• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Gamma-ray weapons could trigger next arms race.

kurokaze

Full Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I found this interesting article on NewScientist.com

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
I thinking to myself, why is it that the first
applications of a new source of energy is always
for military purposes? Imagine the usefulness
of this if it were applied to the civilian sector
and gave us cleaner / cheaper energy.
 
It‘s funny....so many people (including that idiot Bush) are advocates of keeping and producing more powerful and complex nuclear weapons, yet everyone who‘s actually seen the results first hand is so strongly against it. I was watching a documentary on the CBC about a guy who had been tortured in a prison camp in Nagasaki for 3 years in WW2, and yet even though its use had freed him, when he learned what the nuclear bomb had actually done to the populace, he was staunchly opposed to it. It was pretty disgusting; when my sister was in Japan, she went to the war museum there. She told me there were some pretty disturbing photographs, as well as displays; Bubbling, melted human bones fused into concrete, someone‘s shadow burned into a wall.
 
Whatever works Null. It would have been just as grizzly seeing 10,000 US Marines dead on Yokahama beach, the seas red with blood.
 
Yes, it would have been grizzly to see 10,000 marines dead. But also, they are soldiers. The idea of war is basically for two sides of soldiers to kill eachother in the name of each of their governments, and whichever army wins, wins it for their government. It‘s not exactly moral to drop a bomb on a place, and kill thousands upon thousands of civis, women, men and children. Although it was explained to me that the war needed to end. The allies were exhausted. So they simply just had to take out Japan. After all, Japan seemed quite commited to stop at nothing in order to take over the world. So I guess, what is the price of peace.
 
Why couldn‘t prolonged conventional bombing have been used? And what about the Soviet Union? They had promised FDR & Churchill to attack Japan 90 days after Germany surrendered. Why not wait for the Soviets? The Japanese weren‘t going anywhere.
 
Had foreign troops landed on mainland Japan, estimated casualties from both sides would have been over a million.

Most military analysis‘ of a potential invasion of the Japanese mainlands describe a bloodbath far beyond anything seen. The losses suffered by Japanese civilians would have been horrendous, as the Imperial Japanese government was preparing to use them as human shields and suicide attackers.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/nyt.kristof/index.html

A short, but interesting article on CNN looks at the usage of nuclear weapons and the Japanese government‘s reaction to them.
 
Null it‘s interesting at how easy you can call the most powerful man in the world an idiot, that takes some confidence
Would japan refused to use an atomic bomb on the us if they had it?
 
bush the most powereful man in the world even though he can‘t declare war without approval, or do much of anything without approval.
 
Why couldn‘t prolonged conventional bombing have been used?
Null, when the Americans "conventionally firebombed Tokyo, they killed over 100,000 people and made two million homeless. The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not come close to the destruction inflicted by US conventional saturation bombing.
 
Bush seems to get his way don‘t you think?

On a side note it‘s pretty interesting how one or two well placed attacks could possibly wipe out power across a good chunk of the country.
I wonder how many americans know that 3000 french people just died from a heat wave or gave it a second thought.
 
Of course they know - why wouldn‘t they? It‘s all over the news, and alot of people are talking about it... :rolleyes:
 
LOL - OK, I‘m sorry - just because I live here wouldn‘t give me any better perspective than you regarding what people are talking about, around their water coolers at work....Some of you guys slam the Yanks for being obtuse, and you‘re just as bad as they are
 
Fair enough. Lets just see how much news coverage it gets in the next few days.
 
The Canadians had an entire Division in training to take part in the second phase of the invasion of the Japanese mainland; they were expected to go into combat in the spring of 1946. The A-Bombs probably saved several hundred if not thousand of their lives, too.

Not to mention we had service personnel with the RN at the time. Hammy Gray, our last Victoria Cross of the war, was killed on the same day as one of the A-bombs were dropped, flying his Corsair in a conventional aerial attack on Japanese shipping. Sure, maybe the Japanese weren‘t going anywhere, but they were still deadly. And would have been more so, as pointed out in this thread, had the Emperor not put an end to the war. Casualty estimates for an invasion were in excess of 1 million.

As for wars being fought by soldiers only - nonsense. Aerial bombardment was an accepted form of warfare by WW II, as was the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children through use of firebombs and conventional high explosives.
 
Ghost - please explain how you are going to evaluate how much news coverage something gets, in the Unites States. Not only that, but how much the "man on the street" cares and actually discusses it
 
This message board, populated by Americans, discussed the European heatwave in detail.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=009296;p=1
 
I guess i just have a biased opinion because of the interaction i‘ve had. Hardly any of the americans i chat with knew about it and those that did actually got a laugh out of it. Obviously not all americans are like that, just all the ones i chat with ;)
 
Devils advocate sir.
If there was no hitler then stalin might have swept across europe and asia unchecked killing every jew instead of 5 or 6 million.
 
Back
Top