|
This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: New Scientist: Gamma Bombs. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.
|
New Scientist: Gamma Bombs by Decius at 2:45 pm EDT, Sep 4, 2003 |
] An exotic kind of nuclear explosive being developed by ] the US Department of Defense could blur the critical ] distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. The ] work has also raised fears that weapons based on this ] technology could trigger the next arms race. |
|
RE: New Scientist: Gamma Bombs by k at 3:07 pm EDT, Sep 4, 2003 |
Decius wrote: ] ] An exotic kind of nuclear explosive being developed by ] ] the US Department of Defense could blur the critical ] ] distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. The ] ] work has also raised fears that weapons based on this ] ] technology could trigger the next arms race. yeah, i made a post (http://supernicety.com/archives/000056.html) about this over on my blog towards the begining of august, before i'd got into memestreams i guess, or maybe before i understood it. anyway, nuclear isomer weapons sound like a super idea if you really want the military (or those with the cash to buy from military complexes) to possess weapons the size of a grenade that can take out an entire highrise. But, like most technology, the cat's out now, so we'll have to try and live with this technology and try not to kill too many people with it, if possible. I guess we've got a few years... |
|
| |
RE: New Scientist: Gamma Bombs by Decius at 3:52 pm EDT, Sep 4, 2003 |
inignoct wrote: ] anyway, nuclear isomer weapons sound like a super idea if you ] really want the military (or those with the cash to buy from ] military complexes) to possess weapons the size of a grenade ] that can take out an entire highrise. But, like most ] technology, the cat's out now, so we'll have to try and live ] with this technology and try not to kill too many people with ] it, if possible. I guess we've got a few years... Well, we've got a reasonable understanding of nuclear proliferation. This isn't very different. Unfortunately without the Russians to check us there is little strategic pressure to pursue deproliferation in general, and our standards have relaxed. (There may, however, be political pressures...) It could be worse. It could be something you could cook up in a garage... |
|
There is a redundant post from wilpig not displayed in this view.
|
|