cheap power = antimatter weapons?

[Ravenman]

@Loopydude

In every instance you cited, the use of nuclear weapons proved counter to our military objectives; and in later conflicts, nuclear escalation invited nuclear retaliation, which in all these cases would have been an unacceptable risk to the homeland.

Isn’t this exactly what I said? “Contrary to military objectives” only means that the order was not given to do something, and I said that the deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons is that many believe there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war.

We tested bombs on isolated atolls for a reason, and atomospheric testing produced nowhere near the fallout issues that a nuclear conflict would.

Uh, we conducted above ground nuclear tests in Nevada through July 1962. You’re mistaken if you think we were only bombing the South Pacific. Cite. This testing was done DESPITE the knowledge that fallout could be harmful, for it was Eisenhower in the mid-1950s that first conceived of a ban on atmospheric tests, which later became the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963. Look, the bottom line is that folks did detonate nuclear weapons knowing that fallout will happen and be harmful.

Saying that fallout is the single reason – or even a substantial reason – why we don’t use nuclear weapons is just plain wrong. Again, you are completely ignoring the larger picture of why most humans don’t want to kill millions of civilians through precipitating a general nuclear war with a weapon that a huge number of people – including polar opposites like Carter to Reagan – believe is abhorrent, but necessary for now.

You seem to think that nuclear weapons are just like any other bombs, except for fallout. You’re missing the point entirely. Nuclear weapons have long since been placed in a special category of weapons that should not be used except under the most extreme circumstances, and it is not because of fallout. It’s primarily because of the horrors of indiscriminately killing huge numbers of innocent people. If you haven’t grasped that, well, there’s no way to explain it to you.

The complaint about bunker-busters, for instance has never been their yield; it has been collateral damage… You’re behind the times; our current leaders are actively pursuing conventional nukes, and show all signs of seriously contemplating their use. The only issue standing firmly in their way is fallout.

This is just nonsense and doubletalk. It is also a massive distortion of the position taken by those who support low yield nuclear weapons (the development of which I personally oppose, BTW): Senator John Warner: "As Ambassador Linton Brooks, Administrator of the Nuclear Security Administration, testified before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, on April 8, 2003, the ‘[n]uclear threshold is awesomely high.’ If wars of the future are about winning hearts and minds, about liberating rather than conquering, then the threshold for using nuclear weapons remains very high indeed. " Cite.

There’s also no such thing as a “conventional nuke.” I’m not sure how to debate someone who makes up their own terms.

As for Korea: It’s rather chilling to think how close we did come to using nuclear weapons in that war. And the interest in such a strategy went as high as the oval office. Check this out: Korean War FAQ Korean War History Korean War History Korean War FAQ

You’d be well advised not to read your history of the Korean War from a website touting the People’s Liberation Army. :rolleyes:

You also might want to read the part of that FAQ in which is dicusses how UN Forces starved and murdered Chinese POWs, but “contrary to Western propaganda,” the Chinese treated their captives well, in line with their “tradition of treating POWs with humanity” than began 2000 years ago. Honestly, I haven’t had such a laugh at a historical website in quite some time.

[Loopydude]

@Ravenman

I said that the deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons is that many believe there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war.

But the objection wasn’t about their casualties, it was always about ours.

@Ravenman

Uh, we conducted above ground nuclear tests in Nevada through July 1962. You’re mistaken if you think we were only bombing the South Pacific. Cite. This testing was done DESPITE the knowledge that fallout could be harmful, for it was Eisenhower in the mid-1950s that first conceived of a ban on atmospheric tests, which later became the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963. Look, the bottom line is that folks did detonate nuclear weapons knowing that fallout will happen and be harmful.

The horror of the tests in both the Pacific and the Southwest US is partially that: We knew our own soldiers and some others would be exposed, and we wanted to see what would happen. I never said tests were limited to the South Pacific, I only meant to suggest that we chose very remote locations far from civilization because of fallout. Nevada qualifies. We were OK with exposing a very small number of people (mostly soldiers or essentially unrepresented locals), but unexpectedly started exposing a lot more. Also, as we started coming to grips with the lethality of fallout, it became clear that any atomospheric testing was unacceptable. Our government was not sanquine about the idea of irradiating large numbers of American citizens. BTW, none of the Nevada tests were for megaton weapons.

@Ravenman

Saying that fallout is the single reason – or even a substantial reason – why we don’t use nuclear weapons is just plain wrong. Again, you are completely ignoring the larger picture of why most humans don’t want to kill millions of civilians through precipitating a general nuclear war with a weapon that a huge number of people – including polar opposites like Carter to Reagan – believe is abhorrent, but necessary for now.

Again, I can’t see how this assertion is supported. Millions of Vietnamese civilians were killed using conventional weapons. None of our presidents during the period were nearly as concerned about that as they were about the 60,000 US casualties, the vast majority being combattants.

@Ravenman

You seem to think that nuclear weapons are just like any other bombs, except for fallout. You’re missing the point entirely. Nuclear weapons have long since been placed in a special category of weapons that should not be used except under the most extreme circumstances, and it is not because of fallout. It’s primarily because of the horrors of indiscriminately killing huge numbers of innocent people. If you haven’t grasped that, well, there’s no way to explain it to you.

I don’t think that; our leaders apparently do. With low-yield weapons, the only concern is fallout, and that’s what causes the indescriminate killing, not the initial explosion. Worse, from a strategic point of view, it renders the battlefield a poisonous wasteland. How many times does this need to be repeated? The Bush admin. and many folks in the Pentagon want these bombs very badly. Congress has essentially capitulated. I don’t like it at all. Nobody should. But the only military objection I have come across is fallout. The speaches you cited are from adversaries who are not arguing the immediate military utility of such weapons, but rather the assinine notion that these weapons will not lead to a new phase of nuclear proliferation and escalation. I actually agree with Feinstein. But Feinstein, and those who agree with him, are apparently outnumbered where it counts. What is stopping us now from developing and using low-yield nuclear bombs? And if you gave the same people a weapon of equal (or even greater) yield, but took fallout out of the equation, do you really think they would hesitate to develop and use it? I do not.

@Ravenman

There’s also no such thing as a “conventional nuke.”

The neocons disagree. Did you not read what I posted? Spratt-Furse has been repealed. There is now no legal prohibition to the development of “conventional” or “strategic” nuclear weapons. Again, I agree with you! Our leaders do NOT!

@Ravenman

You’d be well advised not to read your history of the Korean War from a website touting the People’s Liberation Army. :rolleyes:

The site contains factual information, and there are other cites to support it. Pro-communits propaganda removed, our presidents, right up to Carter, in fact, conisidered the use of nuclear weapons. Nixon was gung-ho about it for Vietnam, so much so that Haig and Kissinger put up buffers to prevent his orders from being acted on immediately.

I have yet to find a cite (and I’ve looked, which is why I’m so concerned) where, when considering the use of nuclear weapons, the stated reason for not doing so was to avoid excessive enemy casualties. From everything I have ever read, the primary concern was the negative impact the use of such weapons would have on us. Please, if any president or other such senior official said anywhere “don’t use the bomb, it will kill too many communists”, could you show me that, because it would actually make me feel better.

[Loopydude]

@Ravenman

I said that the deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons is that many believe there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war.

But the objection wasn’t about their casualties, it was always about ours.

@Ravenman

Uh, we conducted above ground nuclear tests in Nevada through July 1962. You’re mistaken if you think we were only bombing the South Pacific. Cite. This testing was done DESPITE the knowledge that fallout could be harmful, for it was Eisenhower in the mid-1950s that first conceived of a ban on atmospheric tests, which later became the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963. Look, the bottom line is that folks did detonate nuclear weapons knowing that fallout will happen and be harmful.

The horror of the tests in both the Pacific and the Southwest US is partially that: We knew our own soldiers and some others would be exposed, and we wanted to see what would happen. I never said tests were limited to the South Pacific, I only meant to suggest that we chose very remote locations far from civilization because of fallout. Nevada qualifies. We were OK with exposing a very small number of people (mostly soldiers or essentially unrepresented locals), but unexpectedly started exposing a lot more. Also, as we started coming to grips with the lethality of fallout, it became clear that any atomospheric testing was unacceptable. Our government was not sanquine about the idea of irradiating large numbers of American citizens. BTW, none of the Nevada tests were for megaton weapons.

@Ravenman

Saying that fallout is the single reason – or even a substantial reason – why we don’t use nuclear weapons is just plain wrong. Again, you are completely ignoring the larger picture of why most humans don’t want to kill millions of civilians through precipitating a general nuclear war with a weapon that a huge number of people – including polar opposites like Carter to Reagan – believe is abhorrent, but necessary for now.

Again, I can’t see how this assertion is supported. Millions of Vietnamese civilians were killed using conventional weapons. None of our presidents during the period were nearly as concerned about that as they were about the 60,000 US casualties, the vast majority being combattants.

@Ravenman

You seem to think that nuclear weapons are just like any other bombs, except for fallout. You’re missing the point entirely. Nuclear weapons have long since been placed in a special category of weapons that should not be used except under the most extreme circumstances, and it is not because of fallout. It’s primarily because of the horrors of indiscriminately killing huge numbers of innocent people. If you haven’t grasped that, well, there’s no way to explain it to you.

I don’t think that; our leaders apparently do. With low-yield weapons, the only concern is fallout, and that’s what causes the indescriminate killing, not the initial explosion. Worse, from a strategic point of view, it renders the battlefield a poisonous wasteland. How many times does this need to be repeated? The Bush admin. and many folks in the Pentagon want these bombs very badly. Congress has essentially capitulated. I don’t like it at all. Nobody should. But the only military objection I have come across is fallout. The speach you cited is from an adversary who is not arguing the immediate military utility of such weapons, but rather the assinine notion that these weapons will not lead to a new phase of nuclear proliferation and escalation. I actually agree with Feinstein. But Feinstein, and those who agree with him, are apparently outnumbered where it counts. What is stopping us now from developing and using low-yield nuclear bombs? And if you gave the same people a weapon of equal (or even greater) yield, but took fallout out of the equation, do you really think they would hesitate to develop and use it? I do not.

@Ravenman

There’s also no such thing as a “conventional nuke.”

The neocons disagree. Did you not read what I posted? Spratt-Furse has been repealed. There is now no legal prohibition to the development of “conventional” or “strategic” nuclear weapons. Again, I agree with you! Our leaders do NOT!

@Ravenman

You’d be well advised not to read your history of the Korean War from a website touting the People’s Liberation Army. :rolleyes:

The site contains factual information, and there are other cites to support it. Pro-communits propaganda removed, our presidents, right up to Carter, in fact, conisidered the use of nuclear weapons. Nixon was gung-ho about it for Vietnam, so much so that Haig and Kissinger put up buffers to prevent his orders from being acted on immediately.

I have yet to find a cite (and I’ve looked, which is why I’m so concerned) where, when considering the use of nuclear weapons, the stated reason for not doing so was to avoid excessive enemy casualties. From everything I have ever read, the primary concern was the negative impact the use of such weapons would have on us. Please, if any president or other such senior official said anywhere “don’t use the bomb, it will kill too many communists”, could you show me that, because it would actually make me feel better.

[Loopydude]

Crap, sorry for the double-post…I very much thought I hit preview.

[Loopydude]

Here’s another cite along the lines of the last one. I wish as well that the compilers were not so partisan (e.g. “Boycott USA” in the header), but I see corroborating details on plenty of other sites that would take hours to assemble into a list.

MacArthur, it appears, was ousted for being a maverick, not for being pro-nuke.

http://vicpeace.ca/centre/readings/nukeuse.htm#list

In sum, we have always been willing to use nukes under the right circumstances; namely, circumstances where the military objective (we win with minimal risk and losses on our side) could be met. If our enemies were not convinced we would be willing to use nuclear weapons, the proxy wars in Asia (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan) could well have escalated into world wars. In other instances, the threat of use of nukes prevented a conventional war. Some of our leaders have certainly proven themselves to be capable of using them. I do not see how enemy civilian casualties ever enter into the equation significantly.

[Loopydude]

Here’s an interesting site…

http://www.transorbital.net/Library/D002_TOC.html#top

on the “Concepts, Problems, & Opportunities for use of Annihilation Energy.”

Of interest perhaps to Brainglutton is the section on “COMPARING ANTIMATTER, MATTER BEAM LETHALITY”.

[Loopydude]

Another interesting site: From the Antimatter Propulsion Team at the University of Texas. They are courting the Airforce for funding. Would military applications be explored in such a collaboration? I should think so.

A quote of note:

“It is our recommendation that the Air Force develop or take on an antimatter propulsion team in order to begin a full scale building and testing of an antimatter propulsion system. The Air Force has the facilities, money, and technology to sustain the level of research and testing needed to produce working antimatter propulsion systems.”

And also…

“Though the cost of antimatter is significantly greater than other alternatives, with an increase in demand the price per milligram of antimatter will decline. In conclusion, further research on this subject by an agency with the facilities and money, such as the Air Force, is important to ensure the continuation of testing, and the production of a working system.”

[Ravenman]

@Loopydude

The neocons disagree. Did you not read what I posted? Spratt-Furse has been repealed. There is now no legal prohibition to the development of “conventional” or “strategic” nuclear weapons.

Yes, I read what you wrote, but some of it doesn’t make sense.

1. Spratt-Furse has been repealed, with this caveat: “Nothing in the repeal [of section such and such, the Spratt-Furse language] shall be construed as authoriting the testing, acquisition, or deployment of a low yield nuclear weapon.” The repeal of that amendment only allows research and development. Better get your facts straight.

2. Again, “conventional nuclear weapon” is a meaningless politicized term, like “death tax” or “abortion doctor.” I have no idea why you insist on using it.

3. There never has been a legal prohibition on the development of strategic nuclear weapons. In fact, if memory serves, the US just produced, for the first time in something like 15 years, its first new nuclear pit for a strategic weapon.

The site contains factual information, and there are other cites to support it.

Look, my master’s thesis was on the motivations behind China’s decision to seek nuclear weapons. I have studied US policy toward nuclear weapons in the 50s and early 60s, and the factual information contained in that site was heavily edited to remove critical information that puts those “discussions” in context. Frankly, I don’t really see the point of heading back over to the library and finding the missing primary source information in FRUS to rebut those clearly propagandistic claims.

I have yet to find a cite (and I’ve looked, which is why I’m so concerned) where, when considering the use of nuclear weapons, the stated reason for not doing so was to avoid excessive enemy casualties… Please, if any president or other such senior official said anywhere “don’t use the bomb, it will kill too many communists”, could you show me that, because it would actually make me feel better.

" Now, for decades, we and the Soviets have lived under the threat of mutual assured destruction–if either resorted to the use of nuclear weapons, the other could retaliate and destroy the one who had started it. Is there either logic or morality in believing that if one side threatens to kill tens of millions of our people our only recourse is to threaten killing tens of millions of theirs?" – Ronald Reagan, 1/21/85

I can find more if you like, but I think my point is made.

[Loopydude]

@Ravenman

" Now, for decades, we and the Soviets have lived under the threat of mutual assured destruction–if either resorted to the use of nuclear weapons, the other could retaliate and destroy the one who had started it. Is there either logic or morality in believing that if one side threatens to kill tens of millions of our people our only recourse is to threaten killing tens of millions of theirs?" – Ronald Reagan, 1/21/85

I can find more if you like, but I think my point is made.

Oh, come on, that’s as much baloney propaganda as anything on the pro-Chinese site, and you made no mention of the information on the other site. I’m not talking about public boilerplate (no president has publically embraced nuclear war, so far as I know), I’m talking about why, when contemplating the option to use nuclear weapons, our leaders chose not to. Why did we not use them in Korea? Why did we not use them in Vietnam? In every instance, it seems the actual reason for refusal was not enemy casualties, but the fear of retribution; in other words, the consequences for ourselves. Like I said, we killed millions of civilians in Vietnam. So what is the problem with using nuclear weapons to do the same thing? Compassion? That seems to be your assertion, but what official policy is it based on? I see only the cold calculus of MAD.

And if you think we’re not actively looking into new and better ways to kill lots of people using nuclear phenomena, I submit this:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049

A positron bomb would do much the same thing, but leave behind virtually no fallout. As it is, the attractiveness of this particular gamma ray bomb is its ability to emit deadly gamma rays without producing much fallout. So, this is like a neutron bomb, only less destructive to the target area because it doesn’t require as much explosive force and fallout production as neutron bombs. Perfrect for warfare: Kill the enemy, get their stuff. If our leaders aren’t interested in killing lots of people in certain circumstances, why are we developing these bombs? And how do these fit in with a policy of antiproliferation? Damned if I know.

As for Spratt-Furse, it should be obvious that the inability to reserach a weapon essentially precludes its development. My facts are fine. Spratt-Furse was effectively a prohibition on the development of new strategic nuclear concepts like the bunker-busters BushCo. wants so badly. Many worry that development of these “bunker-busters” amounts to a backdoor approach to a wider program in “conventional” nuclear capability. I use those absurd terms (conventional, strategic) because they are used by the military and our leaders. If they’re being fatuous, fine, but that is the lingo. I didn’t invent it, and I use it as a matter of convention. Anyway, now that Spratt-Furse has been effectively dismantled, the President is allowed to petition Congress for the development of an actual bomb. If the research ban can be overcome, why can’t the production hurdle, which requires a simple vote for approval, not the repeal of a law, be cleared also, in the current political climate? You seem to be a lot less worried about this than the Union of Concerned Scientists. Why?

[Loopydude]

An interesting quote from a Physics Today article:

“But if Congress were to authorize the nuclear weapons laboratories at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore to pursue a completely new design–an implosion device using a boosted primary–the inherent uncertainties in warhead performance would almost certainly require that the weapon be fully tested before being certified to enter the US stockpile. Such a decision would have profound consequences.”

This is exactly what some members of our government are pushing for.

[Ravenman]

I see. You ask for a quotation, and when I provide one, you say that Reagan didn’t mean it. I see. I’d love to see some kind of citation to prove that lame rejoinder.

And on this absurdity of conventional nuclear weapons, I can tell you with complete confidence that this is a term that is not used by the military. Further, you just claimed that Spratt Furse had something to do with the “strategic concepts” of bunker busters, or some such nonsense. Here’s news for you: the initial design of the RNEP is to be used in conjunction with B-61s. Spratt Furse doesn’t even enter into the RNEP picture. It’s now clear to me that you are throwing around terms that you don’t really understand.

I note that the UCS stated the developments on Spratt Furse exactly as I did a few posts back (repeal does not equal testing), but for some reason you think that their site somehow counters my read of the situation?

Anyways, I feel there’s nothing more to be gained from this extended hijack. I’ll leave you to your debate on antimatter weapons.

[Loopydude]

@Ravenman

I see. You ask for a quotation, and when I provide one, you say that Reagan didn’t mean it. I see. I’d love to see some kind of citation to prove that lame rejoinder.

Why do I need a quotation? Reagan called the Soviet Union the “focus of Evil in the modern world” and then proceeded to render the ABM treaty moot with the insane pursuit of the SDI program, which BushCo has resusitated. SDI (though unworkable) was meant to negate the Soviet nuclear threat. But how would that make them safer? How did it fit into this morality speach? He clearly spoke out of both sides of his mouth publically on these issues, so I wouldn’t trust a public proclamation. Why would you? I am and always was interested in the discussions between our executives and the military commanders on the pros and cons of nuclear attacks, and what motivated them to A) look at the option in the first place, and B) decide not to use it. That IS what I asked for, after all, not another one of Reagan’s platitudes. The use of such a quote is kind of deflective. You’ve said our leaders wouldn’t use them not the least because of enemy civillian casualties, but I can’t find anything to support that. Rather everything points to repurcussions for ourselves first, foremost, and perhaps solely. Our nuclear hegemony only lasted a few years; our nuclear capability then apparently wasn’t large enough to defeat the Soviets without still engaging in a massive land war, and we didn’t want that because it would be so costly. By the time we had the arsenal to “win” a war with the USSR, they had enough bombs to make any such attempt suicidal. That was it, as far as I can discern.

@Ravenman

…you just claimed that Spratt Furse had something to do with the “strategic concepts” of bunker busters, or some such nonsense. Here’s news for you: the initial design of the RNEP is to be used in conjunction with B-61s. Spratt Furse doesn’t even enter into the RNEP picture. It’s now clear to me that you are throwing around terms that you don’t really understand.

Bzzt. If they knew RNEP can definitely succeed using only lightened and slightly modified B61 or B83 weapons (discarding the thermonuclear component and keeping the fission primer), as originally conceived, then Spratt-Furse wouldn’t need to be repealed. You could simply put the bombs we have in an earth-penerating casing and little new research would be required. But it’s possible that neither weapon can survive the punishing conditions needed for a deep penetrating bunker-buster, which is why BushCo needed to get Spratt-Furse repealed: They want the DOE to look into significant modifications or new designs. Spratt-Furse would prevent research into such a thing. So now Spratt-Furse has been repealed; meanwhile studies are being carried out by the DOE to the tune of about $15 million to see how feasible the various RNEP designs with existing weapons are. To not see the logical connection between RNEP and Spratt-Furse is foolish, if you ask me. Do they have to state it explicitly? At first I didn’t know why you were arguing, but now I understand: Since the Bush Admin. and its supporters in Congress did not say out loud and put in writing that they wanted to repeal Spratt-Furse for RNEP, Spratt-Furse is therefore irrelevant? I just can’t swallow that. One must be intrisically connected to the other. Otherwise, why do we want new low-yield nuclear weapons research? We’ve already got plenty <5kt bombs built into our current arsenal, and their designs are relatively simple, reliable, and don’t need further testing. There’s clearly more to it.

Now, if the simple gun-style fission bomb on which the B61 and B83 is based does the job, then no new testing involving detonations is really needed, and that is the stated present hope. If the gun design is insufficient, and an implosion design is required, then new underground tests will be needed. That’s precisely what the quote I provided addresses, and this is a real concern. That’s precisely what Nelson asserts in the Physics Today article, and he’s a respected member of the Physics community.

And again, whatever the new reasearch indicates is the best approach is what our leaders will try to pursue. Now the focus is on bunker-busters. But what are the consequences of researching such new weapons, vis-a-vis proliferation? These are possibly not simply stripped-down versions of our old bombs. They may require untested technology, and the concern is a new arms race. That’s why Spratt-Furse is highly relevant to this entire issue.

And you didn’t say anything about the gamma bombs, or what their development might imply. These are radiation weapons, plain and simple. They are intended to be massively lethal. Why are we looking into these?

[Loopydude]

One can read in this article, from a PBS web page, which might be a slightly less tainted source for a summary than some of my other cites, Truman was initially ready and willing to use nuclear bombs in the Korean war. Interestingly, the decision NOT to use the bomb may have centered on the possibility that the bomb would not be sufficient to secure victory, and hence its deterrent effect on a direct conflict between the superpowers would be compromised. At no point is concern over civilian casualties mentioned. As it is, apparently 2 million North Korean civilians perished in the war by conventional means.