Timeline for answer to How to make nukes useless? by celtschk
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2019 at 13:04 | comment | added | Congenital Optimist | @celtschk Point taken, the fusion reactor will not explode. Fissionless hydrogen bomb is not feasible because to ignite the fusion we need fission ... or huge lasers. However, when we have compact fusion reactor, it also means that we have compact igniter. | |
| Sep 17, 2019 at 10:17 | comment | added | celtschk | @jdunlop: Well, a space-fairing civilization might be quite power hungry. Also, weapon-grade material has higher requirements than power plant fuel. With nuclear waste, you can make a dirty bomb, but no nuke. | |
| Sep 17, 2019 at 10:13 | comment | added | celtschk | @CongenitalOptimist: Then this optimized power plant will do even less damage. The fact that a failing fusion plant will never explode doesn't change. The big difference between fission and fusion is that for fission bombs, you just need enough fissile material at one place. For fusion, on the other hand, you actually have to force the nuclei to fuse. That's so hard that you need a nuke to start if in the thermonuclear bomb. For power plants, fission plants basically control fission, while fusion plants force fusion. If a fusion plant fails, fusion simply stops. No explosion whatsoever. | |
| Sep 17, 2019 at 8:12 | comment | added | Congenital Optimist | @celtschk The reactor will be a building only in first iteration. Some generations of technology forward it will fit in a car, airplane or spacecraft. Same way as certain country has recently experimented with fission-powered rocket engine. It blew up but I bet lot was learned from it. | |
| Sep 16, 2019 at 18:56 | comment | added | jdunlop | That... would have to be a lot of use. Even if recoverable mined uranium were used up (and thorium), it could be recovered from seawater virtually indefinitely at a higher price. Given the economics of nuclear power, that would still be worthwhile, and would promote more efficient reactors to boot. On top of that, volatile fissiles created as waste from power generation could be used as bomb material, even if all the power generation potential had been used up. | |
| Sep 16, 2019 at 4:28 | comment | added | celtschk | @CongenitalOptimist: Dropping a huge building on your enemy is not practical. And if the containment of a fusion plant fails, fusion simply stops, as the plasma disperses. There definitely will not be not an explosion. The main damage would be done by a building falling on your head. | |
| Sep 15, 2019 at 22:27 | comment | added | Congenital Optimist | If you have a fusion reactor then you can simply throw it at the enemy. It will bounce couple of times and the containment will fail. | |
| Sep 15, 2019 at 7:23 | history | answered | celtschk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |