Why nobody is building anti-matter bombs.

Why nobody is building anti-matter bombs. They've got the destructive power and none of the radiation of nuclear bombs. And since they're much more powerful you could literally have city killing bomb in the size of a hand grenade. Imagine an FPV drone wiping a megacity...

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because we dont have the technology to contain antimatter, let alone in such a small capacity

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anti-matter weapons are stuck in the realm of science fiction for a few key reasons:
      Production problems:Making antimatter is incredibly expensive. Estimates suggest a tiny amount, like 100 nanograms, could cost billions of dollars to produce.
      Tiny quantities: Even the most powerful particle accelerators create antimatter in minuscule amounts. There's just not enough to create a weaponized explosion.
      Storage headaches: Antimatter annihilates on contact with regular matter. Containing it for any significant time is a huge challenge that scientists are still grappling with.
      Basically, it's just not practical with current technology. Nuclear weapons, while devastating, are far easier and cheaper to produce.

      Containment is a non-issue if you can shrink particle accelerators to just produce antimatter upon use.
      >future war isn't antimatter bombs
      >it's dropping miniature science labs

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >this engineering problem isn't a problem if [violation of basic physics]
        yeah

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Particle accelerators can be scaled down, but there are challenges to creating a truly "pocket-sized" version, even with theoretical advancements. Here's why:
        Minimum Energy for Acceleration: Particles need a certain amount of energy to reach useful speeds. Shrinking the accelerator might limit the electric field strength and therefore the achievable energy, making the particles less effective.
        Magnetic Field Strength: Bending the particle beam requires strong magnets. Miniaturization might limit the strength of the magnets and make it difficult to maintain a stable beam path.
        Precision Engineering: Particle accelerators rely on very precise alignment of electric and magnetic fields. Shrinking everything down increases the difficulty of achieving this precision.
        Science Fiction Potential: However, there's room for exploration in theoretical, sci-fi scenarios. Here are some possibilities:
        Exotic Materials: Imagine super-strong, miniaturizable materials that could create powerful electric and magnetic fields in a compact space.
        Alternative Acceleration Techniques: Perhaps future discoveries lead to new ways to accelerate particles that don't rely on large-scale electric fields and magnetic bends.
        Current Research on Miniaturization: Interestingly, there is ongoing research on developing smaller particle accelerators for medical applications like targeted cancer treatment. These are still much larger than a pocket-sized device, but they show promise for future miniaturization with advancements in technology.
        While a true pocket particle accelerator might be far-fetched with current knowledge, science fiction can explore possibilities that push the boundaries of what's known.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thanks, GPT.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it's dropping miniature science labs
        That's what a normal bomb is, a mobile chemistry lab

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is the kind a moron post where each layer of moronation and misconception to creat the overall incredibly moronic suggestion is so complex that it's almost a work of art.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Reminds me a bit of that "if we just used miniaturized nukes" comment.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        > if you can shrink particle accelerators
        Oh is that all?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        i wonder why those morons at CERN didn't think to do this instead of building a massive underground accelerator
        Also why not use a machine that can just teleport a bullet in the enemy leaders brains

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >i wonder why
          Because you're fricking stupid, that's why.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The energy output of the generated antimatter is always going to be less than the energy input of the accelerator, bro. It would be easier to just set the gigabattery you invented to run this thing on fire.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Anon, we haven't even produced mildly efficient electrical storage for anything larger than a small room yet. One of the most promising ways to store electricity efficiently is to pump water to the top of a really tall hill and use gravity to make it spin a turbine, and even that loses half of the potential.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I KNEEL Aqua-sama.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Aqua's ass

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      Containment is a non-issue if you can shrink particle accelerators to just produce antimatter upon use.
      >future war isn't antimatter bombs
      >it's dropping miniature science labs

      Why contain it? ..... It's cool

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Get PILLS against my orders

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why contain it? Let the dimwits spill over into the catalog, let the shitposts pile up in the threads. In the end, they'll beg us to clean it up.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Show us your 1(one) ton of antimatter please
    Show us even a singular gram that lasts longer than an hour.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >a singular gram that lasts longer than an hour.
      Right in the pod.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Show us your 1(one) ton of antimatter
      >Show us even a singular gram
      You greatly underestimate how hard it is to do ANYTHING with antimatter. My entire worldview would change if anybody on Earth showed me a MICROGRAM of antimatter stored in a stable condition.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Did you really just try to one up that anon when you both agree on the absurdity of OP’s post?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Everything is a competition

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because they're inherently unsafe.
    Even if a cheap way to produce antimatter is developed it's useless.
    You only need 100 kg for a 500 kT bomb, that's more than enough and way simpler.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      100kg for a 500 kT conventional nuclear bomb*

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >500kT
      Main advantage of anti-matter would be lower yields. You can have any arbitrary number. F-16 auto-cannon could be spewing 10Ton FAB equivalents at whatever trench or column is there. And it could a lot more than just 511 rounds.
      >inherently unsafe
      As raw particles. Embed them into lattice of something that's robust but predictably controllable, like Silicon semiconductor chip and it would behave no worse than common high explosives.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >As raw particles. Embed them into lattice of something that's robust but predictably controllable,...
        Nukes are fail safe if they're damaged, antimatter always fails as a complete detonation. Even a bullet destroying any critical ends in a complete explosion... Worse than a T-72.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      100kg for a 500 kT conventional nuclear bomb*

      >100kg for a 500 kT conventional nuclear bomb*
      I was about to say…

      Since 1g of antimatter is ~20 kilotons.
      So 100kg of antimatter would be 2 gigatons, jfc thats a lot

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >100kg of antimatter would be 2 gigatons
        More like 2 gigastupid. Fricking dopers.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >1g of antimatter is ~20 kilot
        One could conceal carry fat-mans worth of bullets. All modern armour would be rendered obsolete.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >modern armor
          >when you have antimatter
          All reason would stand you would then make armor from antimatter since the appeal of weaponized antimatter is it's reaction to 'normal' matter.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anti-matter weapons are stuck in the realm of science fiction for a few key reasons:
    Production problems:Making antimatter is incredibly expensive. Estimates suggest a tiny amount, like 100 nanograms, could cost billions of dollars to produce.
    Tiny quantities: Even the most powerful particle accelerators create antimatter in minuscule amounts. There's just not enough to create a weaponized explosion.
    Storage headaches: Antimatter annihilates on contact with regular matter. Containing it for any significant time is a huge challenge that scientists are still grappling with.
    Basically, it's just not practical with current technology. Nuclear weapons, while devastating, are far easier and cheaper to produce.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >nobody is building
    heh... wouldn't you like to know weather boy

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We already way over shot the useful yield on nukes. There is a reason almost no one manufactures warheads capable of a yield in the 10s of megatons. The largest (active operational) US nuclear warhead until 2014 was 9MT. Now it's only 1.2MT, and the vast majority of warheads are multiple hundreds of kilotons at most.

    With proper guidance it's better to hit your targets with 50-400 kilotons so as not to cause excessive damage to surrounding (non-military) areas. Which is why most of the US efforts in the last few decades are on higher accuracy, better fuzing capabilities, and increased monitoring of potential target sites to more accurately target and disable enemy capabilities with the lowest yield warheads possible.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      And because it is just better to use smaller amounts in larger numbers than big bombs. Outside of WW2 where the Bongs made 10,000kg bombs to drop on stuff, it was more to do with the effect of dropping it (i.e, causing ground to sink and destroy foundations) than the actual bomb. The Russians produced the FAB-9000 in the 50's and that was pretty much the last of the 'big bomb'. The fact Russia and their ships and cheering FAB-500's and FAB-1500's (I dunno what the largest one they have used in this war is) is moronic. Yeah, dropping 1500kg of bomb (not actual explosive mass, but you get it) on a position is going to give those people a bad day, even in trenches. But it is better to launch a bomb that then spits out 15 100kg bomblets than it is to do the 1500kg big boy.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wouldn't antimatter be better used as an energy source? Mechs are easily powered if you use antimatter. Could even use microwave beam to power entire divisions remotely.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because antimatter takes far more energy to produce than you get back out of it by reacting it with matter. At best, it could be used as a high-density energy storage medium, but even that has some problems, since it passively consumes energy in order to sustain the electromagnetic field that you'd need in order to keep it contained.

      Plus, it's so energy-dense that it would be very hard to release a small enough amount of it at any one time from the containment vessel that it wouldn't just blow up the reactor chamber.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why use lead for bullets when gold is denser?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ice bullets leave no evidence.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why use gold when we can use platinum

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why use platinum when we can use OP?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Good point, I doubt we could find anything denser.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why use gold when we can use platinum

      Battlefield scavenging in the future will shift from grabbing the dead soldier's equipment to digging the bullets out of his body.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Russian mobiks have no bullets because the commander sold them all

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >GWOT II: US forces kill 3 insurgents in a small village and the inhabitants celebrate because now they can afford a new water pump for their communal well.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because bombs are a bad way to make an anti-matter weapon. A beam is better in basically every metric.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Once again the teenager, desperate for social context but with frick all to say, resorts to "pretending" to be stupid. As an added bonus this allows him to decompress from the abhorrent pressure in school to actually think about things and occasionally be correct about them.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Once again the teenager, desperate for social context but with frick all to say, resorts to "pretending" to be stupid.
      The sad thing is, I know a guy in his 30s who pulls the 'pretending to be wrong' card whenever he says something stupid.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How much destructive power would a full mag of 9mm anti-matter rounds have?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Assuming 115 grains (7.5 grams) each bullet would be ~322 kilotons.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Let's say 9mm parabellum bullet weighs 8 grams. 8 grams of antimatter annihilating with its matter counterpart would release roughly equivalent to the destructive power of 610 kilotons of TNT. This is a significant explosion, comparable to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Imagine the HK slap before you rip off a mag of antimatter 9mm through an MP5.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >accidentally drop like a dozen nuclear warheads over your own and allied territory
    >(...)
    >nothing happens because nukes are very difficult to explode and require a delicate balance of pressure and neutrons to initiate detonation

    >accidentally breathe near one (1) antigrain warhead
    >(...)
    >there are now 49 states because antimatter is very difficult to contain and requires a delicate balance of absolute vacuum and total separation of matter to avoid annihilation

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Skill issue

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everybody in this thread forgets that a lump of antimatter would, in effect, explode itself out of the atmosphere. 1 ton of antimatter would not react with 1 ton of matter since you can shove the tons together instantly. 1 ton of antimatter would react with a handful of atoms that touch the surface of that ton. Since theres typically more atmosphere and ground below something than above, the surface annihilation would blow the majority of the antimatter upwards. Most of the ton would end up rocketing on a jet of plasma, spouting x-rays in all directions, upwards until it's out of the atmosphere. Hard to say if it would reach escape velocity, if it didn't it would end up bouncing against the atmosphere until it burnt away.

    Antimatter is a stupid way to put energy on target.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Everybody in this thread forgets that a lump of antimatter would, in effect, explode itself out of the atmosphere.
      Have you read the thread even, I wonder?

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mostly because Anti-matter doesn't exist on Earth naturally. It all has to be created and creating anti-matter is net neutral. You get what you put in.
    >none of the radiation of nuclear bombs
    ...actually Matter and Anti-matter anihilation tends to create gamma rays.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You wouldn't use it as a bomb. You can create antimatter on a location from far away using ",beams".
    Hit an area of matter with a beam kind of like positron manufacturing using a laser, it converts over to anti matter then annihilation occurs.
    (The United States has this technology)
    The issue is it takes a lot of power, I mean alot more than we have to get to critical mass. Then you end up getting a 50000 MT minimum detonation. It's not feasible yet. They only proved it could happen last year with a tiny lab test. It was just theory.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      For anyone wanting a source Google oxford realistic laser positron 2023. It's in pdfs. They actually got it too work. Trillions of anti particles in plasma for generated with a laser more or less. The navy has something more advanced already..

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Before even dreaming of a weaponizing antimatter we need to figure out a way to produce it efficiently enough to make it even remotely competitive with fission. Current production tech is wildly, goofily inefficient. Probably it’s impossible to produce it efficiently and it would be best to harvest it from space — something we could think about doing once we hit a Type II civilization scale — but maybe I’m being overly pessimistic and we can still do it reasonable as a very mature Type I. Then, actually containing it and triggering it in a weapon is the next challenge. It’s reasonable safe to say that it wouldn’t look anything like a missile or bomb, but maybe a large building-sized structure that would have to be smuggled somehow to the target area via container ship or special road carrier or some kind. Maybe one of those space-launch super planes could handle it? Or tunnel under the target and construct the device there.

    In reality though it’s very likely a dead-end and will never come even remotely close to the efficiency of fission (or fusion).

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    because """anti matter""" doesnt exist lmao

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >He doesn't know

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Even excepting whether this is possible in the first place...why even do it? Who cares if it causes less radiation? If anything it's a negative both because it will make it easier for the enemy to rebuild, and also increase the likelihood of the weapon eventually being used due to a lack of fear of fallout. In addition, why the frick would any nation fuel research and engineering into creating such a weapon when nukes already do the job just fine of deleting another nation and are never truly intended to be used in the first place? It's not like there is some kind of enemy that can tank our entire nuclear arsenal so we should have a single bomb that's 3 times stronger.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why nobody is riding unicorns into battle? Thier aura of magical purity can literally stop bullets

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Antimatter is expensive as frick to create. Creating a gram of antimatter would cost trillions of dollars right now

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    because antimatter doesn't exist, you may as well trying to blow up a city with your high school math textbook

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    for one even assuming you have the ability to make them they are extremely expensive, and the thing is they are massively over kill, after a certain point you don't need something of that power when you are still on a singel planet scale, also radiation from nukes is pretty much a non issue since the vast majority of it is gone within a few weeks at most

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I once made antimatter on accident when I folded the edge of my sword over 9 MILLION times.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    AM is not the future of warfare OP. Chucking rocks is.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The amount of energy needed for harvesting and refining the materials and then assembling them into a nuclear bomb is really tiny compared to the energy released during the explosion.
    But there is no such equivalent in an anti matter bomb. You have to spend the same amount of energy to create it as it releases (in reality even far more because of efficiency losses).

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Antimatter costs so much that you'd get much faster results throwing that money at the enemy and pelting them with pennies.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    let me guess. 10mt of anti-matter actually produce 50mt of explosive force, just like all your other cancerous homosexual threads that came before. fricking schizo moron have a nice day

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    unfortunately it's far outside our current capabilities to produce and contain(esp. safely)
    so unless Captain Remilliod swings by to sell us some "hot dust" we won't be dabbling in antimatter as any kind of energy source any time soon

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      First you need to find a way to contain the stuff, some magnetic field bullshit, I imagine.
      Then you need to produce it or find a place to harvest it. Barring some stupid sci-fi stuff like turning mercury into a bunch of solar powered particle accelerators, its just too expensive.
      As an aside, I highly doubt anyone would treat weaponized antimatter that differently from nuclear weapons, and you would still get absolutely obliterated in response.

      Honestly, antimatter is like the least interesting thing the Ultras might have for sale. Let em loot the British museum or the louvre in exchange.

      Dark matter and dark energy are very real.

      Brainlet here, but I was under the impression that dark matter was just a stand in for "mysterious thing that makes everything make sense"?

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because there are no reliable methods to contain anti-matter so simply storing that shit involves living next to a bomb that can take out your entire suburb.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They think we don’t contain it lmao any physics student understands that this has been studied since the 1960’s and has progressed to production of dark matter particles. There’s 5 kilograms of antimatter on Earth right now in non-disclosed labs around the world. You’ll do nothing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Do you have anything to back this up?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Open a book and teach yourself. I couldn’t explain it to a skeptic like you. Faster than light travel in space is also possible. Really the only thing lacking with luddites like yourself is the aptitude to explore and learn new things.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Take your meds schizo.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Open a book and teach yourself. I couldn’t explain it to a skeptic like you. Faster than light travel in space is also possible. Really the only thing lacking with luddites like yourself is the aptitude to explore and learn new things.

      >ummmm educate yourself sweetie
      yawn
      We know how to produce antimatter, however, we do not know how to manipulate it or store it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Type into any academic database antimatter storage vessel and you will be wrong.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Aha, ring up ITER and tell them you just solved the 100 000 000°C plasma containment issues, I hear there is a certain Nobel waiting for you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Umm yeah it’s called Casimir compression with certain gases.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Aha, how did they fix the material fuzziness?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                By deconstructing the time crystal signature.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm serious.
                If they can not fix the shield material degradation(fuzziness), that means our contamination methods are not 100%, at all.

                Dark matter and dark energy are very real.

                NTA
                No they aren't, they are most likely artifacts of the faulty understanding we have about our universe.
                Exactly how we thought there was Planet 9 because of Newton model of gravity until Einstein fixed it and showed there is no such thing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You sound like an undergraduate.

                First you need to find a way to contain the stuff, some magnetic field bullshit, I imagine.
                Then you need to produce it or find a place to harvest it. Barring some stupid sci-fi stuff like turning mercury into a bunch of solar powered particle accelerators, its just too expensive.
                As an aside, I highly doubt anyone would treat weaponized antimatter that differently from nuclear weapons, and you would still get absolutely obliterated in response.

                Honestly, antimatter is like the least interesting thing the Ultras might have for sale. Let em loot the British museum or the louvre in exchange.
                [...]
                Brainlet here, but I was under the impression that dark matter was just a stand in for "mysterious thing that makes everything make sense"?

                Dark matter is the physically unobtainable material that affects gravity a, 4 dimensional, but not light or energetic fields which are 3 dimensional. We cannot ‘find’ dark matter because we cannot analyze it with our human made tools and we cannot comprehend it because we have human minds. We understand it exists because we see its effects within our universe but we cannot see it ourselves. It’s only when you go up in higher dimensions and you have more access to physical phenomena to analyze this dark matter.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                We don't understand our reality.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You lack philosophical application in your pursuits. We can become aware of things greater than ourselves by understanding the phenomena of perception and our limitations. Something insignificant as an ant has evolved to understand the world through its biological purpose, a blind cavefish is the top predator in its ecosystem after spending millions of years adapting to thrive in its environment, some species of fish and crustaceans see higher light spectra than us.
                We’ve evolved to succeed as a species like many others. Perhaps in irony we’re not meant to understand more as we’re limited by the actions which placed us as a collective here today. Many wouldn’t be able to deal with the burden of reality in its entirety. Only a select few may carry that with them.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I am simply stating what I believe is at the core of the these "dark" matters, a lack of understanding. I gave a perfect 1:1 example of it happening in our history to back it up.

                I'm not denying we are not progressing in our understanding, but we are still fumbling in the dark.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I recommend Word and Object by Quine or The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn. We will continue to fumble in the dark unless if there is change in how we approach science. We’re at the folly of politics and governance, something uniquely human. We will either come together as a species in pursuit of truth or we will fall apart at the behest of our masters.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Our science is completely subservient to our military industrial complexes, economy drivers and billionaire interests, this I understand.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If there is disruptive knowledge in the public the people would rise up and demand answers. There are those that pull the strings you mention and no, they’re not all israelites, but yeah some are. The public perception of discovery is viewed through rose tinted glasses because this is how it’s gone for centuries. If I were to publish my discovery of aliens I would be shot and killed because that’s just how things are.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If there is disruptive knowledge in the public the people would rise up and demand answers
                Of course, remember the LK99 craze?
                >There are those that pull the strings you mention and no, they’re not all israelites, but yeah some are.
                I do not fall for the israeli string master myth. While they do occupy some CEO positions of power, they are certainly not in control of the world, even Irish have more pull in the real world than israelites.
                Although i find it important to remind people that israelites tend to form mafias in countries that host them.
                >The public perception of discovery is viewed through rose tinted glasses because this is how it’s gone for centuries.
                Ye, even I fall for it.
                I remember the perovskite panel tech and how I thought it was gonna be revolutionary and everything would now be better.
                >If I were to publish my discovery of aliens I would be shot and killed because that’s just how things are.
                Maybe, maybe not.
                I think people have grown to be rather complacent.
                For example, since you brought it up, people who would even suggest that the UFO phenomenon might not be 100% natural would be stripped of all honours and titles just 30 years ago, these days, nobody cares.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think that’s probably the harsh truth about most things today. Nobody cares.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, I think there is simply too much stuff happening all at once.
                The world is growing too big.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >dark matter
      Debunked you're a pseud.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Dark matter and dark energy are very real.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Idiot. It's all pseudo science for physicists who hit the wall. It's nuAether.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If it’s pseudoscience then explain how there’s a cosmological intersection above skinwalker ranch? Dark energy is how holes are formed between dimensional universes in space-time topology.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Oh. My bad

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I love star trek threads

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There are intelligent beings more capable than ourselves.

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This fricking nuke business sucks, why have thousands of these things if you're not gonna use them? These babies were meant to be dropped on asians and slavs.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      America can use a little bit of tactical nukes, as a treat.

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because:
    >Anti-mater is hard to make
    >Anti-mater is exceptionally hard to store
    >Anti-mater weapons could legitimately be too powerful to use conventionally

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s not that hard if you know what you’re doing. You can do it in a well funded lab, especially CERN they pump out 100s of micrograms a day. It’s not hard to store its able to be transported and studied. Yes it would be dangerous because there’s no detectable isotopes. It however wouldn’t be worth it at the current rate to turn it into a bomb.

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How long are you prepared to wait to synthesize a mass of antimatter that is remotely useful?

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    that looked like an old ss-13 screenshot for a moment

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why nobody is building
    It's "Why is nobody building" you illiterate homosexual.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *