Quote:
|
With antimatter we arent talking photon torpedoes or city busters. Even a small amount is enough to devastate a country.
|
Umm, I know the physics of it, thanks.
Quote:
|
Yes EXTREMELY expensive but needed nonetheless. Can you assure me China is not developing such? Russia?
|
Yes, I can.
Why? Hmm, let's see ... to produce one gram of antimatter at current production capabilities it would take, oh, say, 2 BILLION YEARS to produce ... and that's using the massive decelerator at CERN. If Russia, China, or ANY nation built such a facility they wouldn't be able to hide it.
Oh, and one gram of antimatter would have the energetic discharge of 3 Hiroshima bombs ... not quite worth a billion years, hey?
...and that's not to mention the practical fact that such a weapon would be inherently unsafe for its handlers. When one wants a nuke to go off, they must trigger it, thereby forcing a very specific and complex chemical reaction to occur that would be highly unlikely in an accident. With a theoretical antimatter bomb, to detonate it you'd have to simply stop preventing its detonation. See how dangerous that would be?
Do you have ANY evidence that ANYONE is developing such a weapon or are you just speculating?
Quote:
|
What did you think NASA was going to be the only users of Antimatter?
|
When they actually START using the miniscule amounts available (in maybe 100 years), there won't be any left for weaponization.
You DID know that antimatter is said to be the most costly substance on Earth, right?