WAR: U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists

Nukes are weapons of mass distruction. Period. It doesn't matter who uses it. But of course I know that chemical and biological weapons are also wmd's.

In regards to my last post, and the new weapons in development:

The U.S. Air Force is quietly spending millions of dollars investigating ways to use a radical power source -- antimatter, the eerie "mirror" of ordinary matter -- in future weapons.

During the Cold War, the Air Force funded numerous scientific studies of the basic physics of antimatter. With the knowledge gained, some Air Force insiders are beginning to think seriously about potential military uses -- for example, antimatter bombs small enough to hold in one's hand, and antimatter engines for 24/7 surveillance aircraft.

More cataclysmic possible uses include a new generation of super weapons -- either pure antimatter bombs or antimatter-triggered nuclear weapons; the former wouldn't emit radioactive fallout. Another possibility is antimatter- powered "electromagnetic pulse" weapons that could fry an enemy's electric power grid and communications networks, leaving him literally in the dark and unable to operate his society and armed forces.

The energy from colliding positrons and antielectrons "is 10 billion times ... that of high explosive," Edwards explained in his March speech. Moreover, 1 gram of antimatter, about 1/25th of an ounce, would equal "23 space shuttle fuel tanks of energy." Thus "positron energy conversion," as he called it, would be a "revolutionary energy source" of interest to those who wage war.

It almost defies belief, the amount of explosive force available in a speck of antimatter -- even a speck that is too small to see. For example: One millionth of a gram of positrons contain as much energy as 37.8 kilograms (83 pounds) of TNT, according to Edwards' March speech. A simple calculation, then, shows that about 50-millionths of a gram could generate a blast equal to the explosion (roughly 4,000 pounds of TNT, according to the FBI) at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

Unlike regular nuclear bombs, positron bombs wouldn't eject plumes of radioactive debris. When large numbers of positrons and antielectrons collide, the primary product is an invisible but extremely dangerous burst of gamma radiation. Thus, in principle, a positron bomb could be a step toward one of the military's dreams from the early Cold War: a so-called "clean" superbomb that could kill large numbers of soldiers without ejecting radioactive contaminants over the countryside.

sfgate.com.../c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL

It seems the U.S. government is switching over to small tactical nukes, while allowing Russia and China to possess higher yield nukes, because they are probably obsolete now. Imagine if this technology is utilized, what the U.S. government could do. A first strike with EMP to possibly render an enemy defenseless, followed by the annihilation of the enemy's military force, all without radioactive fallout. I'm afraid since there will be no fallout, the temptation to use these weapons will be much greater.

[edit on 14-9-2005 by 27jd]

[edit on 14-9-2005 by 27jd]

Just adds merit to, "Don't mess with the best."

Besides, so what if China or Russia have big bombs. MAD is still in effect. China may be relatively new to the game, but they know the basics: don't nuke an enemy's city unless you want one of your cities nuked too.

That's the nice thing about our tiny nukes. They don't kill millions of people, and there is a far less chance of enticing enough anger in other nations to bring on retaliatory nuclear combat. Especially if our attacks are made in good taste... which I know that statement in itself is a little contradictory, but you know what I mean.