Cleaner Nukes??

[HamaticBabylon]

We have heard about George Bush Rabble on about Smaller Nuclear weapons (Bunker busting missiles), but what would you say to a cleaner nuclear weapon, we know today that there is no hell in chance that any country would use a real Nuclear weapon today. But what if the Scientists came up with a way to make nukes cleaner would that change the perception of nuclear war.

 

[Azadre]

We have heard about George Bush Rabble on about Smaller Nuclear weapons (Bunker busting missiles), but what would you say to a cleaner nuclear weapon, we know today that there is no hell in chance that any country would use a real Nuclear weapon today. But what if the Scientists came up with a way to make nukes cleaner would that change the perception of nuclear war.

How would one go about cleaning a nuke?

 

[Shadylookin]

We have heard about George Bush Rabble on about Smaller Nuclear weapons (Bunker busting missiles), but what would you say to a cleaner nuclear weapon, we know today that there is no hell in chance that any country would use a real Nuclear weapon today. But what if the Scientists came up with a way to make nukes cleaner would that change the perception of nuclear war.

radiation is a side effect of fussion and fission. One cannot simply get rid of the radiation caused by nuclear weapons.

 

[LLXerxes]

if you try to make nukes cleaner, IMHO, it defeats the purpose

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Well if we cant get rid of the Radioactive fall out then we must invent a way to only achieve the Explosive power of Nuclear weapon......now for that all important How & Why question???

 

[Shadylookin]

Well if we cant get rid of the Radioactive fall out then we must invent a way to only achieve the Explosive power of Nuclear weapon......now for that all important How & Why question???

you could just carpet bomb the area I suppose.

 

[BasketCase]

The thing that makes a nuke "dirty" is completely unavoidable, as far as I know.

A nuke emits two deadly products: radiation, such as X-rays and gamma rays; and actual subatomic particles--free neutrons, alpha and beta particles, etc.

Radiation DOES NOT make matter radioactive! It's simply another form of heat. Infrared radiation coming from your stove is radiation from the red end of the spectrum; X-rays and gamma rays are exactly the same form of energy, except that they come from the blue end of the spectrum. Since X-rays and gamma rays have a higher frequency, they can penetrate your skin and burn you on the inside. That's what makes X-rays and gamma rays so dangerous.

Fallout, on the other hand, is produced when subatomic particles from the nuke are absorbed by the nucleus of a nearby atom, changing that atom's properties. A normal, friendly atom of non-radioactive carbon-12, if it absorbs a couple of neutrons, becomes radioactive carbon-14.

There might be some forms of nukes designed to emit lesser (or greater!) amounts of free subatomic particles, but in the end the one factor that makes a nuke "dirty" is if it's detonated close to the ground, exposing the ground to a larger amount of particles and producing more fallout. The fact that the blast wave pushes more of that fallout into the air doesn't make it any cleaner, either.

In the end, however, the basic idea of a nuke remains the same: to kill you.

 

[Bluemofia]

radiation is a side effect of fussion and fission. One cannot simply get rid of the radiation caused by nuclear weapons.

thermonuclear weapons cause little or no radiation (except for the blinding flash and infrared light) because their primary fuel is hydrogen Isotopes. they produce a few neutrons, but the neutrons aren't long lasting.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

You’re right there Basketcase, but my initial question was what if we had Cleaner Nukes...would we use them in real war??

 

[Bluemofia]

A normal, friendly atom of non-radioactive carbon-12, if it absorbs a couple of neutrons, becomes radioactive carbon-14.

carbon 14 is not very dangerous. it is commonly found when nitrogen 14 is turned into carbon 14.

There might be some forms of nukes designed to emit lesser (or greater!) amounts of free subatomic particles, but in the end the one factor that makes a nuke "dirty" is if it's detonated close to the ground, exposing the ground to a larger amount of particles and producing more fallout. The fact that the blast wave pushes more of that fallout into the air doesn't make it any cleaner, either.

there are neutron bombs that it's primary purpose is to spread neutrons all around and kill people. it can only destroy poorly constructed buildings.

ex: the 1st and 2nd little pig's houses

 

[cgannon64]

You can't make them cleaner, but you can make them smaller. And I don't see what would be bad about a small nuke. Then again, if you are making them small, you can use a regular bomb. (Less it is more cost effective to use a small nuke, then I can see the point.)

 

[Amenhotep7]

It defeats the purpose, and it's impossible... So one can not defeat the purpose.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

You’re right there Basketcase, but my initial question was what if we had Cleaner Nukes...would we use them in real war??

Very small, low yield, 'bunker busters' - yes, they would be used.

Large ones - no (unless a couple superpowers went crazy).

Goal in modern combat for Western nations is to eliminate collateral damage. This is done by small targeted destruction of enemy military forces. Clean bunker busters would help that by being able to destroy bunkers in cities without damaging the buildings above, large bombs would make it worse and would not be acceptable politically.

 

[Shaihulud]

Fusion bomb is 100% clean and no lingering radioactive trace. The radioactive traces in thermonuclear bomb are from the fission device used to start the fusion process. To start a fusion reaction we need intense heat. WIth the advent in particle physics and the creation of minute anti-matter sub atomic particle we might be able to use it to initiate a fusion process making a clean hydrogen bomb. However the creation of antimatter is a tedious process but can be reduced if government bodies decide that it is feasible. ANtimatter are short lived because they react with normal particles. A process have to be invented to shield them and contain them, however the science we have now are up to par if we decide we need it we can do it.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Fusion bomb is 100% clean and no lingering radioactive trace.

We can't even get Normal cold Fusion to work, let alone a weapon!

 

[Shaihulud]

We can't even get Normal cold Fusion to work, let alone a weapon!

You are wrong. Thermonuclear bomb works by fusion reaction, uncontrolled fusion reaction. Cold fusion is a daydream of controlled fusion that has been proven not to work several times. Controlled fusion is fusion reaction where you can start and stop the reaction.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Cold fusion is a daydream of controlled fusion that has been proven not to work several times. Controlled fusion is fusion reaction where you can start and stop the reaction.

Using magnetic rings to hold a two sub-atomic particles fused together is a step in the right direction but to stop at start as you please, it a totally different level. We are at the stage of understanding why the particles fuse together and what's the best method; right know, to hold the fusion process.

To build a bomb out of fusion based principle, is going to require understand of cold fusion and sub-atomic manipulation (we must move away from magnetic rings since they are to unstable), a stage we are fare from yet.

 

[Falcon02]

The problem with Thermonuclear bombs is that in order to initiate the Fusion reaction it uses a small Fission Nuke, which does emit radiation. The Fission reaction provides the heat and overall energy required to initiate the subsequent Fusion.

Above is a diagraim of a B28 Thermonuclear warhead, note the Plutonium and Uranium-238 twoards the top of the bomb

If I'm not mistaken the Tritium/Deuterium located at the bottom of the diagram is the feul for the subsequent Fusion reaction.

Here is the site I got it from

As you'll notice there is a design for a PURE Fusion warhead however the author states....

It does not appear, however, that significant releases of fusion energy have ever actually been produced by such systems, much less been developed into usable weapons. Given the very low energy density in conventional high explosives compared to fissile material, such a system (even if feasible) is certain to be far larger and heavier than fission driven neutron bombs. Since the principal cost factor in a neutron bomb is the very expensive tritium used as a fusion fuel, it is doubtful any cost advantage would exist either.

 

[Shaihulud]

Using magnetic rings to hold a two sub-atomic particles fused together is a step in the right direction but to stop at start as you please, it a totally different level. We are at the stage of understanding why the particles fuse together and what's the best method; right know, to hold the fusion process.

To build a bomb out of fusion based principle, is going to require understand of cold fusion and sub-atomic manipulation (we must move away from magnetic rings since they are to unstable), a stage we are fare from yet.

You meant the Tokamak, that is controlled fusion, that is not cold fusion please. Cold fusion is alternative science. As I said a thermonuclear device works principally by fusion perhaps I will explain myself.

Thermonuclear device is a 3 stage nuclear device. 1st stage is to initiate a fission reaction by compressing uranium 235. To compress it you surrond the uranium with high explosives. To achieve optimum fission process the shape the uraniums, mass, and timing of the explosive must be calibrated accordingly. The 2nd stage is the fission process itself. The heat of the fission process fuses the hydrogen within the bomb and causes a fusion reaction stage 3.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

Cleaner nukes aren't possible yet. The neutron bomb is as close as we have got to a clean nuclear bomb. It is true that a nuclear fusion bomb is 100% clean but in order to detonate it, fission is required because it is currently only possible method to produce enough heat for the Tritium and Deuterium to fuse together. Like stated before if we could use Antimatter we could create a efficient bomb but why use Antimatter for just detonating we could use antimatter bombs to create a more powerful weapon than any nuclear weapon ever to exist and be 100% free.

What do you guys think about an Antimatter bomb?


EDIT: I may be wrong but isn't Tritium a radioactive isotope of hydrogen or am i confusing something else?