It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mini-nukes and mosquito-like robot weapons being primed for future warfare

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
The article speaks for itself.. I can only imagine (and probably not to well) what will happen if this stuff gets out of the lab into the real world..... Unfortunately if the USA is working on this then other nations are too.
www.cnbc.com...

Several countries are developing nanoweapons that could unleash attacks using mini-nuclear bombs and insect-like lethal robots.

While it may be the stuff of science fiction today, the advancement of nanotechnology in the coming years will make it a bigger threat to humanity than conventional nuclear weapons, according to an expert. The U.S., Russia and China are believed to be investing billions on nanoweapons research.


We have all probably heard about the supposedly suitcase nuclear bomb... How about a nuclear device that would fit into someones pocket and go boom with the force of 100 tons of TNT ? Then add the Quote: "Cambridge University conference on global catastrophic risk found a 5 percent risk of nanotech weapons causing human extinction before the year 2100." End quote... Some nice doom porn to start or end your day...?


"When we talk about making conventional nuclear weapons, they are difficult to make," he said. "Making a mini-nuke would be difficult but in some respects not as difficult as a full-blown nuclear weapon."

Del Monte explained that the mini-nuke weapon is activated when the nanoscale laser triggers a small thermonuclear fusion bomb using a tritium-deuterium fuel. Their size makes them difficult to screen, detect and also there's "essentially no fallout" associated with them.


Instead of sending messages into space about how we want to be friends we should be advertising how creative we are at killing things.. Maybe we could be hired as some kind of intergalactic black water police force.. We could bargain for nice looking uniforms and a great looking patch to wear over the left breast of our new uniform ! (sarc)

Can you imagine a swarm of millions of nanobots released on some future battle field or unsuspecting country ?

It also forecast "microexplosives" along with "nanobots serving as [bioweapons] delivery systems or as micro-weapons themselves, and inhalable micro-particles to cripple personnel."

In the case of nanoscale robots, Del Monte said they can be the size of a mosquito or smaller and programmed to use toxins to kill or immobilize people; what's more, these autonomous bots ultimately could become self-replicating.


"self-replicating" sure why not, nothing to see here, move along these are not the bots you should be concerned with.

Then add this for a little connect the dots fun: advances.sciencemag.org... Is about a camera the size of a grain of salt.. No reason for our little nano creations to go forth and be blind, now is there....




posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Doesn't it take about 30 pounds of plutonium to fuel a chain reaction?



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Nickn3

Not just for the military, either, but the police can use this as well. An insect size bot with a tranquilizer stinger taking out targets would come in handy.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Nickn3

In a suitcase nuke?

What about snukes?



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
While sub-ton nuclear munitions are the current hot item, what he's talking about won't work. Actually, he's wrong about several things there. Horribly wrong. Which, I suppose, proves that if you're a futurist, you don't have to get the physics down, just say something scary.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
Doesn't it take about 30 pounds of plutonium to fuel a chain reaction?


Critical mass is a function of many things. The number you're trying to recall there is the bare unreflected sphere mass for plutonium for exact criticality. No one goes bare sphere. It's just a sort of reference point.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

www.digitaltrends.com...

Here's a video of them launching micro drones in swarms... of course without inclusion of what they will carry. The future concepts will be micro nuclear attacks... where fallout from radiation is more limited, but results still being quite effective. Instead of a nuke taking out entire cities, they'll likely take out buildings, but be pea sized.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Nickn3

Think its depends how you initiate the nuclear reaction and how enriched your uranium is, possibly as little as 5 Kg could be required.

Ether way the things still going to be far to heavy for micro mosquito-like robots to lift short of some kind of mass cancellation technology.

edit on 18-3-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

You can initiate the # out of a subcritical mass and nothing will happen. Criticality is a function of a number of factors, though.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Well you seem to know you stuff Bedlam, do you see micro nukes on the cards any time soon?

Christ even if they are tiny they are still going to be rather heavy for a mosquito sized robot to lift are they not?



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

No. You might get a nice luggable sub-ton munition at some point, i might even go so far as to indirectly hint that they exist in the lab. But it's not something every third world country could do.

In order to have fission micro nukes you have to have near perfect neutron reflectors.

You get a perfect neutron reflector, you can make a fission weapon of any practical size. You get one that's electrically switchable, you can be rid of explosives and the initiator as well. And you've got a nice reaction drive. Maybe fusion as well. It's sort of the brass ring.
edit on 18-3-2017 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

The real answer is simply no though anyway.

The amount of energy you put into the particles splitting them determinates how catastrophic the chain is.

You don't even need plutonium at all if you have tons of energy. Plutonium has innate energy from being very unstable, so blowing it up is simply using that as a extra boost to blow up more particles and get 'the chain going'. Inertia is lost when they smash into things, but very minimal loses with particles of plutonium.

But like, for example, Uranium can also cause chain reactions. Or just a massive amount of accumulated energy. You don't 'just need 30 pounds of plutonium'.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Sounds perfect for space propulsion purposes rather than us weaponizing the technology.

If indeed it is possible to create fission micro nukes could the technology not be used to build a somewhat scaled down Orion type vehicle for exploration purposes?



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Bedlam

Sounds perfect for space propulsion purposes rather than us weaponizing the technology.

If indeed it is possible to create fission micro nukes could the technology not be used to build a somewhat scaled down Orion type vehicle for exploration purposes?


Or you could just fission small amounts of uranium in a working fluid like water. Nasty byproducts but a decent space booster



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

What law, what theorem(s) states that only a nuke of x amount in size and scale can actually do such and such; miniaturization of this tech only works down to this point but not beyond it?

You have me really curious now. Which then begs the question, following the theorem, just what is the smallest possible nuke? It seems like there would be a specific weight via a 'well known' calculation by now.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

the smallest possible nuke is like asking what temperature should constitute cold, you have to be more specific in the scale of destruction, because small nuclear reactions could make enough power to flicker a LED, and that would be the smallest.

The energy that initiates the chain reaction will constitute how much damage and ricochet it does from there, so from the very start you need a differential sized energy source based on the explosion you want.
edit on 18-3-2017 by MacK80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

And since many people feel that the military is 50 to 75 years ahead of today's technology, a lot of these kinds of things may already exist in some covert project, and may have already been used. A certain event of the past comes to mind..



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3
Doesn't it take about 30 pounds of plutonium to fuel a chain reaction?


Unless they have figured out how to accelerate a reaction with much less material, to where it doesn't need a larger mass of main fuel to reach critical mass. Scary thought.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The 'years ahead' is because of obsolescence of new tech. Not the techs themselves are 70 years ahead, that's much more reigned in, like we know about Russian nukes. For example, we will probably discover teleportation before we make our spaceships completely to our liking, making spaceships obsolete.

Nukes will be obsolete deterrents because we eventually will have bombs that can blow up the planet, or the universe.



Making them into smaller bombs sounds more accessible and scary though for sure.
edit on 19-3-2017 by MacK80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 02:38 AM
link   
You do realize critical and super critical does not equate to explosion. Nuclear reactors go critical and super critical without exploding.

As a nuclear bomb gets smaller, there is a breakpoint where the conventional explosives used to induce the fission process produces a bigger exsplosion than what the radioactive material can produce. Not enough quantity of radioactive material just results in a dirty nuclear bomb.

The next big step will be antimatter bombs.




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join