Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Destroying Nuclear Weapons with High-Energy Neutrinos 100

Posted by michael from the science-fiction dept.
TheMatt writes "As reported by PhysicsWeb, physicists are proposing a "futuristic but not necessarily impossible" method of destroying nuclear weapons via high-energy neutrinos sent through the earth. Based on current planned efforts, this 'vast extrapolation' of current technology would use 1000 TeV beams. This would require a 1000-km diameter storage ring using magnets orders-of-magnitude stronger than currently available. The cost would be around $100 million-plus and it'd use 50 GW of energy, the UK's current consumption. (And the slight problem that the process might set off the nukes, instead of just melting them...)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Destroying Nuclear Weapons with High-Energy Neutrinos More

Destroying Nuclear Weapons with High-Energy Neutrinos

Comments Filter:

  • It would require... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ewhenn ( 647989 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @09:40PM (#5951013)
    This would require a 1000-km diameter storage ring

    Oh, is that all? A mere 1000km storage ring. For you US folks out there, that is approx 600 miles.

    On a serious note, what happens if you miss with this thing? It is quite interesting scientifically, however interesting never implies practicality.

  • Dear North Korea (Score:5, Funny)

    by jrivar59 ( 146428 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @09:43PM (#5951027)
    Dear North Korea,

    Please allow me to express our deepest regrets and sympathies for vaporizing your country. Unfortunatly, while attempting to help save the world from future nuclear calamities, we accidently detonated all your nuclear warheads. We hope that this will not cause you any inconvenience, and we look forward to a prosperous trade relationship with your country at the conclusion of your nuclear winter.

    Sincerly,

    -George W Bush

  • Use the Source, Luke... (Score:5, Informative)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @09:58PM (#5951121)
    Read the original scientific paper here [arxiv.org]

    • Thanks for the link, Hot Needle. My kzin-furred hat's off to you.

      It's been said that every good idea in science was done in sci-fi first. This idea is strongly reminicent of Fredrick Pohl's "The Gold at the Starbow's End" (also published in longer form as "Starburst") in which the protogonists send a hail of subatomic particles at the Earth which melts down every nuclear weapon and reactor on Earth. I don't remember if the particles were neutrinos or not, but I think it may have been impiled.
      By the way,
      • IIRC, every nuclear weapon AND reactor were destroyed, as was civilization (at least in the short story). Could this plan also be used to destroy enemies nuclear power plants? Maybe this is a plot by OPEC to maintain dependance on fossil fuels?
        I wish there were a way to read the original article...
  • I'm happy to see further exploration of the destruction, and not construction, of nukes. I do hope they can fix the minor snafu of possibly setting the nukes off. Give it five years, we'll be onto something bigger than nukes anyway.

    • Re:Another stride toward peace (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jerk City Troll ( 661616 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @01:10PM (#5956026) Homepage
      "I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -Albert Einstein
    • A device that degrades warheads can be defended against by building more warheads faster than the device can handle. Witness our current administration's interest in developing smaller tactical nukes, for example.

      A device that detonates warheads can be defended against only by not building them. In other words, nuclear weapons become a big liability, especially if they're in your territory and near your troops, which they almost certainly will be.

      Of course, if we have the technology to create and channe
      • I was originally worried about this... finding a military use for this to blow up other people's stockpiles.

        In other words, nuclear weapons become a big liability, especially if they're in your territory and near your troops, which they almost certainly will be.

        I agree with that, and if we built this it might make leaders consider the idea of getting rid of nukes worldwide. You can tell I'm sort of a peace advocate.

  • Estimated cost is $100 billion+ (Score:5, Informative)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:06PM (#5951176)
    Not $100 million+ in /. header

    • sweet! (Score:4, Funny)

      by sydlexic ( 563791 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:46PM (#5951428)
      that's only about 1.5x what it costs to knock over a middle eastern country. I think we can fit that in the budget somewhere between a $350-750 billion tax cut. Unless, of course, this wasn't a priority.
      • Sadly, there is nothing funny about that.

        Just think of what good could've come out of spending that money instead of just attacking irak. Ahh well ... when will governments learn that is OUR money that they are spending not theirs. What would you rather have, a Saddam free irak and have him roaming planning for revenge or have almost free (i don't think 100% free is good) medicine for everyone in the us who needs it ?

        Anyway, whew on those 100 billion, considering that Saddam snuck away close to 1 billion
        • Just think if all that money could be spent on schools. Like maybe grammar and spelling classes...
          • I don't live anywhere near the US so i couldn't care less in what they do with their money domestically, as long as it is constructive. I will still bitch as hell if they spending tapping into emails that happen to go thru the us en-route to/from japan or europe.

            I am sure, however, that the american ppl would rather spend it to improve their lives rather than invading irak.
            • Personally, I would prefer the government keep their nose out of my business and their hand out of my pocket.

              I can improve my own life just fine, thank you. The government should stick to doing what the Constitution says they can and should do, like national defense.

              BTW, the "american ppl" approve of the war in Iraq by about 68-78%...
              • OMG, Seriously ? somthing has got to be wrong in the world when 70-80% of 300M wants to go to war. And i also mean the ppl who gave them reson to want to go to war.

                I don't believe that wars abroad have anything to do with "national defense". So called "surgical-strikes" maybe, all-out war, never.

                What i find amazing about this post-war time is the absolute news silence about post war irak, it is like it has literallly vanished from the globe. It went from being on CNN 24-7 to 0-0. Where are the WMD ? What
                • We tried surgical strikes. We tried sanctions. We tried diplomacy. Saddam did not care. He had gotten away with evasion and blowing off the inspectors for a dozen years. He really didn't think anyone would take him on. He was wrong.

                  As for the WMD, I don't know how much we will find, but we will find what's there. I don't think Saddam destroyed them. He either sold them (in which case we waited too damn long to strike) or hid them. Iraq is a big, barren country.

                  As to foreign wars, sometimes you ju
  • For research into possible neutrino/hadron shielding materials and techniques.

    • Re:An excellent opportunity for some DARPA funding (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Idarubicin ( 579475 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @08:46AM (#5953647) Journal
      ...research into possible neutrino/hadron shielding materials and techniques.

      The problem is that this technique is so grossly, extravagantly, embarrassingly inefficient. A neutrino beam can (and will, in this scheme) pass through a good fraction of the Earth without blinking. Astronomers build neutrino detectors on Earth at great cost and inconvenience because (among other reasons) most neutrinos from fusion the Sun's core travel directly to Earth without interacting with any of the matter in between.

      This device would be so horrifically expensive because the vast majority (ninety-nine point several nines percent) of neutrinos are lost to space, out the other side of the Earth. To block a significant fraction of the neutrino beam would require a shield with tremendous density or thickness. We're talking several kilometres of neutron star material (at a density of tons per teaspoon) or light years of lead. Neither solution is particularly practical. Maybe a few decades down the road you could construct artificial black holes, and place them beneath your nuclear stockpile.

      As we understand neutrino interactions, they essentially cannot be stopped (they won't pass through the black holes mentioned above--but we can't build those yet.) Your best bets for defense are to keep your nukes well hidded--so your adversaries can't target them--or launching a first strike--use your nukes to destroy this large, obvious, easy-to-hit neutrino generation facility. (An accelerator ring 1000 km across can't be concealed--heck, it won't fit in most countries, let alone be paid for--and it can't be moved to a place of safety.)

      • Re:An excellent opportunity for some DARPA funding (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @02:25PM (#5956677)
        > Your best bets for defense are to keep your nukes well hidded--so your adversaries can't target them--or launching a first strike--use your nukes to destroy this large, obvious, easy-to-hit neutrino generation facility. (An accelerator ring 1000 km across can't be concealed--heck, it won't fit in most countries, let alone be paid for--and it can't be moved to a place of safety.)

        That's not a bug, it's a feature.

        1) Only a few countries are big enough to hold such a device. They're already nuclear powers, and they're pretty responsible users thereof.

        2) Because of how huge it is, it's probably not going to be near a coastal region. So you gotta bomb it or ICBM it (short range ballistic missiles aren't gonna cut it, nor is a flotilla of cargo ships with smuggled weapons. :)

        3) It's a lot easier to defend a 1000km ring with anti-ballistic missiles for 15 minutes than it is to defend an entire continent. (You only need to set up your ABM tech every 100km or so around the circumference.)

        4) For superpowers, the countermeasure is to build your own 1000 km neutrino ring. (And short of starting WWV, there's no way for Superpower Foo to prevent Superpower Bar from building one!) Two superpowers with such rings have effectively rendered each others' nuclear arsenals obsolete. That's effective deterrence without the sword of mutually-assured destruction hanging over everyone's head.

        5) Meantime, all rogue nuclear states' base are belong to the superpowers, because rogue states don't have the land mass to ever build a countermeasure.

        6) $100B isn't that pricy if you amortize it out over 10-20 years. And much like nukes, even though the weapons haven't been used in 60 years, one hell of a lot of science has been done along the way. Your MRI and PET scans are as much an offshoot of nuclear weapons research as the fission plants that provides a good chunk of your electricity without a gram of CO2 (for those that believe CO2 is a hazard).

        • 4) For superpowers, the countermeasure is to build your own 1000 km neutrino ring. (And short of starting WWV, there's no way for Superpower Foo to prevent Superpower Bar from building one!) Two superpowers with such rings have effectively rendered each others' nuclear arsenals obsolete. That's effective deterrence without the sword of mutually-assured destruction hanging over everyone's head.

          Until Bar builds one of its own, they will feel threatened. Bar may well launch before Foo gets the first one fin
        • There's prolly a better way waiting to be discovered of producing high energy nootreenowz

      • We're talking several kilometres of neutron star material (at a density of tons per teaspoon) or light years of lead. Neither solution is particularly practical.

        If we could obtain "kilometers" of neutronium near Earth, nuclear weapons cease to be the big problem. Cubic kilometers worth of neutronium would probably rip the planet apart. Not practical, indeed.

        Maybe a few decades down the road you could construct artificial black holes, and place them beneath your nuclear stockpile.

        And this is practic

  • 100 million? (Score:3, Informative)

    by happypizzaguy ( 325415 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:51PM (#5951458)
    The cost would be around $100 million-plus and it'd use 50 GW of energy, the UK's current consumption. (And the slight problem that the process might set off the nukes, instead of just melting them...)"

    Doesn't the US spend something like that producing a single bomb? A quick google search brings up an interesting result:
    The US spends 100 milllion dollars every day maintaining it's nuclear arsenal. [gsinstitute.org]

  • Irradiating nukes (Score:5, Informative)

    by Muhammar ( 659468 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @11:32PM (#5951671)
    Shining a strong neutron source (in this case generated by neutrino beam passing through earth) on fission material would generate radioactivity and heat effect. The radioactivity would be much higher than the heat, so people around would see blue light and start dying right away.

    Bombs would not go off, because the assembly of the core is always subcritical. Even if the high explosives of the implosion device goes off (because of the heat or fire, for example), the spontaneous nuclear explosion is very unlikely. These shaped charges in the implosion design have to be set off from a precise starting point at exactly same time. [Setting of the "implosion lenses" of the implosion device simultanneously was one of the major technical hurdles of the Fat Man development]

    And, honestly I do not believe that such a strong neutron source could be realised using a neutrino beam.

    • Re:Irradiating nukes (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sigwinch ( 115375 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @01:02AM (#5952116) Homepage
      And even if you could build it, how do you aim it? You can't exactly gimbal a 1000 km ring.

      And how do you lock onto the targets? If you can get a conventional radiation detector close enough, you might as well just send in the Marines to pick up the nuke. You can't use neutrinos to detect them because (1) detector efficiency is abysmal and (2) fission reactors and the sun provide a tremendous background signal.

      And suppose you do somehow build an aimable neutrino beam. What happens if a rogue operator points it at a fission reactor? You're right that it almost certainly cannot ignite the pit of a bomb because the storage configuration has a low reactivity. Reactors, on the other hand, operate near unity reactivity. I don't know enough about reactor physics to say what is possible, but I'd be very worried that the neutrino beam could liberate enough unexpected heat to put the reactor in a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity regime. Boom. Like the Chernobyl disaster, but potentially much bigger.

      • i think the idea is that you make it in space and set it to rotate, eventually getting every square inch of the earth.
      • Um, actually the "boom" from a reactor meltdown is not a thermonuclear "boom", it's just the boom of a couple steam-pipes busting from too much pressure. Of course, this is still bad as it realeases all the radiation into the atmosphere, but not not nearly as bad as a nuclear "boom". As the parent stated, it's actually REALLY hard to make a nuclear explosion. I mean heck, the basic principle is taught in highschool physics yet most countries still can't manage it...

        • ...it's just the boom of a couple steam-pipes busting from too much pressure.

          More like a big industrial boiler exploding, a rather spectacular event. If it uses water and graphite/metal, they burn and make an even bigger explosion. God help you if it's a metallic uranium/liquid sodium reactor.

          And that's assuming the reactivity doesn't get much worse than, say, the Chernobyl disaster. There's no telling how high you can make it go without a lot of modelling that nobody has done.

          Besides, who says you

    • This is not my field, but I've read that the high explosives are carefully chosen for insensitivity to heat. The idea is that they go off only in response to a detonator. Which is what you want given that nuclear weapons are sometimes carried on airplanes, which sometimes crash and burn.
      • Yes, you are completely right. The original main high explosive used in 1945 (HMX) is rather sensitive and the chemical explosive assemblies in several nukes actualy exploded in fire or by impact:

        http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/fp/projects/nuc w co st/box7-3.htm

        But now they have explosives like 1,3,5-triaminotrinitrobenzene or 3,5-aminonitrotriazole. Those are incredibly insensitive - they even do not burn in fire too much and you can hammer them on anvil to oblivion and they will not detonate.
  • From the paper [arxiv.org] :
    ...this kind of device can not only target the nuclear bombs but ... any kind of living object including human. ...we sincerely hope that our proposal will motivate and stimulate the revival of the old idea of World Government...

    I think Dr. Evil would like to make these guys an employment offer.

    And where to build the device?
    We first look for a mountain like in fig. 8 whose the surface does not touch many of the straight lines depicted as P1P2, P3P4, Q1Q2 or Q3Q4. We construct two synchrotron A and B which are both revolvable...

    Might I suggest a slightly used extinct volcano [00heaven.org] with a retractable roof?

  • we've got 600 miles lying around the midwest don't we? and 50GW, you'd think we'd be able to do a hell of a lot more with that kind of power. after all, the Doc did some pretty amazing sh*t with "only" 1.21 Giggawatts. http://www.deloreanmotorcar.com/ec/jigawatts.htm

  • Another use (Score:3, Interesting)

    by skinfitz ( 564041 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @02:37AM (#5952433) Journal
    So could this be used to destroy a nuclear power station?
    • Question for Radio Jerevan:
      "So could this be used to destroy a nuclear power station?"

      Answer:
      It could, but a pitchfork is more practical for the purpose.
  • Doc: One point twenty-one gigawatts. One point twenty-one gigawatts. Great Scott.

    Marty: What the hell is a gigawatt?

    Doc: How could I have been so careless. One point twenty-one gigawatts. Tom, how am I gonna generate that kind of power, it can't be done, it can't.

    Marty: Doc, look, all we need is a little plutonium.

    Doc: I'm sure that in 1985, plutonium is available at every corner drug store, but in 1955, it's a

    little hard to come by. Marty, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you're stuck here.

  • Natural Solution. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Martin S. ( 98249 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @07:35AM (#5953277) Journal
    Alternative you could take 'natures' own solution, grind and oxidise the core, mix with silicate (sand) and bury in deep holes (disused gold and diamond mines).

  • Why not just use a fast reactor? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by turgid ( 580780 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @07:47AM (#5953336) Journal
    What the article doesn't say is why this is any better than putting the nuclear material in a fast reactor and disposing of it that way? It would be orders of magnitude cheaper, and we've had the technology for decades. The heat produced can be used to generate electricity as well. France and Japan run fast reactors. The UK and USA used to have them too.

  • Put it in space (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alispguru ( 72689 ) <bob@bane.me@com> on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @10:57AM (#5954741) Journal
    Park it at L1 or L2 [nasa.gov]. Space is roomy, so building big things is easier. Aiming is easier - you do have to be more accurate and have a better collimated beam, but you only have to track it across a degree or two to cover the whole earth, and you could aim by tracking the whole ring, so you'd need less powerful deflector magnets. You can power it with solar energy. And, the vacuum is free!

    There is the little problem of getting there, setting up shop, and building a 1000 km structure, of course...
    • There is the little problem of getting there, setting up shop, and building a 1000 km structure

      Yeah, but at that point the rest is mere engineering detail :)

      -
  • The problem I see with this is that unless you know exactly where the bombs are being kept, you need to shoot a pretty wide beam, and that means it'd probably ruin nuclear power plants as well as bombs. And I think many people would agree that we should be using more nuclear power, not less.
    • You plainly don't remember the 1970's, when all the crows came home to roost from all the nuclear plants we had built. The problems were numerous: handling the nuclear waste (still a major problem), shoddy construction, radiactive pollution of the air, water and soil, inept management, major corruption between government officials and the nuclear power industry, uncovering of the endless lies told by government and the industry about the costs and consequences of nuclear power. That's why for so many years
      • There is a bad taste in our mouths from the wild anti-nuclear BS thrown about.

        It all started with the film the China Syndrome.

        There are over a hundred operational energy nuclear plants in the US and about 3-4 times that many research and isotope production plants in the US and about a thousand military reactors and there has been 1 problem with them since 1975.

        One problem - Three Mile Island.

        Burning of coal produces more radiation every year in the United States than all the hundreds of reactors put out
    • Im sure the people in the 'wide beam' would appreciate being irradiated too..

  • Doomsday Device (Score:2, Interesting)

    by IpsissimusMarr ( 672940 ) *
    This is equivalent to ~1 Sv/sec. We note that this value of the radiation dose is very large, compared with the U.S. Federal off-site limit of 1 mSv /year.

    Lets see...

    1 mSv = 1/1000 Sv
    1 year = 31.5 million seconds

    SO....

    1 Sv/sec = 31.5 TRILLION mSv/year

    So this simple device produces 31.5 Trillion times the safe limit of radiation.
    SURE, protecting the world from nuclear winter by substituting it for cancer on a world-wide scale.

    • Re:Doomsday Device (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      So at ~1 Sv/sec, a lethal dose will be achieved for:
      • a dog in 3.5 seconds
      • a guinea pig in 4 seconds
      • a hibernating bat, 200
      • a human, 2.5-4.5(*)
      • a mouse, 5.5
      • a monkey, 6
      • a pine tree, 8-15
      • a rat, 7.5
      • a rabbit, 8
      • a chicken, 6
      • a sparrow, 8
      • a goldfish, 23
      • a frog, 7
      • a tortoise, 15
      • a snail, 80-200
      • viruses, .5-2000

      (*) The lethal exposure for humans is not well known due to a lack of data and an understandable unwillingness for individuals to volunteer as prospective subjects for such a study.

      Source [yorku.ca].

  • the weapons would melt/vaporize --fine so they cant be fired. But where does the radioactive long halflife molten stuff or vapor actually GO?
    If it leaks out wouldnt it be far worse?

  • Gotta love /. (Score:5, Funny)

    by JUSTONEMORELATTE ( 584508 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @01:01PM (#5955922) Homepage
    After reading 36 of 46 comments, largely from folks saying "I have no clue about any of this, but what about ]blah[", I got the following tagline at the bottom:
    It is much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem.

    Who knew /usr/games/fortune was so smart?

    --
  • I just finished an astronomy class, and from what I remember about neutrino emissions (in relation to supernovas), don't neutrinos simply go passed mass as if it wasn't even there? As far as I know, the only way to stop neutrinos is to use CCL4(sp?), and even then, they have to have close to 100 million gallons of it in massive tanks. When the off chance that a neutrino is stopped, it converts the CCL4(sp?) to argon, and then the scientists must dump the entire tank and use helium to lift the argon. I do

    • Re:i thought... (Score:4, Informative)

      by reverseengineer ( 580922 ) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @03:23AM (#5961913)
      Well, that's really just it- neutrinos interact incredibly weakly with matter- whereas most particles have a mean free path (the average distance a particle will travel before colliding with another particle) on the order of microns (depends on particle "cross-section" (relates to its interaction with other particles, and is dependent on particle energy) and the average separation between particles (depends on density of matter in the medium). Neutrinos with a respectable 1GeV energy (1/1,000,000 of the energy proposed here) have a mean free path through solid lead (density of over 11000kg/m^3) of over a light-year.


      Now, like I said, the mean free path is an average figure, so a neutrino may interact with a nucleon far sooner, or far later. In the case of earthbound neutrino detectors like Super Kamiokande, the neutrinos that are detected must make it out of the dense plasma of the sun from whence they arise, travel 150,000,000km through interplanetary space (which is basically empty for neutrino purposes), pass through the entire earth, and then into a deep mine shaft filled with something like heavy water or carbon tetrachloride (as you mentioned). A very, very small fraction of the constant torrent of neutrinos passing through this tank will bump into a nucleon and produce a detectable event. Now, if you boost the the energy of these neutrinos up to about 1,000 TeV, the mean free path of each one is reduced to roughly the diameter of the earth. While a tremendous number of neutrinos with this energy,released in a pulse, will either bump into particles somewhere in the earth's interior or will pass straight through, then through the nuke and straight out into space (a small amount would probably make it out of the galaxy eventually), there would probably enough neutrinos hitting particles in the vicinity of the nuke to produce that hadron shower and potentially ruin the bomb.


      I do agree that the technology is unrealistic, however- unless a viable 100+ Telsa magnet is found (present record is about 15T for a magnet of the necessary type), the storage ring will have to be 600km in diameter. There are of course many practical problems with this design- the difficulty of aiming this sort of neutrino beam, the incredibly deadly neutron flux produced with the neutrino beam (the prospect of a misfire shooting down an aircraft or irradiating a city block is rather unappealing), and that the authors suggest that a detonation of roughly 3% of the expected nuclear device yield will still occur (or even a full detonation, if the device is a hydrogen bomb, and the "fizzle" explosion and tremendous neutron flux is enough to kickstart fusion). 3 percent of a 20-kiloton device is still the rough equivalent of 600 tons of TNT. If I were the madman dictator of a rogue state, I'd definitely think about keeping my nuclear warheads in populated areas, so the hypothetical "World Government" who holds the keys to the storage ring will have blood on its hands when they use the neutrino pulse to destory a nuke, and 10,000 of my citizens become collateral damage. That would also be an excellent pretext to retaliate with any nukes I have left.

      • If you aim this thing through the supposedly radioactive-decay powered core, would you detonate the earth, or at least cause a chain reaction that would cause sh*tloads of volcanic activity that would wipe out all life on earth by encasing it in LAVA?
  • Similar devices are used in The Trigger [amazon.com] by Arthur C. Clarke and Michael P. Kube-McDowell, and Emprise [amazon.com], by Michael P. Kube-McDowell. The former has a device which detonates conventional explosives, the latter has one that nullifies nuclear weapons (and fission-based nuclear energy).

    These books are probably equally science fiction, but probably have better plots.

  • Units (Score:2)

    by Orne ( 144925 )
    There is a big difference between 50 GWHrs and 50 GW. Watts is an instantaneous power measurement, I current at V voltage. Watt-hours is a quantifiable amount of charge, a constant stream of particles over a timer period.

    50 GigaWatts is approximately the generation output of every commercial generator in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware combined, a value that is routinely hit during the hottest days of every summer since 2000 (the capacity's higher, but I'm estimating some loss for outages
  • Cause I want one of these things. I want one really, really badly.
    I would be emailing the scientists right now and asking who to make the checks out to.
    Can you imagine the fun you would have? Hell, I bet one of these is a better chick magnet then my '96 Tracker w/the roof off!
    I want to be Bill's bitch.
    Please Bill can I have one, PLEASE! PLEASE!

    I mean, wow you could like own the country.
    Hell, I would have the largest penius on the planet! I would truly be the Alpha Male.

    Of course I would imagine that i

  • This falls under my 10 year theory. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sllim ( 95682 ) <achance.earthlink@net> on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @08:44PM (#5960070)
    I have this theory and this stuff falls underneath it.
    Of course there are problems, big 600 mile radius problems, and this just might punch a 600 mile wide whole in my theory.
    But I thought I would throw it out and see if anyone wants to bite.

    The theory goes like this. Truly new technology, and by truly new I don't mean the newest chips, I mean stuff that you cannot imagine, well stuff like this. The government has been working on truly new technology for at least 10 years by the time we hear about it first.

    My definition of new technology is very, very tight. It is not the refinement of old technology.
    As an example we have been reading about quatum computing for lets say 5 years now. I am suggesting that 15 years ago the government got a head start on it. Hell if they have a use for it I bet that they have a mainframe already. Granted super-duper top secret. But I am suggesting that this stuff exists.

    Well I will be the first to admit that this punches a whole in my theory. Cause I can't imagine how you could hide a 600 mile wide ring like this.

    Anyone think of a way?

    Also there is another hole. A device like this would probably work best if it's construction was kept secret (not that that may be possible) but once it existed it would work best if everyone knew about it.
    You wouldn't want it to be secret then. You would want it to be public knowledge that you had a way to resolve the Korea problem.

    Just random crazy thoughts.

    Hey check this out, I am late in taking my meds.
    • Well I will be the first to admit that this punches a whole in my theory. Cause I can't imagine how you could hide a 600 mile wide ring like this. Anyone think of a way?

      Bury it. It worked for the Stargate.

  • Anyone notice the peaceful applications? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @02:21AM (#5961667) Journal
    Reference 13 of the paper goes into how you could use a high-energy neutrino beam to image the inside of the earth.

Slashdot Top Deals

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Close