From: Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.inka.de)
Date: Fri Aug 15 2003 - 10:22:38 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:
> Gamma-ray weapons could trigger next arms race
> David Hambling, 13 August 2003
> NewScientist.com
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns99994049
>
> My understanding of such technology is that it would allow
> the relatively painless termination of human lives (vs.
> nuclear weapons where the heat produced is likely to produce
> burn victims).
Could you explain how you derive that understanding?
I offer two objections:
1. The effects of gamma irradition drop with the distance. So you
get the usual distribution from instant death through serious
injury down to no damage done, depending on where your victim
is located relative to the initial gamma flash. I don't see how
this is supposed to be different from, say, a large chemical
explosion.
2. As far as I know, traditional fission and fusion devices release
most of their energy in the form of gamma rays, which the
surrounding atmosphere largely translates into blast and heat.
I assume the same would apply to a gamma flash released from
nuclear isomeres.
If you want to kill somebody quickly, you need to do it individually,
under carefully controlled circumstances. Whether you choose
irradiation, a bullet through the head, or a machete, doesn't matter
all that much. Area effect weapons, while more economical for
killing a large number of people, will also produce large numbers
of wounded.
-- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 15 2003 - 10:47:51 MDT