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

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It depends on what you use for material, geometry, how fast and how much you can compress the package and your neutron reflector.

The ultimate gauge of "am I there yet" is the neutron mean free path. When that starts ending inside your fissile mass you are in the ballpark.

Ways of achieving that are more mass (that's how you get that bare sphere number), more density, an efficient topology, and a better reflector. If your fissile puts out slower neutrons you have shorter mfps but may also capture instead of fiss.

Most of the work centers around more better explosives, and there are some amazingly good ones I won't go into detail on lest we have another incident, since this was more or less the discussion that initiated the 2004 holocaust.

A perfect neutron reflector will put every neutron emitted back into the mass, so every mass is critical, more or less. Other limits would come into play but you could probably get one as small as a golf ball.

a reply to: neutronflux

Reactors don't go nearly as supercritical as a nuke, and therein lies the difference.

Antimatter is a hot topic, but not as a bomb.

a reply to: neutronflux

When we start to produce antimatter in sufficient quantity(currently well beyond our ability)we will probobly do so off world so as to avoid any potential mishaps.

Hell of an expensive prospect for a bomb all the same, never mind the containment issues you would also have to contend with.

Personally i imagine if we do ever mange to produce the stuff in quantity it will be used for energy production or space propulsion purposes.

a reply to: andy06shake

They can make antimatter now?

www.symmetrymagazine.org...

All of the antiprotons created at Fermilab’s Tevatron particle accelerator add up to only 15 nanograms. Those made at CERN amount to about 1 nanogram. At DESY in Germany, approximately 2 nanograms of positrons have been produced to date.

If all the antimatter ever made by humans were annihilated at once, the energy produced wouldn’t even be enough to boil a cup of tea.

The problem lies in the efficiency and cost of antimatter production and storage. Making 1 gram of antimatter would require approximately 25 million billion kilowatt-hours of energy and cost over a million billion dollars.

an old quote about new technology....

www.pcworld.com...

Foolish Tech Prediction 1
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943

And I still stand by there being a breakpoint were the amount of radioactive material / fusionable material in an atom bomb / thermal nuclear bomb becomes so small, the conventional explosives needed to trigger the radioactive reaction produces a bigger explosion that what the nuclear material/fusionable material can produce.

a reply to: neutronflux

"They can make antimatter now?"

Very small amounts yes.

It would cost around $25 billion per gram.

That's rather an expensive overkill form of weapons system when a good old conventional nuke could do the same job.

If and when we make antimatter it wont be for bombs unless we are trying to destabilize a star.

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

Yes, I'm not sure of the amount required, but the physical requirements of the amount of nuclear material needed to create fission seems that mini-nukes of this type are only a reality in science-fiction, not in actual science.

The idea of a nuclear bomb the size of a hand grenade or smaller is ridiculous.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: neutronflux

"They can make antimatter now?"

Very small amounts yes.

It would cost around $25 billion per gram.

That's rather an expensive overkill form of weapons system when a good old conventional nuke could do the same job.

If and when we make antimatter it wont be for bombs unless we are trying to destabilize a star.

And I say give it 50 to a hundred years.......

Especially for the desire to create a mega weapon without the fallout.

But atom bombs and thermal nuclear bombs are at there practical limits.

The fallout, and Any device over 100 megatons is wasted do to the simple fact any additional energy is just pushed into space.

Maybe DARPA has finally perfected Hafnium bombs.

With shielding, the size would be comparable to a grenade. Hafnium can absorb a massive amount of energy and the theory is that it can be triggered to release it all as a gamma ray blast.

www.damninteresting.com...

a reply to: babybunnies

I always thought the idea of a nuclear hand grenade was rather fascicle.

Never mind the material issues and other problems associated with the construction of such a weapon. You would need to have some arm on you to lob the thing further than the god darn blast radius for a start.

a reply to: 727Sky

Might be MUCH further along than they're letting on. From 2006:

Pentagon plans cyber-insect army

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
Maybe DARPA has finally perfected Hafnium bombs.

Nuclear isomer weapons would be interesting but no one's made one go yet.

a reply to: Bedlam
cool . i know is kinda trekie but has anybody thought about making a device where the reactant is antimatter .

a reply to: 727Sky

Oooohhhh! I love Grey goo!! (Wikipedia) Hey, there is a cool user name, ecophagy!!

One of the best "end of the world" scenarios. Self-replicating nanobots turning all living matter to goo from the inside out.

What's not to love!

Ever read The Sum of All Fears? There is a lot in that book that explains you don't just stick some plutonium or uranium inside a bomb to make a nuke. There is expert milling, complicated timing, deadly substances, radiation, shaped charges, and for a thermonuclear device, a bunch of stuff that is still classified. So shrinking down nukes is a good spy story and tale to tell but reality is a bit different.

Now if you had Red Mercury... then I would be believing!! (lol)

TEOTWAWKIAIFF it's easy to imagine or have experienced what
the bomb does = it explodes on the neighborhood playground
and the effects are intense radiation release that penetrates
the walls and brick, with a one or two neighborhood wide
exposure, not meant to vaporize - just to kill people.

If they did it 10 years ago they're doing it now.

Insect machines were used in the new War of the Worlds
to consume everything.




reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

a reply to: ThatHappened

Yup. I forget which ray bomb it is but yeah, not what people think of when the term "nuke" is thrown around.

Leaves infrastructure intact but takes bio.

I think it was developed to a point and either stopped or went dark. That was the 80s IIRC. Read it in Popular Mechanics I think.

The non-specification in terms get all out of whack (emphasis on the 'H'). I was addressing the thermo nuke shrinkage. Even the suitcase nuke is something like 100 pounds. Going smaller creates issues... all I was trying to convey.

a reply to: Bedlam

Most of the work centers around more better explosives, and there are some amazingly good ones I won't go into detail on lest we have another incident, since this was more or less the discussion that initiated the 2004 holocaust.

To what holocaust are you referring?

a reply to: Bedlam



imaginary weapons like isobombs

I have been repeating the warnings about the dangers of nanotech for several years. I believe there is nothing more dangerous in our future. Easy to conceal, size making them capable of penetrating all environments and once they are easy to produce it will be game on for world dominance. No need to destroy the world with nukes when we could wipe out entire populations with nanobots. Given the lack of morality in world governments today their application towards deadly ends is only a matter of time. Whoever is the first to create these miniature killers will most likely be the first to unleash them on the world. Reason being if not the next country to develop will do it and you lose.

Science will be our undoing.
The pursuit of knowledge is one of man's greatest goals.
It's misapplication our greatest liability.