4 ms·

> * Countries cannot claim a nuclear weapons research program is really a nuclear fusion power research program, like they can with a nuclear fission power rese

> * Countries cannot claim a nuclear weapons research program is really a nuclear fusion power research program, like they can with a nuclear fission power research program. Weapons are a physics problem, where you're trying to direct large amounts of energy at unwilling recipients. Nukes are so effective and so feared because they carry a huge amount of energy in a relatively small package. Being able to, as you put it, "generate several orders of magnitude" more energy will almost certainly result in new, better or more destructive weapon systems being devised.

umvi 8y ago
> Being able to, as you put it, "generate several orders of magnitude" more energy will almost certainly result in new, better or more destructive weapon systems being devised. We already use fusion technology in nukes. Hydrogen bombs work by using a fission reaction to start up an uncontrolled fusion reaction. The hard part is controlling the fusion. So, I disagree - learning how to control fusion will not result in better weapons (at least, from a destruction standpoint).
max76 8y ago
On the other hand, our current nuclear bombs initiate a fusion reaction with a fission reaction. The radiation comes from the fission. If fusion research finds a way to initiate nuclear fusion in a payload small enough to fit in a warhead that does not make use of heavy elements then we will not have to worry about radiation poisoning, one of the most horrific aspects of current generation nuclear bombs. This would result in a less deadly bomb while still having the current or higher levels of deterrence. It could be seen as a net positive.
- philipkglass 8y ago
  Fallout looms large in the public imagination but it's the giant explosions and loss of infrastructure that would cause the vast majority of deaths in a nuclear war. A bomb offering "all the explosive power of fission-triggered fusion weapons, but clean enough to use routinely" would be a terrible technology for humans to invent.
  - max76 8y ago
    I'm not convinced such a bomb would be routinely used. It doesn't break MAD. The current trend in warfare is towards precision strikes, and this is pretty much the opposite of precision. I am convinced that, in the case that there is a global thermal nuclear war, it would be much better for humanities' long term prospects if there was no radiation involved.
Beltiras 8y ago
Railguns.

umvi 8y ago

> Being able to, as you put it, "generate several orders of magnitude" more energy will almost certainly result in new, better or more destructive weapon systems being devised. We already use fusion technology in nukes. Hydrogen bombs work by using a fission reaction to start up an uncontrolled fusion reaction. The hard part is controlling the fusion. So, I disagree - learning how to control fusion will not result in better weapons (at least, from a destruction standpoint).

max76 8y ago

On the other hand, our current nuclear bombs initiate a fusion reaction with a fission reaction. The radiation comes from the fission. If fusion research finds a way to initiate nuclear fusion in a payload small enough to fit in a warhead that does not make use of heavy elements then we will not have to worry about radiation poisoning, one of the most horrific aspects of current generation nuclear bombs. This would result in a less deadly bomb while still having the current or higher levels of deterrence. It could be seen as a net positive.

philipkglass 8y ago
Fallout looms large in the public imagination but it's the giant explosions and loss of infrastructure that would cause the vast majority of deaths in a nuclear war. A bomb offering "all the explosive power of fission-triggered fusion weapons, but clean enough to use routinely" would be a terrible technology for humans to invent.
- max76 8y ago
  I'm not convinced such a bomb would be routinely used. It doesn't break MAD. The current trend in warfare is towards precision strikes, and this is pretty much the opposite of precision. I am convinced that, in the case that there is a global thermal nuclear war, it would be much better for humanities' long term prospects if there was no radiation involved.

Beltiras 8y ago

Railguns.