Hmmm... so here's this supposed new generation weapon.. in development.. then it gets roundly criticized. Is this an attempt to putting a stop to the
notion that it could actually be do-able? Or is it a farce?
Superbomb ignites science dispute
Pentagon advisers challenge experiments behind nonnuclear weapon
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer
Sunday, September 28, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback
URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/09/28/MN23720.DTL
The Pentagon's pursuit of a new kind of nonnuclear super-weapon has sparked a behind-the-scenes revolt among its elite scientific advisers, some of
whom reject the scheme as pseudoscience.
The military's goal is to develop a bomb that might be far more powerful than existing conventional weapons of the same size. Precisely targeted,
such a weapon could take out targets -- such as underground caverns that conceal weapons of mass destruction -- without posing the severe political
risks of using nuclear bombs.
The key to the concept is a little known element called hafnium. By figuring out how to unleash the abundant energy from a hafnium isotope, called
hafnium-178, the military hopes to develop a new generation of weapons. According to a Defense Department Web site, such a weapon might
"revolutionize all aspects of warfare."
The Pentagon is now quietly investigating ways to mass produce the isotope. Late last year, it created the 12-member Hafnium Isomer Production Panel
(HIPP). Its purpose: to assess ways to mass-produce the isotope for military uses ranging from bombs to advanced forms of propulsion.
Yet some of the nation's most distinguished scientists and military advisers say that such futuristic dreams of tomorrow's battlefields are
premature at best and nonsense at worst.
For four years, working largely behind the scenes, they have advised the Pentagon that claims by hafnium-178 enthusiasts -- led by physicist Carl
Collins of the University of Texas -- defy sound physical theory and have not been reproduced in lab experiments by other researchers. For the first
time, some of these skeptics are going public with their concerns.
Last month, in a memorandum to Pentagon and Energy Department officials obtained by The Chronicle, five of the 12 members of the military's own
advisory panel on mass producing hafnium-178 and other top experts warned against prematurely proceeding to develop weapons "applications that may
not make physical sense."
The rest:
www.sfgate.com...
?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/09/28/MN23720.DTL&type=printable
[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]