- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,927
Antimatter Armageddonator.
You're going to make me ask, aren't you?
Antimatter Armageddonator.
You're going to make me ask, aren't you?
Another idea, unrelated to missiles, but related to mass destruction: "Doomsday Device" National Wonder. Build it in some city. Then, whenever you feel like, you can detonate it either from city-screen somewhere, or maybe it actually can come out like a unit which can't move or fight. Detonation basically destroys a good half of your continent (turning anything into archipelago with small 1-hex islands), and ravages all other continents pretty badly (random destruction of land, new mountains appear from nowhere, apocalypse now).
Wikipedia said:In essence, the TellerUlam configuration relies on at least two instances of implosion occurring: first, the conventional (chemical) explosives in the primary would compress the fissile core, resulting in a fission explosion many times more powerful than that which chemical explosives could achieve alone. Second, the radiation from the fissioning of the primary would be used to compress and ignite the secondary, resulting in a fusion explosion many times more powerful than the fission explosion alone. This chain of compression could then be continued with an arbitrary number of secondaries, and would end with the fissioning of the natural uranium tamper, something which could not normally be achieved without the neutron flux provided by the fusion reactions in the secondary. Such a design can be scaled up to an arbitrary strength, potentially to the level of a doomsday device, though usually such weapons are not more than a dozen megatons, which is generally considered enough to destroy even the largest practical targets.
I took his idea and decided to make it into an antimatter explosion instead of a form of nuclear fission. It is a true Planet Buster.
Fission can only be derived from (as far as we know) shooting subatomic particles at an atom which then blows up and shoot's it's subatomic particles at other atoms. Although this is considered fission it can technically be called fusion even though it causes the atom to be destroyed. The Tsar Bomb was the largest fission bomb ever detonated and caused more radiation than any other. The only problem is that before the the 60's no one knew what radiation was and had very limited geiker counters and couldn't get a proper reading on how much there really was. Nuclear fusion on the other hand is a rare thing on earth, the only place or thing that does it regularly is the (fairly new) Swiss supercollider. Instead of colliding two photons to make an electron and positron, it collides two atoms.I'm fairly sure current atomic weapons at least partly draw their energy from nuclear fusion, as per Teller-Ulam two-staged designs. The largest bomb ever detonated, the 50-megaton Soviet Tsar Bomba (tested in 1961) derived almost 97% of its energy from fusion. I'm no nuclear physicist, but as far as I know, the difference between fission and fusion is not the power, but the fact the latter's "cleaner" in that it produces less fallout. Nuclear fusion's technically safer, too, so that's another advantage a fusion power plant would have over a fission one.
A fusion bomb unit wouldn't be that different from the conventional ICBM as far as strength is concerned, but it'd generate less radiation tiles.
Not everything on Wikipedia can be trusted; this example is talking about a theory of a weapon, no such thing has ever been created even though the entry implies that there is a 'regular size'.If you want stronger nukes, you may be looking for multi-staged missiles.
Other types of nuclear weapons include:
- Neutron bombs, which are specially constructed so more of the bomb's energy is emitted as neutrons instead of x-rays. The neutron radiation would decimate population (and maybe units) but deal a lot less damage to buildings and tile improvements.In essence, the TellerUlam configuration relies on at least two instances of implosion occurring: first, the conventional (chemical) explosives in the primary would compress the fissile core, resulting in a fission explosion many times more powerful than that which chemical explosives could achieve alone. Second, the radiation from the fissioning of the primary would be used to compress and ignite the secondary, resulting in a fusion explosion many times more powerful than the fission explosion alone. This chain of compression could then be continued with an arbitrary number of secondaries, and would end with the fissioning of the natural uranium tamper, something which could not normally be achieved without the neutron flux provided by the fusion reactions in the secondary. Such a design can be scaled up to an arbitrary strength, potentially to the level of a doomsday device, though usually such weapons are not more than a dozen megatons, which is generally considered enough to destroy even the largest practical targets.
- Salted/cobalt warheads, which contain blankets of cobalt or zinc to make large quantities of deadly radioactive dust. This would result in additional radiation tiles, perhaps balanced by a lesser explosive force.
I see you have already considered anti-matter bombs, which would work very well as apocalyptic weapons. Zomgmeister's idea would make them very interesting. I'd add to that suggesting even a new type of victory: the first ruler to construct the device could threaten to use it unless the world surrendered to him. Each surrendered nation would become part of his, and civs which refused to yield would have to either face the might of the madman's suddenly enlarged empire, or withstand the massive, planet-scarring anti-matter detonation (madman's choice). If everyone surrendered at once, it'd be a Doomsday victory, or something.
That's not true, and this isn't just Wikipedia:Fission can only be derived from (as far as we know) shooting subatomic particles at an atom which then blows up and shoot's it's subatomic particles at other atoms. Although this is considered fission it can technically be called fusion even though it causes the atom to be destroyed. The Tsar Bomb was the largest fission bomb ever detonated and caused more radiation than any other. The only problem is that before the the 60's no one knew what radiation was and had very limited geiker counters and couldn't get a proper reading on how much there really was. Nuclear fusion on the other hand is a rare thing on earth, the only place or thing that does it regularly is the (fairly new) Swiss supercollider. Instead of colliding two photons to make an electron and positron, it collides two atoms.
Nuclear Weapon Archive said:The device offically designated RDS-220, known to its designers as Big Ivan, and nicknamed in the west Tsar Bomba (and referred to as the Big Bomb by Sakharov in his Memoirs [Sakharov 1990]) was the largest nuclear weapon ever constructed or detonated. This three stage weapon was actually a 100 megaton bomb design, but the uranium fusion stage tamper of the tertiary (and possibly the secondary) stage(s) was replaced by one(s) made of lead. This reduced the yield by 50% by eliminating the fast fissioning of the uranium tamper by the fusion neutrons, and eliminated 97% of the fallout (1.5 megatons of fission, instead of about 51.5 Mt), yet still proved the full yield design. The result was the "cleanest" weapon ever tested with 97% of the energy coming from fusion reactions. The effect of this bomb at full yield on global fallout would have been tremendous. It would have increased the world's total fission fallout since the invention of the atomic bomb by 25%.
Source: http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html
As I said earlier, if you want more powerful nukes, you're probably looking at more stages per weapon. I can probably find non-wiki sources to back that up as well. Realistically fusion makes things "cleaner" but that's about it.Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars said:Ninety-seven percent of the power of the 50-MT bomb derived from thermonuclear fusion; that is to say, the bomb was remarkably “clean” and released a minimum of fission by-products which would elevate background radiation in the atmosphere. Thanks to this, our U.S. colleagues understood that our scientists also desired to reduce to a minimum the radioactive aftereffects of nuclear testing, as well as to lessen the effect of radiation on present and future generations.
Source PDF: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACF1B7.pdf
Wikipedia said:The fireball reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane and was seen and felt almost 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) from ground zero. The heat from the explosion could have caused third-degree burns 100 km (62 miles) away from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 64 kilometres (40 mi) high (nearly seven times the height of Mount Everest), which meant that the cloud was well inside the Mesosphere when it peaked.
On another note: Is SDI supposed to be cheaper than an ICBM?
=_= SDI cheaper than an ICBM ... you really need to change it.
BTW. I have a question, according to your current works, is it necessary that terraforming must have a SDK support?