posted
I saw Rick's offer to answer science questions in another thread, but I didn't feel like derailing that thread with my own questions.
This may not be entirely a science question. For a side-project I'm writing, I need a device/technology that meets the criteria below. I've been assuming it would have to be made up, but I thought I'd see what ideas are out there, first.
1. It is a bomb (but was developed as a cheap energy source) 2. It's powerful enough to level a city the size of LA 3. Once discovered, a high school student could build it with some training 4. It's made from cheap materials 5. It's portable enough to be carried by a single person
It's more of an ethics/philosophy piece, so I'm okay if I have to go the made-up route. Mostly, I'd like some authenticity when I reference the technology behind the device, if possible.
posted
Sounds like a "desktop fusion bomb." I've never read any talk about weaponizing this would-be energy-source technology, but you could google the topic.
Suitcase nuclear devices are certainly in the news, but this fails the "could be made by a kid," rule, but perhaps not the "could be stolen by a kid" rule.
posted
Sounds like you're writing an episode of this past season's "24" which involved suitcase nukes in various cities (part of L.A. was blown up - I don't remember where else - I got bored with it and stopped watching). Watching it might give you a better visual idea of what you're talking about, though. Just an idea.
posted
Before I even get into the science I need to point out that the problem is your criteria are all almost entirely self contradicting. The following are explained with [b]and[b] signifying the negating factor to the previous variable(s) except where parentheses indicate combinations of factors that are likely to be present together but are negated by the variable following and.
cheap and highly effective
(small and cheap) and highly effective
(small and highly effective) easy to build (small and easy to build) and highly effective
(cheap and easy to build) and highly effective
(cheap and highly effective) and small
Now to science. Take the first law of thermodyanmics and that alone gives you some headaches then add in Newton's Third Law of motion and that gives you still more headaches.
Let me give you a brief primer on explosives.
Energy is how explosions are effective. The more energy the bigger the explosion. However as Heinlein noted in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress nuclear weapons are not exceptionally efficient. There is in fact a lot of wasted energy in a nuclear explosion that could wreak much more damage if it was so unbridled.
This is in part why in most "smart" thrillers the guy using Semtex/C4 isn't just throwing around chunks and exploding them. Rather a proficient munitions expert should be taking the time to create shaped charges in order to make the most efficient use of the energy stored in the Semtex.
There exists currently only two known ways to generate enough energy to level and entire city and still fit in a suitcase or backpack.
The first is obviously nuclear warhead ala Peacemaker (starring George Clooney and Nicole Kidman) and the second is the slightly less obvious anti-matter (ala Angels and Demons by Dan Brown).
Neither of these will ever likely be plausibly do able by basement chemists.
That being said why do you need to threaten the entire city of LA/NY?
Would your story work to just threaten around a 1 mile radius? or less?
I suggest this because the amount of energy required is less thus the need for a super bomb.
For example it is currently possible for a private citizen to get their hands on a large quantity of hydrogen gas either through purchase or through a home system that pulls it out of the air in order to power the house.
Hydrogen is a highly combustible gas and provided it was highly pressurized and enough other "conventional" explosives were applied the devestation could be quite severe.
Likewise if you really wanted to "make up" stuff the only way you'd get a cheap energy source that claim that Acme Home improvement now sells a create your own anti-matter kit or something.
Really though your 5 needs are really stretching the bounds of credibility. Space opera (ie fake science) could do this but really its not something that sits well in modern settings, especially when the setting of the story is in the US.
I mean really in a post 9-11 world there's no way 16 year old kids (even smart ones) will be given access to even the most fundamental elements to make super explosives.
I mean nukes really aren't that hard to make but it just requires some enriched uranium or plutonium and that's where the nukes for everybody theory breaks down.
quote:I mean really in a post 9-11 world there's no way 16 year old kids (even smart ones) will be given access to even the most fundamental elements to make super explosives.
That's actually the point of the story. It's not so much about the technology, as the threat of such technology and the suppression of knowledge. I realize its not the most original theme.
Thus, stealing really is out of the question, too.
But a smaller detonation would still get the idea across.
Everything you stated, Matt Lust, is why I assumed I would have to go with Bolognium in the first place.
posted
I think the type of bomb could be both easy to consruct and cheap, but to 'level' a city the size of LA by such a bomb I would suggest another factor for your consideration, location. A small bomb can wreck havok if placed in the right spot at the right time. Place a match in a fireworks store and you blow up several blocks, if said fireworks store is next to three gas stations then the explosion would be bigger. All you need to do in your story to level a city is to find the biggest bang for your buck (Literally) then find the most flammable place you can for it's detonation. It may be 'cheating' but honestly it makes the threat so much greater because the villain is pretty darn smart to come up with a twisted plan like that, even if he/she is only in high school I have a few friends that if they weren't addicted to video games could have easily taken over the world before their 18th birthday.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In LA a smaller bomb might work because you could drop it in a fault. What about a cold fusion bomb?
Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
did you consider a bomb made of Heinleinium? It's much smaller, more efficient explosive, and stable as well. All you need is a sufficient amount, packed in tube that can be exposed at the right moment to a vial of . . . a vial of ginnium! yeah, that's it! Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you want is PyrE, but Alfred Bester already invented that.
The fusion thing has been done to death, though cold fusion has some possibilities. You mix margarine and cold cream, and ... no, never mind.
I do have one thing that would work, but I'm saving it for a story of my own.
Here's an idea I'm willing to share. Everybody knows about wormholes, but nobody has given much thought to the worms. A kid who never comes out of his basement except at night and who reads biology books and breeds silkworms (whenever he isn't playing Worlds of Warcraft or masturbating to internet porn) discovers an insect (not really a worm, that would be too obvious) who mates by being in two places at once. Since the method is biological, he doesn't need expensive hardware, he just needs to breed a particular bug that can join two very distant points.
He points the bug at the heart of the sun. There goes Los Angeles.
[This message has been edited by Rick Norwood (edited July 20, 2007).]
posted
How about WMDs--Weapons of Mass Delusion: take control of some cable TV feed heads and broadcast on all channels some War of the Worlds type hysteria, which will cause a critical mass of panic, rioting and iPod theft?
Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you need to level the city, or just kill everyone in it? If the latter, I think your best bet is a biological weapon. You would have to make some assumptions, but might not have to actually make things up. To actually level the city, a nuke is your best bet but you run into the problem of how a kid in his basement could get the materials.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
lehollis, you just need to invent some fictional form of energy, like the "crisis energy" in China Mieville's Perdido Street Station. That was interesting, original, and had no basis whatsoever in science. I suggest that you use your imagination rather than relying on science.
But if you go the science route, consider something beyong chemistry and neuclear physics. Maybe dark matter or energy from a parallel universe would do.
I think that is the conclusion I'm coming to, actually. While there are many close option from science, none really fit all my criteria, (though some criteria are more flexible than others.)
Energy from another universe--interesting idea, actually. I may mix that with another idea that was lingering from above.
posted
I was thinking once of how to be cost effective in the destruction of an entire city for a novel once. I did stray away from getting to creative though, because I did not want to give other people any ideas. How ever I did think of one that gave me chills when I heard on the news people complaining about the odd smell in New York.
I was thinking the most cost effective way to destroy an entire city was either A) join the nuclear club and make a bomb yourself. Trouble is getting the materials for splitting. B) Pump some sort of extremely volatile chemical into the water and sewage system. (a smell could be noticed) Trigger it will a smaller more controlled explosion. You can also ties this into the various refineries in the LA area. Who knows if done large enough and properly you might even give the fault line a bit of a nudge but I would not know about that much.
posted
There are, as Matt Lust pointed out, many problems science wise with what you are suggesting. Therefore I would suggest that you use something like fall out to help you with making your city of choice uninhabitable instead of leveling it. There is a good report produced by the government that I have referenced a couple of times, "The Effects Of thermonuclear War," that covers the fall out and other factors of even a very small weapon and on a major metropolitan area. I think their choice was Detroit. Most college libraries will have a copy of this just ask where the section of government publications are. You might even be able to find it on-line. The problems of some sort of fallout are much easier to deal with than trying to level an entire city. All you have to do is kick up enough dust with your explosion, contaminated with your agent, high enough in the air to get prevailing winds and you can wipe out huge population centers. Pick a device that works in two stages, one that will kick up the dust (the bang) and one that then contaminates it some how and there you have it. Something else of note that I don't think most people are aware of, most college libraries are open to the public, you just can't check things out if you are not a student. There you can find all kinds of research on "agents" you could use for you second stage as well as the publication that I just discussed. If you need I might have some of the photo copies of some of the charts and graphs hanging around. I will have to dig for them if I have them at all anymore, but I can look if you want.
Posts: 95 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean really in a post 9-11 world there's no way 16 year old kids (even smart ones) will be given access to even the most fundamental elements to make super explosives.
I mean nukes really aren't that hard to make but it just requires some enriched uranium or plutonium and that's where the nukes for everybody theory breaks down.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
