4 ms·

Not that great. Chances are you will destroy your country before you destroy some other.

• mastersummoner 7mo ago
  That's just an engineering problem as well.
  • everforward 7mo ago
    It’s a fundamentally different and riskier paradigm. Nuclear weapons at rest are inert, and can even be disarmed. If the lock falls off the gate at the compound, the nukes won’t spontaneously explode. Antimatter is always “armed” and is only rendered safe by containment. If containment fails, it explodes. It’s more like keeping a massive stockpile of fluorine, but somehow worse and harder to contain.
• fragmede 7mo ago
  Not to be dramatic, but wouldn't that level of destruction threaten all life on Earth? After the immediate destruction of the first county, extreme climate change would cause the same kind of problems as nuclear winter would, no?
  • TheOtherHobbes 7mo ago
    Antimatter bombs are not a realistic technology. Aside from the unsolved technical issues - many, and fatal - no country has the GDP needed to make 1g of antimatter, which would make an explosion around 40kT. We can't afford to blow up ourselves that way. There are plenty of other ways we can afford, so antimatter isn't top of anyone's worries.
  • drfloyd51 7mo ago
    But they were wrong and we were right!