the nuke of future
- Thread starter rmxtrax
- Start date
Genocidicbunny
Bug squasher
Speedo is right. The rate at which new technologies are being discovered has slowed down a lot.
Now I am not saying antimatter tech will not be developed, I'm sure a lot of people see the potential in it. Its the fact that it might not be there in time for the 23rd century
Now I am not saying antimatter tech will not be developed, I'm sure a lot of people see the potential in it. Its the fact that it might not be there in time for the 23rd century
mrpwn3r
Stereotypical Asian
I agree, the 20th century was the golden age of technological advancement. Over a course of a hundred years, we went from being stuck on Earth to traveling to Mars.
Of course, I bet the next 100 years will be the golden age of terrorist expansions.
(JK US should win.)
However, I must take back what I said. Antimatter will not be the future of mankind. According to CERN "I was hoping antimatter would be the future answer to our energy needs... No, the true answer is that it will never happen simply because of the entropy problem... It is not a matter of 'more research' or 'more advanced technology' to find ways around these limitations." Antimatter requires a great deal more energy to create than can be extracted from it." (Check Angels&Demons wiki article.)
Of course, I bet the next 100 years will be the golden age of terrorist expansions.
(JK US should win.)However, I must take back what I said. Antimatter will not be the future of mankind. According to CERN "I was hoping antimatter would be the future answer to our energy needs... No, the true answer is that it will never happen simply because of the entropy problem... It is not a matter of 'more research' or 'more advanced technology' to find ways around these limitations." Antimatter requires a great deal more energy to create than can be extracted from it." (Check Angels&Demons wiki article.)
the garages of 2050 will be different
Not to mention that if AM is sealed in a suitable way almost anyone can make it explode...
Anti-matter isn't the best way to produce energy but best way in nature to conserve and trasport it. A kilo of anti-matter can produce the energy of millions of tons of coal or oil. It's the best fuel in the nature and it will let us travel in the space.
On-topic
How will we use future nukes? By orbital bombers or rockerts?
Genocidicbunny
Bug squasher
both really. The problem with satellites is that while they are quite high up, they're still vulnarable( See this )
On the other hand, they could provide a faster launch, as well as more flexibility of where the weapon is aimed at. For instance, a counterbattery strike could take 10 minutes instead of 30 as with land based ICBM's
On the other hand, ICBM's are much harder to destroy, whether it is while they're in their launch tubes or in the air. Its pretty hard to catch a nuke falling from space, especially with conventional missiles.
So it will all depend on the situation. Space based weapons are still a dream, but they can provide a significant advantage ( A third platform for nuclear weapons, alongside SSBN's and land based silo's ) but on the other hand ICBM's are also not to be discounted.
On the other hand, they could provide a faster launch, as well as more flexibility of where the weapon is aimed at. For instance, a counterbattery strike could take 10 minutes instead of 30 as with land based ICBM's
On the other hand, ICBM's are much harder to destroy, whether it is while they're in their launch tubes or in the air. Its pretty hard to catch a nuke falling from space, especially with conventional missiles.
So it will all depend on the situation. Space based weapons are still a dream, but they can provide a significant advantage ( A third platform for nuclear weapons, alongside SSBN's and land based silo's ) but on the other hand ICBM's are also not to be discounted.
It's quite clear to me by reading the various posts in this thread that many of the people posting here are completely ignorant of the uselessness of weaponizing every class of physical phenomenon we discover.
The nuclear weapons build-up over the last 60 years lead, step by step, dollar by dollar, ruble by ruble, to a degradation of the quality of life of 500 million people.
Talk of AntiMatter as an energy source is interesting, indeed. But when, in the course of rational discussion, people revert to primitive impulses of 'Wow - we could blow a lot of stuff up with this!', I tend to devalue anything else the poster has posited.
Why is it that discussion of energy issues frequently falls into discussions of technologies to kill people?
Until we colonize another world, all talk of 'bombs' should be regarded as incredibly counter-productive.
The nuclear weapons build-up over the last 60 years lead, step by step, dollar by dollar, ruble by ruble, to a degradation of the quality of life of 500 million people.
Talk of AntiMatter as an energy source is interesting, indeed. But when, in the course of rational discussion, people revert to primitive impulses of 'Wow - we could blow a lot of stuff up with this!', I tend to devalue anything else the poster has posited.
Why is it that discussion of energy issues frequently falls into discussions of technologies to kill people?
Until we colonize another world, all talk of 'bombs' should be regarded as incredibly counter-productive.
Genocidicbunny
Bug squasher
It's quite clear to me by reading the various posts in this thread that many of the people posting here are completely ignorant of the uselessness of weaponizing every class of physical phenomenon we discover.
The nuclear weapons build-up over the last 60 years lead, step by step, dollar by dollar, ruble by ruble, to a degradation of the quality of life of 500 million people.
Talk of AntiMatter as an energy source is interesting, indeed. But when, in the course of rational discussion, people revert to primitive impulses of 'Wow - we could blow a lot of stuff up with this!', I tend to devalue anything else the poster has posited.
Why is it that discussion of energy issues frequently falls into discussions of technologies to kill people?
Until we colonize another world, all talk of 'bombs' should be regarded as incredibly counter-productive.
Simply because of the nature of this world that if something can be used as a weapon, it will be. At least until something more powerful comes about.
Didn't they just find a rather large antimatter cloud near the center of the galaxy?
Lucky for me, I'll be long dead before any of that stuff gets made into a bomb
And when it comes right down to it, the nature of this world is a result of the actions and choices of the people living in it.
Lucky for me, I'll be long dead before any of that stuff gets made into a bomb
Perhaps. But the only entities capable of that sort of engineering are governments. There's no reason for a government to embark on such a venture at this point. Nuclear weapons are so powerful, and their effects so devastating, that something deadlier is simply unnecessary.
And when it comes right down to it, the nature of this world is a result of the actions and choices of the people living in it.
uat2d
ಠ_ಠ
in a really far future (i mean really, really, really far future), a nuke creates an unique reaction, forming a black hole... (i said really, really, really far future)...
i just hope i don't face any kind of WMD...
no 
i just hope i don't face any kind of WMD...
no It's quite clear to me by reading the various posts in this thread that many of the people posting here are completely ignorant of the uselessness of weaponizing every class of physical phenomenon we discover.
The nuclear weapons build-up over the last 60 years lead, step by step, dollar by dollar, ruble by ruble, to a degradation of the quality of life of 500 million people.
Talk of AntiMatter as an energy source is interesting, indeed. But when, in the course of rational discussion, people revert to primitive impulses of 'Wow - we could blow a lot of stuff up with this!', I tend to devalue anything else the poster has posited.
Why is it that discussion of energy issues frequently falls into discussions of technologies to kill people?
Until we colonize another world, all talk of 'bombs' should be regarded as incredibly counter-productive.
So do you oppose the design of counter-asteroid defensive systems? Big bombs to derail the asteroids going to hit Earth you know...
Mise
isle of lucy
You guys who are saying "omg antimatter is the future!!!" realise that e=mc^2 works both ways, right?
As in, if 1kg of antimatter releases 9x10^16 J of energy, it also requires 9x10^16 J of energy to create 1kg of antimatter.
Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the "near" future (whatever "near" means -- it's been a decade away for at least half a century), not because of the amount of energy it releases, but because the raw materials are in such abundance.
As in, if 1kg of antimatter releases 9x10^16 J of energy, it also requires 9x10^16 J of energy to create 1kg of antimatter.
Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the "near" future (whatever "near" means -- it's been a decade away for at least half a century), not because of the amount of energy it releases, but because the raw materials are in such abundance.
I'm very skeptical that an explosion would successfully prevent a strike. All the matter of the target will still be travelling in an orbit around the sun that brings it across earth's orbit. Without changing object's orbit, a collision is still likely.
I'm not against using existing nuclear weapons in that manner, or even research into improving on existing design for that specific purpose. But because the threat is of a global nature, the research should be done internationally as well, along the lines of ITER or CERN.
Even considering the possible need for a handful of NEO-deterring nukes, there's still no valid political reason for the US and former Soviet countries to keep the thousands of warheads remaining in the arsenals.
Ball Lightning
www.sporedum.net
There will be no nuke.
uat2d
ಠ_ಠ
no that's sci-fi!
of course there will! Till now, we've invented infinite ways to kill each other... why should we stop?
philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
why should we continue?
uat2d
ಠ_ಠ
philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
I'm very skeptical that an explosion would successfully prevent a strike. All the matter of the target will still be travelling in an orbit around the sun that brings it across earth's orbit. Without changing object's orbit, a collision is still likely.
I'm not against using existing nuclear weapons in that manner, or even research into improving on existing design for that specific purpose. But because the threat is of a global nature, the research should be done internationally as well, along the lines of ITER or CERN.
Even considering the possible need for a handful of NEO-deterring nukes, there's still no valid political reason for the US and former Soviet countries to keep the thousands of warheads remaining in the arsenals.
I don't support those vast arsenals and agree that nukes should be controlled by the UN or something.
Such an explosion when directed at the right place can put the asteroid off-orbit thus preventing the collision. If one doesn't help then send another.
uat2d
ಠ_ಠ
three exclamation marks doesn't give more worth to an worthless explanation
i know, but it's cooler!
Similar threads
