Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Nuke Grenade: Indestructable

dirty-bomb-ch_small.jpgIf you're standing near Sharon Weinberger, be careful. Her head may explode, after reading this post.

Despite her best efforts -- including a whole freakin' book -- to explain to folks that a nuclear hand grenade violates science's most basic principles, the idea just won't die. The latest example: OK, OK... it's from Maxim, not the New Republic or Foreign Policy. But still, the fact that the nuke grenade (also known as the "hafnium bomb") survives a basic fact-check -- from any magazine -- says something about the imaginary weapon's durability.

Get ready for an adrenaline-pumping international game of dodgeball. For years - and to the tune of $10 million so far - the Department of Energy has been pursuing the idea of nuclear grenades, handheld weapons that could yield kilotons of destructive power thanks to one central ingredient: superexcited elements called isomers. A golf ball holding the energy of just one halfnium 178 isomer- the element being considered for use in the weapon - would contain the equivalent of 10 tons of explosives. The moment researchers discover the best way to trigger the release of that energy...we're all screwed!

(Big ups: JH)

Latest Comments


I'm intrigued that people are so absolute in condemning this, when Tantalum-180 isomer triggering is unquestioned. Nuclear isomers are here to stay.

As I said, this looks more like an academic feud than an rational debate. When terms like 'an absolute crock' replace reasoned discussion of results - and in a rarefied field like quantum nucleonics - then you know you have problems.

Posted by: David Hambling at January 10, 2007 2:34 AM


Gentlemen: This is no humbug--it's a complete crock in the same league as Cold Fusion and the Puckle Gun-

After three cycles of failing to produce any reproducible results , the paradigm seems to be ' if we had twelve orders of magnitude more ham we could make a pig's ear. But we don't-so lets apply for an earmarked mustard research grant....'

Poor Martin Stickley- he shoulda listened to JASON.

Posted by: Russell Seitz at January 9, 2007 5:33 PM


Noah, I wasn't talking about giving me some credit. I was referring to you not discussing the New Scientist article.

Posted by: JH at January 9, 2007 3:43 PM


Bladewriter: If something is "not physically impossible" as you put it, then according to your own logic it is possible! Hypothisis "spinning" around the further concentration of fissible diodes is evoloving into theory even as we chicken peck our backseat quarterbacking into cyberland. I'm no doomscreamer but bloodlust increased exponetially will statisticly eventually yeild a win for the odor challenged. There is huge profit in war so don't expect the bankers to halt the flow of revenue to those who want a golf ball that can blow up Park Avenue.

Posted by: Geoff Broomberg at January 9, 2007 3:07 PM


"bladewriter" - I do know a little about those topics, and also a little about the various attempts to replicate Collins' work around the world.

The affair has all the appearance of a typical academic feud. Of course, that doesn't mean Collins is right - but it doesn't mean he's automatically wrong.

The key issue is not the disputed Hafnium 178m2 transition, but whether isomer triggering may provide a useful way of releasing stored energy. And I don't think we can afford to ignore that avenue because the physics is sound.

And as to whether this represents a significant waste of Pentagon money compared to the billions spent on some better-known items - well, you must be seeing different budget documents to me.

Posted by: David Hambling at January 9, 2007 2:47 PM


» View All 10 Comments

» Post a Comment