Nukes

[Mr. Blonde]

I think I have to add some knowledge on atomic particles and nuclear weapons here (I am currently working on my PhD in chemistry and have alot of physical and biological education ).

There are only these two possibilities to gain energy from nuclei: fission and fusion. Both are based on the difference of binding energies between protons and neutrons in different nuclei. The energy minimum is around Iron, He is also a very stable nucleus. The fission of large nuclei into medium sized ones sets energy free as well as the fusion of very small ones into larger ones. To initiate a reaction it is neccessary to overcome the so called activation energy like in any chemical reaction. The fusion of T and D to He + n needs the energy of a fission reaction to ignite.
Sir Schwick, I dont know of which third and fourth stages you are speaking of, but they are either other fusion processes than the T + D reaction or mere science fiction.
Neutrons are so dangerous because they have no charge (opposed to alpha particles which are in essence He++ nuclei or beta particles which are electrons) and therefore less likely to interact with matter. They can pass through thick metal walls and also through human bodies. To be protected from alpha and beta radiation your clothes or thin walls are enough because they will react there. If any of these particles interact they tend to ionise matter. Concrete or metal can endure the damage, the complex biochemical "machine", the human body not as all forms of chemical bonings are broken (not only DNA is affected). This has nothing to do with size but only with probability of interaction.
Gamma radiation is high energetic electromagnetic radiation (very short wavelength) which only occurrs at high energy events like nuclear reactions. Although it has high energy, it is also very unlikely to interact with matter (quantum physics-too hard to explain short and comprehensive). Its effects are also ionisation of matter.
The explosion itself is not caused by the formation of gases like a chemical explosion (There is in fact also a chemical explosion to start the fission process) but by setting free broad band radiation which heats up the surrounding atmosphere.

Fission bombs:atomic bombs (just basic devices)
n-bombs: maximise occurring neutrons
magnetopulse bombs: maximise electromagnetic radiation
output in I think µm range (to induce
current in microelectronic devices)


Fusion bombs: H-bombs
started with fission Thermonuclear bombs


A cell has only a small buffer to react to highly reactive chemical radicals occurring at such events. DNA is affected as well as all other chemicals. If the impact is too severe, necrosis at a cellular level occurrs, some minor affected cells can turn into cancer cells.

I hope I could provide some useful knowledge as there are some misunderstandings about nuclear weapons.

 

[sir_schwick]

Multi-stage fusion weapons have to use fusion processes past the first stage. I do not remember the exact reactions, although I believe it was heavier elements, thus requiring the activation energy to be generated by a fusion reaction. My old computer had all those resources on it and the HD died. Most weapons utilize the 1 or 2 stage designs because of the impracticalities of high-yield warheads. 5 - 500 kTon warheads destroy more of a city then 1 - 2.5 MTon warhead.

So a majority of the damage from nuclear detonations to humans is not cancerous? That is very fascinating. So it causes and interrupts chemical processes?

 

[Mr. Blonde]

It depends on the level of radiation you are exposed. Intense radiation will cause cell death because the complex system is damaged too severely. Too high radiation will cause organ malfunction and an unpleasant death because there are not enough living cells to maintain the body. If you survive, many of your cells will have a damaged DNA (see below) and cancer likely occurrs.

Low radiation will more likely not cause immediate cell death but only damage some chemicals based on fragility (the probability of a radiation-molecule interaction is more or less simply based on the size of the molecule). Proteins, peptides, membrane molecules are synthesized and dismanteled permanentely, thus affected molecules will just be replaced. The DNA is a very stable molecule, but on a cellular level it is permanent. There are repair mechanisms, but they are not as perfect as a full replacement. If an error becomes permanent, it is copied during mitosis. As an error can cause cancer the effect of low but lasting radiation is finally cancer. It is not caused because there is a higher probability that the DNA is damaged but because the cell can not replace it but only repair it imperfectly.

 

[Davidizer13]

Like I was saying: H-bombs have an advantage over conventional nukes. The neutrons released by an uncontrolled fusion reaction play havoc with cells, while the weak blast causes very little damage to the buildings. It is then possible to capture a city with very little damage to improvements, but with no units.

 

[Stid]

i have no idea what any of you are talking about lol i only got a C in chemistry

 

[sir_schwick]

I thought Hydrogen-based weapons caused a greater damage effect in both air-blast and ground-blasts. The area effected vs. yield is a lower ratio, but the overall damage is still greater. The argument is using one high-yield warhead versus many medium-yield warheads. You would spray NYC with many medium-yield(500 kT) warheads rather than one high-yield (5 mT) warhead.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

I think Davidizer mistook N for H bombs. Finally it´s all about the explosion energy vs radiation ratio which determines the damage to buildings vs damage to living matter. I think I have given enough information on this matter (hopefully comprehensive for people with less scientific knowledge) in this thread, just skip through it if something is not clear.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Even a so-called neutron bomb will cause tremendous damage, just less than a plain-jane fusion warhead.

Today's MIRVed missiles are designed to rain down several warheads on a targeted city. These can be targeted at various sectors, to maximize damage to the multiple stategic targets that may be present in or around a large metropolis.

There is really no point to having MIRV nukes in Civ, unless you just want to look at a cool reentry animation. I would say for Civ 4 we need an early A-Bomb, dropped by bombers, an ICBM, also possibly a mobile version of this on a roaming launcher, plus SLBMs for subs.

 

[sir_schwick]

ICBMs are usually massive rockets that require their own silo. Now mobile MRBMs would be compelling, sicne many of those are set up in Turkey right now by NATO.

 

[Davidizer13]

No, I mean hydrogen bombs! I actually read it in the New Way Things Work, a great nonfiction if there ever was one!