Antimatter weaponry. 1,000 times more powerful than nuclear weapons

What do you think about the use of antimatter weapons in the future?
I know it takes a massive amount of energy to create just micrograms of antimatter and keeping it stable long enough to use is a challenge.
But assuming we figure out those challenges what do we do about antimatter proliferation?

Will we even survive a antimatter war?

That's what you use on an asteroid not a war.

Anit-matter is what you use to travel interstellar distances, not to make bombs. Of course, anti-matter drives would make powerful explosions.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Pending on the time factor we will be able to use this, it might come in as a useful weapon.
But personally, I think we are not ready for weapons like as a kind.

If it can be weaponized, it will be. Is there any advancement in any system that hasn't been weaponized in some way and used for killing our fellow man?

I can't think of any....

In fact I'm astonished that some bio/chem/virus hasn't gotten loose and wiped us out anyway...

a reply to: olaru12

Featherbed technology?

That would be a planet killer so I think Nukes will do that lousy job well.
There wouldn't really be any advantage to destroying everthing planet wise.

Anti matter weapons are actually pretty useful.

That is all I'll say about that.



There's a fog bank rolling in. Damn sudden weather changes.

The obvious defense to an anti matter warhead is to create a vacuum.

There is no possibility of creating an anti matter weapon, nor a desire to do so.

Kind of rampant speculation so far right?

We dont really know much about this stuff at all in practice, it could turn out that its not even that dangerous and just makes matter neutral on contact and disappear.

This might as well be "future weapons more powerful than nukes" thread, and how and if they could or should be used/controlled.

We dont need more weapons, if we had something with the power of a nuke but zero radiation, that would be a very big problem for the world in general. A country could now erase another AND move in the next day and claim it all.

James T. Kirk said, " one ounce of anti mater is more powerful than ten thousand cobalt bombs. I truly hope we never find out.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Antimatter gives off light how's a vacuum going to stop light?

How is there no possibility? Why no desire? Except for the huge explosion of light destroying everything there is very little evidence left after a antimatter weapon is used. No real radiation, no fingers to point. I'd say that would be a desirable weapon to have, if it were possible.

My skin itches, almost like a sunburn. I must have spent too much time in the light this weekend or something.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I think we will produce the stuff on some super particle accelerator build on one of the outer planets moons and then use it to take us onward to the stars. As a weapon it has the potential to destroy our planet, literately vaporize it should it ever be produced in sufficient quantity.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Let's play a game called Good Idea, Bad Idea...

(Total Animaniacs reference for the record.)

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Jonjonj

Antimatter gives off light how's a vacuum going to stop light?

How is there no possibility? Why no desire? Except for the huge explosion of light destroying everything there is very little evidence left after a antimatter weapon is used. No real radiation, no fingers to point. I'd say that would be a desirable weapon to have, if it were possible.

My skin itches, almost like a sunburn. I must have spent too much time in the light this weekend or something.

Anti matter is simply the negative charge of matter. A vacuum takes away any other matter with which it can react.

Perhaps more preciseley I should have said the negative polarity.

You want this in our species hands?

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

In order to do damage using antimatter, one would have to possess enough of it to cancel out the amount of matter that one wishes to remove from the battle space. That would be several trillion times the amount of antimatter ever summoned by the technomages of this or any generation of scientists. Bear in mind, it is only very recently in terms of scientific history, that we have developed methods which might be capable of containing anti matter for prolonged periods. Magnetic vacuum flasks of some sort are not readily available.

In order to weaponise antimatter, this would need to change on a massive scale.

a reply to: Jonjonj

I know what anti matter is. Why not supply the material in which it will go boom with? Like do both at the same time. So it doesn't matter if it were in a vacuum. Just as long as you deliver some matter in whatever form and a pinch of anti matter.

Microwaves travel through vacuums, when not use that as a confinement beam then send matter down stream onto the target. the anti matter...well, you see the trick is to use a...hold on someone is knocking on my door....

a reply to: TrueBrit

Why contain it just make it on sight. Wouldn't you just need enough of it in tinsy quantities to create a anti matter/matter annihilation then sit back as it goes BOOOOOOM!!!!! Doesn't need the equal amount matter anti matter just AN anti matter explosion would be enough to destroy most of the matter around it. Surely enough to move mountains. Wait never mind.

Am I the only person seeing this fog bank rolling in?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

How could you send anti matter down a beam that is consistent with matter? You would blow up the very envoy of the anti matter sender. It makes no sense physically, and even less sense on a moral scale, unless that is you want to find the most destructive force possible. It is theoretical at best and bad science.