Replies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon

An antimatter weapon is a hypothetical device using antimatter as a power source, a propellant, or an explosive for a weapon. Antimatter weapons do not currently exist due to the cost of production and the limited technology available to produce enough antimatter in sufficient quantities for it to be an acceptable weapon. The United States Air Force, however, has been interested in military uses—including destructive applications—of antimatter since the Cold War, when it began funding antimatter-related physics research. The primary theoretical advantage of such a weapon is that antimatter and matter collisions, though significantly limited by neutrino losses, still convert a larger fraction of the weapon’s mass into explosive energy than a fusion reaction in a hydrogen bomb, which is on the order of only 0.7%.[citation needed]

On March 24, 2004, Eglin Air Force Base Munitions Directorate official Kenneth Edwards spoke at the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts[2]. During the speech, Edwards ostensibly emphasized a potential property of positron weaponry, a type of antimatter weaponry: Unlike thermonuclear weaponry, positron weaponry would leave behind “no nuclear residue”, such as the nuclear fallout generated by the nuclear fission reactions which power nuclear weapons. According to an article in San Francisco Chronicle, Edwards has granted funding specifically for positron weapons technology development, focusing research on ways to store positrons for long periods of time, a significant technical and scientific difficulty.

There is considerable skepticism within the physics community about the viability of antimatter weapons. According to an article on the website of the CERN laboratories, which produces antimatter on a regular basis, “There is no possibility to make antimatter bombs for the same reason you cannot use it to store energy: we can’t accumulate enough of it at high enough density. (...) If we could assemble all the antimatter we’ve ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes.”[3]

Antimatter production and containment are major obstacles to the creation of antimatter weapons. Quantities measured in grams would be required to achieve destructive effect comparable with conventional nuclear weapons; one gram of antimatter annihilating with one gram of matter produces 180 terajoules, the equivalent of 42.96 kilotons of TNT (approximately 3 times the bomb dropped on Hiroshima - and as such enough to power an average city for an extensive amount of time).

(Read the full article and then consider the possibilities of major funding by Black Ops, regardless of whats publicly said its a possibility as a weapon)

The other problem is that antimatter would make a very poor explosive. First, a chemical or nuclear explosion does massive damage not only because of the energy released, but also because of the massive shock blast (caused by the air surrounding the explosive being hypercompressed by the explosion). In fact, the shock wave is the largest contributor for conventional explosives, and at least equally as destructive as the energy release during the intial blast of a nuke (ignoring fallout/radiation). Antimatter does not feature the same explosive blast. The antimatter only reacts at its point of contact between the matter and antimatter. For this reason, it would be difficult to convert the entire warhead at once: if the matter surrounded the warhead, the reaction would tend to separate the matter from the antimatter (slowing the reaction). If a matter plug was introduced into the antimatter, the same problem occurs... as the antimatter reacts with the matter around it, less matter remains close enough to react. And a slower reaction means less of a shock wave. Your antimatter "bomb" will be more like a fire (in reaction types) than an explosion.

Second, chemical explosives release energy in a narrow range of wavelengths (based on the chemical reaction causing the explosion). Narrow range means concentration. Antimatter-matter reactions release energy all across the spectrum (from gamma to ELF radio). Granted, antimatter reactions release magnitudes more energy than conventional weapons, but in a much broader range, reducing the energy advantage significantly. Combined with the lessened blast wave, and you'd be better off with carefully applied conventional weapons (or a nuke), especially when you consider the incredible expense of antimatter. As a fuel, antimatter would be awesome, but as a weapon... it'll be relegated to the same category as Star Wars lightsabres and Star Trek photon torpedoes for a long time to come...