6

In the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Resolutions", Voyager ejects an antimatter container and blows it up to disable three Vidiian ships.

Why wouldn't they keep extra containers around and use them more often if they are that effective?

Why wouldn't this technique be utilized more often, especially by Voyager, since they have a limited supply of photons?

  • 1
    Because anti-matter is very hard to make and because subspace mines are hard to use. See how close they came to being destroyed themselves? What if the warp engines had decided to crap out at that exact moment? – Valorum May 9 '15 at 8:31
20

Well, technically they already do, they're called photon torpedoes.

From Memory Alpha:

The weapon was armed with a photon warhead. The warhead had a detonation chamber filled with antimatter. Upon detonation the torpedo created a matter-antimatter explosion and a flood of ion radiation

So they're a maneuverable animatter container, just much smaller than a dedicated antimatter pod used by the warp core that can only be dumped as a mine. Dumping their fuel as a weapon can only be done so many times before they're left without power.

-1

For the same reason why we have nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs.

A nuclear reactor could very well serve as a nuclear bomb and is actually much more powerful. However nuclear reactors are huge and designed to stay in one place. Nuclear bombs on the other side are relatively small and can easily be attached to a missile. The missile will then deliver the bomb to the target. Imagine trying to deliver the reactor to the intended target.

I haven't watched the episodes for years now and don't even remember the referenced one, but looks like the Voyager crew had lots of luck or used some kind of deception to succeed in the given case.

  • Also, nuclear reactor cores are surrounded by moderator material making the nuclear reaction much-much slower. All reactor explosions so far are the result of the moderator material exploding/vaporizing instead of nuclear explosions. The bang you'd get trying to use a reactor as a bomb is much-much less given the amount of nuclear material – slebetman May 9 '15 at 20:46
  • No, nuclear reactors would not be usable as nuclear bombs. They can be used as a means of getting the material needed to make bombs, but would not work as nuclear bombs themselves. They can explode if things go very, very wrong, but it's a mechanical explosion of something (like water coolant/moderator) due to being heated, bot due to the fuel itself exploding as in a nuclear bomb. It's like the difference between a steam boiler exploding due to bean heated by a chemical fuelled fire vs a chemical explosive. – smithkm Sep 17 '16 at 5:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.