Skip to main content

Timeline for answer to How to make nukes useless? by jdunlop

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

Post Revisions

11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 13, 2019 at 22:32 history edited jdunlop CC BY-SA 4.0
added 21 characters in body
Sep 13, 2019 at 22:20 comment added jdunlop Let us continue this discussion in chat.
Sep 13, 2019 at 22:20 comment added user458 I didn't know that. So can they theoretically be made without fission?
Sep 13, 2019 at 22:18 comment added jdunlop We have fusion bombs now. That's what thermonuclear weapons are. They require a fission initiator.
Sep 13, 2019 at 22:17 comment added user458 For scientific advancement, a decade is concurrent. Now they'd have fusion bombs too. Same problem persists.
Sep 13, 2019 at 22:16 comment added jdunlop Not necessarily, see paragraph 2: "Careful exclusion areas were developed for nuclear research and power generation, but in a decade, overlapping fields covered most of the populated area of the planet."
Sep 13, 2019 at 22:15 comment added user458 Stable and safe fusion would have to be invented concurrently, to replace the unreliable fission.
Sep 13, 2019 at 22:13 comment added user458 I meant fission. Autocorrect fubar. We're currently using fission reactors in many of our massive war machines.
Sep 13, 2019 at 22:10 comment added jdunlop @fredsbend Why would fusion power be unreliable? Fusion depends on internuclear collisions, rather than neutron flux, so slowing neutrons and forcing them to emit their energy as photons actually makes fusion power more usable, because you don't have to have blankets of low-density material to capture high-energy neutrons.
Sep 13, 2019 at 22:06 comment added user458 But fusion power is also unreliable now, which means all the future space stuff OP wants might not come to fruition.
Sep 13, 2019 at 22:00 history answered jdunlop CC BY-SA 4.0