Originally posted by IAF101
Another question is, The Neutron weapons; arent they usefull like a H weapon without a fission switch ?? How can such a weapon be useless to the US military when its effects so well contained ?
Originally posted by mad scientist
They already have made a bomb from fusion, it's called a Thermonuclear weapon. BTW, what do you base your statement on fusion being 50 years away ?
By then fusion will be IMO a ancient concept with the Zero point Field providing humanity with energy.
Back to Fusion, here's something you might like to read.
In practice, since the controlled release of thermonuclear energy in the form of laboratory scale explosions (i.e., equivalent to a few kilograms of high-explosives) at ICF facilities like NIF is likely to succeed in the next 10 to 15 years, the main arms control question is how to prevent this know-how being used to manufacture fourth-generation nuclear weapons.
[edit on 12-12-2005 by mad scientist]
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
the Europen Union is building the first Fusion plant on this planet in France... They said that it will take up to 50 years to make it prouce "cheap energy"... and they can't amke a bomb immediatly after it... 10 years is a good statement in my opinion...
Originally posted by Harlequin
mad scientist - have you ever heard of the JET project?
Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Mad, It is indeed true that a Nuclear plant IS being build in France but not BY France, there was a debate if it should be build in France or Japan, I believe the British are working on it, if it will take 50 year, I don't know.
Originally posted by mad scientist
With regards to weight. Sure you maybe able to produce 35 tonnes of TNT for a cheaper price, but you can't exactly load it into a bomb or warhead to use. Also, HE cannot initiate fusion by itself, only through the compression of a fissile pit.
- Z-pinch is only in its experimental form at the moment. Once a design has been worked up, then it should become far more cost effective as most things do when they are mass produced. I can't imagine it being that much more expensive than what it costs to produce a modern nuclear trigger.
The Russians have produced a device which produces electricity from High Explosive detonation, making the device orders of magnitude smaller and lighter than the Z accelerator at the moment.
Originally posted by IAF101
This seems to be an unlikely solution to the problem as to generate electricity from high explosives would require an explosive containment chamber inbuilt into the bomb that would capture the explosive force. That would have to be made of metal that would undoubtable be heavy. That would raise the weight making it difficult to drop such a weapon.
Fourth-Generation Nuclear Weapons
First- and second-generation nuclear weapons are atomic and hydrogen bombs developed during the 1940s and 1950s, while third-generation weapons comprise a number of concepts developed between the 1960s and 1980s, e.g. the neutron bomb, which never found a permanent place in the military arsenals. Fourth-generation nuclear weapons are new types of nuclear explosives that can be developed in full compliance with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) using inertial confinement fusion (ICF) facilities such as the NIF in the US, and other advanced technologies which are under active development in all the major nuclear-weapon states - and in major industrial powers such as Germany and Japan.11
In a nutshell, the defining technical characteristic of fourth-generation nuclear weapons is the triggering - by some advanced technology such as a superlaser, magnetic compression, antimatter, etc. - of a relatively small thermonuclear explosion in which a deuterium-tritium mixture is burnt in a device whose weight and size are not much larger than a few kilograms and litres. Since the yield of these warheads could go from a fraction of a ton to many tens of tons of high-explosive equivalent, their delivery by precision-guided munitions or other means will dramatically increase the fire-power of those who possess them - without crossing the threshold of using kiloton-to-megaton nuclear weapons, and therefore without breaking the taboo against the first-use of weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, since these new weapons will use no (or very little) fissionable materials, they will produce virtually no radioactive fallout. Their proponents will define them as "clean" nuclear weapons - and possibly draw a parallel between their battlefield use and the consequences of the expenditure of depleted uranium ammunition.12
In practice, since the controlled release of thermonuclear energy in the form of laboratory scale explosions (i.e., equivalent to a few kilograms of high-explosives) at ICF facilities like NIF is likely to succeed in the next 10 to 15 years, the main arms control question is how to prevent this know-how being used to manufacture fourth-generation nuclear weapons. As we have already seen, nanotechnology and micromechanical engineering are integral parts of ICF pellet construction. But this is also the case with ICF drivers and diagnostic devices, and even more so with all the hardware that will have to be miniaturised and 'ruggedised' to the extreme in order to produce a compact, robust, and cost-effective weapon.
A thorough discussion of the potential of nanotechnology and microelectromechanical engineering in relation to the emergence of fourth-generation nuclear weapons is therefore of the utmost importance. It is likely that this discussion will be difficult, not just because of secrecy and other restrictions, but mainly because the military usefulness and usability of these weapons is likely to remain very high as long as precision-guided delivery systems dominate the battlefield. It is therefore important to realise that the technological hurdles that have to be overcome in order for laboratory scale thermonuclear explosions to be turned into weapons may be the only remaining significant barrier against the introduction and proliferation of fourth-generation nuclear weapons. For this reason alone - and there are many others, beyond the scope of this paper - very serious consideration should be given to the possibility of promoting an 'Inner Space Treaty' to prohibit the military development and application of nanotechnological devices and techniques.