Revolutionary Weaponry (1147 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalRating: 1.06 on 17 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Ralph Master Nator (View user info) at 2003-08-14 03:07:42 EDT
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service
Gamma-ray weapons could trigger next arms race
19:00 13 August 03
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
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.
Energy pump
Before hafnium can be used as an explosive, energy has to be "pumped" into its nuclei. Just as the electrons in atoms can be excited when the atom absorbs a photon, hafnium nuclei can become excited by absorbing high-energy photons. The nuclei later return to their lowest energy states by emitting a gamma-ray photon.
Nuclear isomers were originally seen as a means of storing energy, but the possibility that the decay could be accelerated fired the interest of the Department of Defense, which is also investigating several other candidate materials such as thorium and niobium.
For the moment, the production method involves bombarding tantalum with protons, causing it to decay into hafnium-178m2. This requires a nuclear reactor or a particle accelerator, and only tiny amounts can be made.
Currently, the Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland, New Mexico, which is studying the phenomenon, gets its hafnium-178m2 from SRS Technologies, a research and development company in Huntsville, Alabama, which refines the hafnium from nuclear material left over from other experiments. The company is under contract to produce experimental sources of hafnium-178m2, but only in amounts less than one ten-thousandth of a gram.
Extremely powerful
But in future there may be cheaper ways to create the hafnium isomer - by bombarding ordinary hafnium with high-energy photons, for example. Hill Roberts, chief scientist at SRS, believes that technology to produce gram quantities will exist within five years.
The price is likely to be high - similar to enriched uranium, which costs thousands of dollars per kilogram - but unlike uranium it can be used in any quantity, as it does not require a critical mass to maintain the nuclear reaction.
The hafnium explosive could be extremely powerful. One gram of fully charged hafnium isomer could store more energy than 50 kilograms of TNT. Miniature missiles could be made with warheads that are far more powerful than existing conventional weapons, giving massively enhanced firepower to the armed forces using them.
The effect of a nuclear-isomer explosion would be to release high-energy gamma rays capable of killing any living thing in the immediate area. It would cause little fallout compared to a fission explosion, but any undetonated isomer would be dispersed as small radioactive particles, making it a somewhat "dirty" bomb. This material could cause long-term health problems for anybody who breathed it in.
Political fallout
There would also be political fallout. In the 1950s, the US backed away from developing nuclear mini-weapons such as the "Davy Crockett" nuclear bazooka that delivered an explosive punch of 18 tonnes of TNT. These weapons blurred the divide between the explosive power of nuclear and conventional weapons, and the government feared that military commanders would be more likely to use nuclear weapons that had a similar effect on the battlefield to conventional weapons.
By ensuring that the explosive power of a nuclear weapon was always far greater, it hoped that they could only be used in exceptional circumstance when a dramatic escalation of force was deemed necessary.
Then in 1994, the US confirmed this policy with the Spratt-Furse law, which prevents US military from developing mini-nukes of less than five kilotons. 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. Nuclear-isomer weapons could be a major advantage to armies possessing them, leading to the possibility of an arms race.
André Gsponer, director of the Independent Scientific Research Institute in Geneva, believes that a nation without such weapons would not be able to fight one that possesses them. As a result, he says, "many countries which will not have access to these weapons will produce nuclear weapons as a deterrent", leading to a new cycle of proliferation.
The Department of Defense notes that there are serious technical issues to be overcome and that useful applications may be decades away. But its Militarily Critical Technologies List also says: "We should remember that less than six years intervened between the first scientific publication characterising the phenomenon of fission and the first use of a nuclear weapon in 1945."
David Hambling
/////////////////////////////////////
Ripped from Holology's daily news updates.
User Reviews
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2003-12-17 16:09:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Back to your original comment, its not a shock, it is just depressing.
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2003-12-17 16:08:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Just because something was utilized in war, does not mean its intended purpose was for war. That is just a reflection of our own ingenuity and penchant for violence.
How about this:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/17047
Hahaha.
Really though, I am stumped. You can basically argue that everything has been used in war times, that is a very broad scope. Things eminating from or because of war, that is another story.
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2003-12-17 16:08:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I want one.
Submitted by Natophelia (user info) at 2003-12-17 15:57:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Watch From Tactical to Practical on ...um...the History channel, I think? I don't have cable tv so when I go to a house that does, I'm glued to the nerd channels. But I can't remember which is which. Anyway, it shows alot of surprising things that were initially developed for military use.
Submitted by Yogimus (user info) at 2003-12-17 15:51:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Name 1 thing that wasn't invented for war, or utilized in war within a few years of invention.
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2003-12-17 15:49:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Come now, Yogi, everything was invented for warfare?
I don't agree with that, but I do know that the human race has seen its greatest technological and political advances while in the face of war. The pressure of death really causes us to think on our feet.
I would like to see what the other 'critical weapons' are, and how many of them are realted to biology....
Submitted by Yogimus (user info) at 2003-12-17 15:37:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
William q, everything was invented for warfare. Even pennicilin. Even ambulances. EVERYTHING. How this comes as a shock is beyond me.
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2003-12-17 15:28:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm glad that the assumed application of this discovery was for weaponry and not an energy source...
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-08-15 15:49:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Berz - I think America retreated from a treaty concerning the testing of nuclear weapons. It was someting about Nuclear Weapons. I don't really know. Nevermind.
Submitted by Berz (user info) at 2003-08-14 15:07:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow- let's test it on china and north korea first!
But in all honesty- where the hell could we test something like this? Aren't we supposed to have a ban on all nulear weapons testing? Besides, wouldn't this create outrage from the international community?
Submitted by pimpbuster (user info) at 2003-08-14 13:59:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nubs- I'd say the most powerful weapon would be the mind, but that's all a bunch of jibber-jabber anyway. But the mind does control the handgun.
Enough theology.
I first read the "gamma ray weapons" thing and was thinking you could shoot something with radiation and it would explode. Cool! Then I said to myself, how bout I take this one step further and I'd go make me one of these and then run through trailer parks and rush hour traffic and point the thing at people's crotches, a great way to reduce unnecessary breeding. Anyone with me?
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-08-14 13:25:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
They may not be able to afford it but they will spend it anyway. Increasing national debt has never stopped nations from zealously spending on warfare.
Submitted by LucidCognition (user info) at 2003-08-14 11:40:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I can see the biggest problem with this being that no other country would be able to afford an arms race with the US. So, like they siad, they will develop more nukes to counter these. I think that as energy source it's got potential. Something akin to nuclear, but not as dirty. Whatever, it was an interesting read.
Submitted by nubs (user info) at 2003-08-14 08:19:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
We've already got the most powerful weapon that will ever be available. The handgun.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2003-08-14 04:22:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck batteries !
Bombs!!
Big ass nasty, dirty explosive bombs !
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2003-08-14 04:08:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow, very interesting.
We don't need any more powerful weapons, I don't care about that. I'm much more interested in this energy storage possibility. If they can develop a controlled interface to pump energy in, and extract energy from this element, imagine what that could do to battery technology. 1 gram of this stuff can hold as much energy as 50 kilos of TNT! That's amazing! That would be the size of a little AA battery, with all that power. 'Bout time though, battery technology sucks, it's been needing a quantum leap forward for some time. Oh the possibilities.
-Bus
Submitted by Beer_bong (user info) at 2003-08-14 03:12:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow, I'm shocked as shit that I actually understood that article.
+2 for me.