[The E]

Problem is, orbital KE weapons are expensive. Launching the weapon and the munitions is waaaaaay more expensive than dropping bombs the conventional way (Never forget that weapons need to be serviced, which means sending people up there to do it). Conventionally delivered weapons are rather user-friendly that way.

Then there's the matter of accuracy. Sure, you could build a city buster that way, but seriously? That's soooo Cold War.

[Nuke]

Problem is, orbital KE weapons are expensive. Launching the weapon and the munitions is waaaaaay more expensive than dropping bombs the conventional way (Never forget that weapons need to be serviced, which means sending people up there to do it). Conventionally delivered weapons are rather user-friendly that way.

Then there's the matter of accuracy. Sure, you could build a city buster that way, but seriously? That's soooo Cold War.

there's really no point to that if you read my second paragraph. but the potential of ke weapons could far exceed nukes. if our civilization ever have a major presence in space (were talking colonization level here with sovereign nations off planet), ke weapons would quickly render nukes obsolete. ke weapons also have the side effect of being less destructive in the long term, with no radiation to speak of. still i doubt very many wars would need to deploy wmds, and the ones we have provide a suitable deterrent.

also ke weapons may be expensive, but the concept is based of tried and true technology that anyone with physics phd and some engineering talent could design, and can be made with off the shelf materials that are readily available. your just releasing a projectile, firing a small de-orbit burn, and letting the laws of physics do the work. the firing solution could be done on paper.

[Bobboau]

one other interesting aspect of anti-matter is that unlike nukes it has no minimum mass needed, so you could have anti-matter weapons at any power level you wanted, and if they are small yields the bomb could theoretically be ittybitty.

[Liberator]

Only as itty-bitty as you could make the containment hardware and AFAIK, there's a minimum size that a magnet with that kind of power can be. Course, I'm a redneck from Alabama, what do I know.

[General Battuta]

Only as itty-bitty as you could make the containment hardware and AFAIK, there's a minimum size that a magnet with that kind of power can be. Course, I'm a redneck from Alabama, what do I know.

I think you're right, actually, except that you need even more than a magnet for anything bigger than say antiproton - assuming it's uncharged you need to contain on the magnetic moment instead of the charge, and that's really hard.

[SpardaSon21]

With shoulder-launched mini-nukes, we don't need small-scale anti-matter weaponry.

[General Battuta]

With shoulder-launched mini-nukes, we don't need small-scale anti-matter weaponry.

Well if the containment stuff was cooperative, you could fit a weapon of the same yield into a pinhead, or an implant in a person's eye, or anywhere. More impressively, though, you could use it as a low-mass high-yield propellant on interstellar ships, where the problem of fuel expenditure scaling with fuel reserves is a huge engineering challenge.

[watsisname]

[brainstorm]I'm curious as to what sort of antimatter would be most effective if the goal was to make a weapon.  A container of antiprotons?  Positrons?  Full on anti-atoms like anti-hydrogen?  Surely elementary particles would be easier to both produce and to confine, and I'd imagine antiprotons would give off the most energy since they are more massive, but I just don't know.  I also wonder how effectively antiprotons would annihilate with regular matter -- how do they react in the first place when the protons they have to react with are held within atomic nuclei?
[/brainstorm]

[MR_T3D]

If they manage to get energy from the Antimatter, then I'd think a possible use would be man-portable laser-type weapon.

[Liberator]

[brainstorm]I'm curious as to what sort of antimatter would be most effective if the goal was to make a weapon.  A container of antiprotons?  Positrons?  Full on anti-atoms like anti-hydrogen?  Surely elementary particles would be easier to both produce and to confine, and I'd imagine antiprotons would give off the most energy since they are more massive, but I just don't know.  I also wonder how effectively antiprotons would annihilate with regular matter -- how do they react in the first place when the protons they have to react with are held within atomic nuclei?
[/brainstorm]

Well let's reason this out.  If you react a raw anti-proton with, say, a helium atom, then the left over is a neutron and an electron.  Do that on a large scale and you have a crapton of free neutrons being blasted away from the reaction at relatavistic speed.  That ain't healthy for anyone in range.

[NGTM-1R]

[brainstorm]I'm curious as to what sort of antimatter would be most effective if the goal was to make a weapon.  A container of antiprotons?  Positrons?  Full on anti-atoms like anti-hydrogen?  Surely elementary particles would be easier to both produce and to confine, and I'd imagine antiprotons would give off the most energy since they are more massive, but I just don't know.  I also wonder how effectively antiprotons would annihilate with regular matter -- how do they react in the first place when the protons they have to react with are held within atomic nuclei?
[/brainstorm]

You need a particle of the opposite type for mutual annihilation, so anti-hydrogen's not going to be much good unless the guy's holding a balloon. I would think elementary particles are better for this reason.

[watsisname]

[brainstorm]I'm curious as to what sort of antimatter would be most effective if the goal was to make a weapon.  A container of antiprotons?  Positrons?  Full on anti-atoms like anti-hydrogen?  Surely elementary particles would be easier to both produce and to confine, and I'd imagine antiprotons would give off the most energy since they are more massive, but I just don't know.  I also wonder how effectively antiprotons would annihilate with regular matter -- how do they react in the first place when the protons they have to react with are held within atomic nuclei?
[/brainstorm]

You need a particle of the opposite type for mutual annihilation, so anti-hydrogen's not going to be much good unless the guy's holding a balloon. I would think elementary particles are better for this reason.

But why would that be?  Every other element contains both protons and electrons, too.  The only difference is the number of protons/electrons available and the number of neutrons in the way.  I understand what matter/antimatter annihilation is but I'm wondering how exactly it would take place on the atomic level.  i.e, with more than just a two-particle interaction.

The way I'd imagine it in the case of H and anti-H would be that the "electron" shells annihilate first, and then a fraction of a second later the nuclei, having equal but opposite charges, rush together and complete the annihilation of both atoms.  But what would happen if, say, an anti-Helium atom meets an Oxygen atom?  Does nothing occur?  Do only the shells annihilate?  Does the anti-helium annihilate the equivalent of a helium within the Oxygen atom, leaving behind Carbon?  (heh)

Edit:  fixed bad writing on my part -- I'm tired. D:

[Kosh]

[brainstorm]I'm curious as to what sort of antimatter would be most effective if the goal was to make a weapon.  A container of antiprotons?  Positrons?  Full on anti-atoms like anti-hydrogen?  Surely elementary particles would be easier to both produce and to confine, and I'd imagine antiprotons would give off the most energy since they are more massive, but I just don't know.  I also wonder how effectively antiprotons would annihilate with regular matter -- how do they react in the first place when the protons they have to react with are held within atomic nuclei?
[/brainstorm]

You need a particle of the opposite type for mutual annihilation, so anti-hydrogen's not going to be much good unless the guy's holding a balloon. I would think elementary particles are better for this reason.

But why would that be?  Every other element contains protons, too.  The only difference is the number of protons available and the number of electrons and neutrons in the way.  I understand what matter/antimatter annihilation is but I'm wondering how exactly it would take place on the atomic level.  i.e, with more than just a two-particle interaction.

Given that PET scans generate minute quantities of antimatter you'd better hope it stays that way.