Skip to comments.
Neutrino beam could neutralise nuclear bombs
New Scientist ^
| 18:51 14 May 03
| By Will Knight
Posted on 03/29/2004 5:04:19 PM PST by vannrox
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
Neat.
1
posted on
03/29/2004 5:04:20 PM PST
by
vannrox
To: vannrox
Maybe this is what the Russians have developed - or have found a simpler way to accomplish the same.
To: vannrox
Build it on the moon, use sunlight for power...
3
posted on
03/29/2004 5:07:08 PM PST
by
etcetera
To: vannrox
As they pass through ordinary matter, neutrinos scatter atomic nuclei. Sluts.
To: vannrox
Neutrino beam could neutralise nuclear bombs Just how would one steer such a beam towards the desired target?
5
posted on
03/29/2004 5:09:56 PM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: vannrox
John Cobb, another researcher at Oxford University, cautions: "It might be technically feasible, given massive investment, but there are still unsolved problems." The problem is you would have to either build, test, deploy, and execute it in secret or negotiate with all targets first for an agreeable team effort. Otherwise you run the risk of a desperation first strike.
To: vannrox
"A super-powered neutrino generator could in theory be used to instantly destroy nuclear weapons anywhere on the planet, according to a team of Japanese scientists."
Sounds like somebody learned a hard lesson 50 or so years ago. Getting nuked sucks, but in the long run the nukees might benefit to the point where they send their best and brightest to US universities to learn something, rather than strapping a bomb on such promising individuals.
Saudi Arabia might take a lesson from this.
7
posted on
03/29/2004 5:15:17 PM PST
by
yooper
(If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there......)
To: Fitzcarraldo
The Russian haven't developed anything but a press release.
To: vannrox
the maths and physics seems to be right." Hope this guy knows more about physics than he does about English.
9
posted on
03/29/2004 5:21:16 PM PST
by
gg188
To: vannrox
Weber says the first stage of a generator might be feasible within 10 to 20 years, but he reckons the main problem is that the neutrino beam produced would be just a few metres wide. The MAIN problem would be the unilateral disarmament and appeasement crowd who would cry that this destablizes the world, that it isn't fair that the US would be able to DEFEND itself against other nations.
The same arguments the left made against ballistic missle defense would apply to this.
10
posted on
03/29/2004 5:25:19 PM PST
by
gg188
To: vannrox; Paleo Conservative
He adds that the beam would produce dangerous alpha and neutron radiation in any living thing in its path.Unfortunately, this weapon could easily be defeated by the old "shell game" of moving warheads around in secret. If the beam is only a few meters in diameter, it wouldn't be hard to elude. Of course, it would be impossible to "neutralize" nuclear ballistic missile submarines, which have traditionally been the most effective deterrent.
Furthermore, it would be virtually impossible to target "backpack" bombs, and would probably do nothing against dirty bombs. Since these are the more likely threats of the future (rather than ICBMs), I propose another use for the neutrino beam weapon: use it to take out the dangerous leadership in threat countries. Imagine beaming this through the earth and taking out the seat of government in Tehran or the subterranean terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan.
11
posted on
03/29/2004 5:26:50 PM PST
by
SpyGuy
To: vannrox
Would it affect other things, such as people and beer, or does this disrupt only nuclear bombs?
12
posted on
03/29/2004 5:27:23 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
To: Paleo Conservative
"Just how would one steer such a beam towards the desired target?"
Very carefully, it would appear.
To: Paleo Conservative
Just how would one steer such a beam towards the desired target?
Tons of cleaning fluid?
To: vannrox
I agree it's neat.
But this makes the entire issue academic:
"This means a target would need to be very precisely located beforehand."
When I first started reading the article, from the phrasing I got the impression that it was supposed to be able to disarm -all- nukes around the world simultaneously... now -that- would be very interesting.
But with the above restriction, screw it, might as well stick with missile defense.
Qwinn
Qwinn
15
posted on
03/29/2004 5:31:35 PM PST
by
Qwinn
To: RightWhale
He adds that the beam would produce dangerous alpha and neutron radiation in any living thing in its path.
Doesn't sound good, even for the yeast!
16
posted on
03/29/2004 5:31:36 PM PST
by
StriperSniper
(Ernest Strada Fanclub)
To: yooper
but in the long run the nukees might benefit to the point where they send their best and brightest to US universities to learn something, rather than strapping a bomb on such promising individuals. Saudi Arabia might take a lesson from this.Saudi and other countries have done just what you've suggested, although not as you intended. Many of the scientists who were working on the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in Iraq were university educated in the US, UK, or other western countries. The same can be said for weapons scientists in many other threatening countries.
And let's not forget the "promising" Saudi citizens who came to the US to learn how to fly commercial airliners...
17
posted on
03/29/2004 5:32:03 PM PST
by
SpyGuy
To: rightwingcrazy
If I can neutralize Plutonium, can it also do it to Carbon, or whatever element you tune it to?
If so, this is a superweapon of infinite power.
18
posted on
03/29/2004 5:32:06 PM PST
by
Monty22
To: justanotherday
Very carefully, it would appear. With what? Neutrinos are electromagnetically neutral particles. Magnetic fields won't deflect them. They can pass right though miles of lead.
19
posted on
03/29/2004 5:37:44 PM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: Dark Wing
I like all the statistics here. Wouldn't it be simpler just to slam the planet with a ****ing moon?
20
posted on
03/29/2004 5:40:02 PM PST
by
Thud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson