FAQ Search
Memberlist Usergroups
Profile
  Forum Statistics Register
 Log in to check your private messages
Log in to check your private messages
Moonpod Homepage Starscape Information Mr. Robot Information Free Game Downloads Starscape Highscore Table
nuclear weapons (are bad)
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> General View previous topic :: View next topic  
 Author
Message
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:51 am    Post subject: nuclear weapons (are bad) Reply with quote

and thare are cleen nukes which is basicly a H-bomb that uses lasers insted of a nuke to detonate it so thare is no fallout (thare is radation but it only lasts 1 weak)

Last edited by icarus on Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Johnh



Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 160



PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are also neutron bombs. There is no explosion, just pure radiation. The radiation is meant to kill all biological life within minutes. No explosion (or rather, a very small one), but a lot of radiation. The radiation dissappates incredibly quickly - within microseconds. But by the time it does, complex biological molecules would be broken down within 500 yards of the detonation. Mind you, complex biological molecules include people. Sooooo, it's useful for: killing people with out damaging vehicles and structures (like tanks and bridges). I do not know if it releases an EMP shockwave - thus destroying any and all electrical circuits. This would be an interesting super weapon - aim it at a super tank, kills the driver, take an infantry to the immobilized tank, and take it over =)
Back to top
View user's profile
Degraine



Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 27



PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed, neutron bombs (aka, 'dirty nukes') are the weapons most fitting the description of 'kills people but leaves buildings standing'.

As a side note, Total Annihilation had neutron warheads for the Core side that would kill Arm units, but leave Core units unaffected (even if they weren't on your side!) and EMP warheads for Arm that did the exact opposite. And of course the plain ol' nuke, that ever-constant weapon of unquestionable mass-destruction.
Back to top
View user's profile
HunterXI



Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 476
Location: Playing like there is no tomorrow.



PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Um, Icarus, I thought H-bombs were bombs that had a Nuke encased in a Hydrogen atmosphere. The concept was that the explosion was much more powerful because only the Hydrogrn could detonate the shell open, which took valueble milliseconds, concentrating the blast.

must get sleep.
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

no a

A-Bomb uses a high explosive to crush a spheer of enriched ureanem which causes a nuculer chain reaction and turnis matter into energy
the fallout is tiny fragments of ureanim left over from the blast
thare is also some addtional radition from the fision this lasts about 5 days

a H-Bomb uses a A-Bomb to crush hidrogen to create an evean bigger chain reaction and turn more matter into energy
however thare is still fallout beacuse thare is still unrnaim involved
aggen thare is some addtional radition from the fision this lasts about 5 days

a "cleen" nuke is a h-bomb that uses lasers insted of a A-bomb to crush hidrogen causing a chain reaction and turning matter into energy
beacuse thare is no radiocted metteral thare is no fallout
however thare is still the 5 day radation from the hole matter to energy thing
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Pithlit



Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 24



PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

terrain doesn´s has to be transformed by weapons only.
If this was implemented we could have units, especially infantry to bury themselves so they get less damage form exp weapons and are not se easy seen!
Back to top
View user's profile
limulus



Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 14



PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A-Bomb uses a high explosive to crush a spheer of enriched ureanem which causes a nuculer chain reaction and turnis matter into energy
the fallout is tiny fragments of ureanim left over from the blast
thare is also some addtional radition from the fision this lasts about 5 days

a H-Bomb uses a A-Bomb to crush hidrogen to create an evean bigger chain reaction and turn more matter into energy
however thare is still fallout beacuse thare is still unrnaim involved
aggen thare is some addtional radition from the fision this lasts about 5 days

a "clean" nuke is a h-bomb that uses lasers insted of a A-bomb to crush hidrogen causing a chain reaction and turning matter into energy
beacuse thare is no radiocted metteral thare is no fallout
however thare is still the 5 day radation from the hole matter to energy thing



I think it's time to make a couple things clear here. The following can be looked up in any book about warfare that deals with the cold war era (there are quite a lot out there) and in many books about nuclear physics.


- There are two types of nuclear chain reaction: FISSION and FUSION (a third type, known as cold fusion, was supposedly discovered by Fleischmann & Pons in the late eighties, but never reproduced). Fission is the process where a neutron splits a heavy nucleus (such as Uranium or Plutonium) into two lighter nuclei, releasing two neutrons (which keep the chain reaction going) and some energy from mass/energy conversion. The energy yield of Fission is about 0.25% of the "input mass".

- Fusion does the exact opposite: Two very light nuclei (usually Deuterium or Tritium, both of them Hydrogen isotopes) are combined to yield a larger nucleus (usually Helium). They lose mass in the process for a total energy yield of up to 4% (traditional power plants that run with oil or coal have a mass energy yield of somewhere around 0.0000000001%, black holes that suck up mass convert 70% of the mass into electromagnetic radiation, matter/antimatter collisions have a yield of 100%).

- Traditional nukes consist of a ball of radioactive material (U-238 or Pu-241) surrounded by explosives which, when ignited, compress the ball to start the chain reaction. As every nucleus that is split in the process releases two neutrons, an exploding nuke causes, in addition to the huge explosion from the energy released, lots of strong neutron radiation. This radiation causes, among other things, DNA strand breaks in living cells, resulting in mutations and cancer.

- Dirty nukes come in two flavors: One is a traditional nuke where, besides the ball of radioactive material, the nuke contains shards of radioactive material that is not used in the chain reaction but spread over a radius of several miles to make the area where it detonates inhabitable for years to come, the other one also contains those shards (usually an Iodine isotope) but launches them with traditional explosives, like TNT, therefore not requiring a nuke to use them.

- Hydrogen bombs are actually Tritium bombs. Here, the fission from a traditional nuke starts the fusion in the tritium. Advantage: only a small nuke is needed to start the chain reaction, yet the fusion results in a larger explosion than traditional fission. IMPORTANT: The fusion itself causes NO radiation besides neutron radiation. It is NOT radioactive.

- Therefore, scientists have attempted to build hydrogen bombs that work without a nuke to get them going. One of the theories how this could work was to use strong lasers to start the fission. However, NONE of those attempts have been successful so far!!! There is no "clean" hydrogen bomb and, since the cold war is over and modern warfare is mostly "scaled down" guerilla warfare where infantry and artillery matter most chances are this bomb will never be developed. And I daresay this is good since we definitely don't need another cold war where each nation has 5000 "clean" nukes pointed at the other nations.


Well maybe I got carried away a little here but I hope this answers most questions concerning nukes.
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thats almoast exacty what i sead only whith bigger words

however the us government (and me) dissagrys whith you on the cleen nuke part (thay have funded progects to make cleen nukes but than aggen thay have funded some pritty wierd things in the past) therecticly a bunch of lasers would work but the main problem is powering the lasers

also i dount think you could use cold fuision to make a bomb beacuse it is COLD fuision
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
limulus



Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 14



PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
also i dount think you could use cold fuision to make a bomb beacuse it is COLD fuision


That's right, this is why scientists thought cold fusion would be the end of all energy problems in this world, since no one can use this technology to build a bomb and even a small cold fusion "bottle" could provide electricity for a normal household for several hundred years. Predictions were made that, by the year 2000, you would be able to buy a cold fusion bottle for around 10 grand that would cover all your energy needs. Quite obviously, this is not the case, since shortly after the "discovery" of cold fusion, its inventors were contradicted by two french scientists who said cold fusion was in fact impossible. They were actually being ridiculed and afaik they never ever recieved any money again to conduct research.
There are also theories, however, that the big petrol companies (who else) discovered the threat cold fusion posed to them and bribed and threatened some people so it would not be made available to the public. Then the day the french said cold fusion was impossible was a 23rd, so maybe the Illuminatii were behind it after all...
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i beleave the conspeasy theroy
its just like how the big oild coumponys told the hippys that nukes wer dangorus

libarials are so easy to munipulate just tell them somethigns "wrong" and thay jump to "fix" it
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
HunterXI



Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 476
Location: Playing like there is no tomorrow.



PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fusion: A nuclear reaction in which nuclei combine to form more massive nuclei with the simultaneous release of energy

Cold Fusion: A hypothetical form of nuclear fusion occurring without the use of extreme temperature or pressure.

And Icarus: Nukes are dangerous. Didn't you ever learn about the cold war? You were probably alive during part of it.
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HunterXI wrote:

And Icarus: Nukes are dangerous. Didn't you ever learn about the cold war? You were probably alive during part of it.


not nukeuler bombs nukler power plants
a modern reactor is verry safe and you are more likely to get cancer in a coall mine than a nukeler power plant

pluss thare are pebble bead reactors that are inposable to melt down no matter how hard you try


btw i was born in 1989 the cold war ended in the mid 80s
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Degraine



Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 27



PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

icarus wrote:
not nukeuler bombs nukler power plants
a modern reactor is verry safe and you are more likely to get cancer in a coall mine than a nukeler power plant


Ummm...don't trust everything you read. More to the point, I think you're forgetting about the extremely nasty byproducts produced by nuclear reactors. Sure, methods such as photodeactivation are being worked on to reduce the decay cycle from thousands of years to days, but we're certainly not at the point where nuclear power plants can be treated with the same 'safe' regard they had back in the fifties. Nor should they be. If Chernobyl and Three Mile Island aren't warning enough, then there's no hope.

Also: Cold Fusion, examined by Wired.com. The failure of cold fusion is essentially the result of clashing egos within the scientific community. It has been proven to work, but it's notoriously inconsistent thanks to the unpredictable nature of palladium.

(insert a 'The More You Know' image here, since I can't find a suitable pic to use)
Back to top
View user's profile
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What worries me are the scores of extremely poor countries following the same technological development path as the west but lagging by about 30-40 years. Places like Nother Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran and others all have nuklear power programs up and running. Are they going to make the same mistakes we did? How many more 3 mile islands are on the way? What about all the nuklear facilities from the former soviet union now in the hands of fledgling countries that cannot afford to maintain them. What is the UN doing to help them?

eek!
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 6:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

in a MODERN power plant (the iranaiens can just fry themselves for all i care)
the only problem is desposing of the waste whith is easer than it looks just but it in a led casket and buring it somewhare
personlay i woundent mind if someone burryed one in my backyard (provided thay pay me first)

and pebble nead reactors are litarly IMPOSABLE to melt down and thay are cheap and easy to build (thay can be mass prodused)
you see insted of countrool rods in boiling watter we have grafite balls whith ureanim cores floating in healim [He][2] which cant reach as high tempetures as watter so it cant melt the reactor no matter how hard you try

pluss thay can be massproduced

china is exparmenting whith them to solve thare energy crisis
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> General All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group