (ignition required) won't, imo.

[YT2095]

Alot of things that require that containment, can only exist whilst contained also, and imediately collapse into harmlesness upon a breach anyway, for example TOKOMAK reactors, there`s no weapons legislation regarding these and so any country that wishes to help another to build one is perfectly free to do so, as these reactors cannot be weaponised.

If on the other hand they can be made into a viable source of virtualy "free energy" since it fuel comes from ordinary sea water. there`s nothing to really dictate what that energy (electricity) could be used for! lasers? EMP weapons? maybe even things we`ve never even heard of yet?

[JaKiri]

That's not the question. You're talking about 'SHOULD WE BAN ELECTRICITY FROM EVIL NATIONS?!?!?!?'

[YT2095]

If the WHOLE of my post is read, you`ll see that I did infact answer what I considered to be the plausible outcome of containment rupturing. and that the only REAL threat would come from the weapons used that exploit this generated energy, namely electricity.

I contest, that if we release containment we LOSE the energy.

[JaKiri]

You've taken fusion to be representative, when it's just as (if not more likely) that fission is more in the style of things.

[YT2095]

fission was done in the 40`s and is somewhat "old hat" now, it also requires no containment to weaponise it (quite the opposite) so yes, I did did take containment devices (as mentioned in the 1`st post) to mean things along the lines of Fussion.

since black hole containment is still in the realms of "star trek" I couldn`t possibly comment.

[fafalone]

Well theoretically you should be able to contain a black hole creating an equally strong gravitational field surrounding with its gravitational force being in the opposite direction.

[alt_f13]

Where might you get that kind of energy? And if you had that kind of energy, why waste it on capturing a black hole when you might as well just save it and make your own for the 5 seconds it takes to annihilate a solar-system?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Good point.

If we had that kind of energy I think we would be doing something else, like fry the enemy with electricity.

[mam"MATT"us]

future weapon - negatively charged strange quark clump. Not sure if it's possible though.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Or just find a way to isolate antimatter and store it-- voila! A very powerful bomb!

[elfin vampire]

There's one strategic problem with biological warfare: controlling the environment.

Most of that's dealt with the moment you move armed forces in.

[YT2095]

elfin vampire said in post #14 :

There's one strategic problem with biological warfare: controlling the environment.

Most of that's dealt with the moment you move armed forces in.

 

though that maybe true, how does it fit in with the thread?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

elfin vampire said in post #14 :

There's one strategic problem with biological warfare: controlling the environment.

Most of that's dealt with the moment you move armed forces in.

You're saying troops control the environment?

[aman]

mam"MATT"us said in post #12 :

future weapon - negatively charged strange quark clump. Not sure if it's possible though.

 

I read that one of those clumps was recently detected by looking at seismic recordings and isolating a single hits effect on a large area of Earth. Thank God they're rare in space since one can shake a lot of ground and you cant even see it.

 

Just aman

[Radical Edward]

give me a rail gun and I will give you the universe. most energy weapons suck because they don't behave. light suffers from all sorts of things like diffraction and so on, making it useless over long distances, not to mention that lasers are pretty delicate. other weapons such as anti matter and plasma things suck because they require too much storage effort. the idea of star trek type conversations such as "oh no, the anti matter containment has just failed" are complete fiction, since you would never get as far as the o. As MrL said, you need stuff that is safe and relatively easy to store. kinetics and nukes are the way to go.

[Sayonara]

Usually when the containment fails in Star Trek, they don't get much further than the "o".

 

Unless it's on TOS, which is toss.

[YT2095]

with reference to the 1`st post, the problem would be deploying them, we have nukes now that can really spoil your day, but delivering them unseen would be almost impossible with conventional means, I think before anything more devastating is made, a means of delivery would be sought 1`st, maybe stealth tech or cloaking of some sort?

OR something that fast and directional (light speed) that there be no warning.

Just a thought