3 ms·

- Can't make nukes that small (you literally can't fit critical mass in that size I think, afaik smallest developed ever are 155mm artillery shells) - massive

by detaro 4y ago

- Can't make nukes that small (you literally can't fit critical mass in that size I think, afaik smallest developed ever are 155mm artillery shells) - massive mess if it goes wrong in any way - putting nukes in space is banned by treaty and would be an ugly precedent -Japan has committed to not making nukes and has for obvious historical reasons a difficult relationship with the topic. (If Japan wanted to become a nuclear power, they relatively easily could for a country that doesn't have any, but that would be a major thing and not a side thing of some science project)

_8j50 4y ago
I hope they amend the treaty with IAEA being able to enforce things and all. I think we can leave japan out of this too, I don't see why one country is so important. Isn't 155mm 15cm? Close enough I would say if it was an actual fission explosion. As for safety, nukes in space are safe and you can launch them using conventional propulsion and use nukes only in space and also launch from point nemo or cook islands so you are at least 3000mi away from large populations. I get these challenges are real but if the advantage over ion propulsion is great then it sounds like they are worth overcoming.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  The 155mm W48 nukes were real nukes, but very inefficient. One 155mm nuclear shell weighed 54kg and had a yield of 0.072 kilotons of TNT. A 16" nuclear shell weighed about 20x as much but had a 200x greater yield (15-20 kilotons of tnt)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- kbenson 4y ago
  Maybe I have a biased view of world events, but it feels like there's less respect for joint agreement in the world and less respect for regulation, or allowing regulation the ability to function as designed, at least in the U.S. (and it seems like the world is heading a similar direction). Lessening an absolutist stance on this in favor of a more nuanced regulatory policy that requires more in depth checking seems to me like something we'll regret later when we find the agency is toothless, either because it always was in regards to this or because it was slowly defanged without people noticing.
- lantry 4y ago
  > you can launch them using conventional propulsion and use nukes only in space and also launch from point nemo or cook islands so you are at least 3000mi away from large populations. If something goes wrong during the launch and the rocket explodes, isn't that basically exploding a dirty bomb in the upper atmosphere? Is 3000 miles really enough of a buffer zone? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - _8j50 4y ago
    From that article: > Since a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths by radiation exposure, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.[2] Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror. For this reason dirty bombs are sometimes called "weapons of mass disruption". Additionally, containment and decontamination of thousands of victims, as well as decontamination of the affected area might require considerable time and expense, rendering areas partly unusable and causing economic damage Since that paragraph is talking about detonation over a populated area, 3k miles away even in the atmosphere I would think wouldn't cause much of an actual harm. But a solution might be to enrich the radioactive material in a space station in orbit.
- BenjiWiebe 4y ago
  155mm was the diameter. According to Wikipedia they were 34 inches long. So quite a bit bigger than a 10cm sphere, which is what was implied in the question.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Makes sense, thanks.
- YurgenJurgensen 4y ago
  The other fact to remember about fission explosives is that smaller == dirtier. The tiny W54 got a 1 kiloton yield from 5kg of plutonium. The contemporary Mark 18 Nuclear Bomb got 500 kilotons out of 60kg of uranium. 12 times the fissile material gave 500 times the explosive yield. Less energy converted into heat means more energy left in the form of radioactive material. Much of said radioactive material is going to end up deposited on the inside of your engine.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by detaro 4y ago

_8j50 4y ago

I hope they amend the treaty with IAEA being able to enforce things and all. I think we can leave japan out of this too, I don't see why one country is so important. Isn't 155mm 15cm? Close enough I would say if it was an actual fission explosion. As for safety, nukes in space are safe and you can launch them using conventional propulsion and use nukes only in space and also launch from point nemo or cook islands so you are at least 3000mi away from large populations. I get these challenges are real but if the advantage over ion propulsion is great then it sounds like they are worth overcoming.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
The 155mm W48 nukes were real nukes, but very inefficient. One 155mm nuclear shell weighed 54kg and had a yield of 0.072 kilotons of TNT. A 16" nuclear shell weighed about 20x as much but had a 200x greater yield (15-20 kilotons of tnt)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
kbenson 4y ago
Maybe I have a biased view of world events, but it feels like there's less respect for joint agreement in the world and less respect for regulation, or allowing regulation the ability to function as designed, at least in the U.S. (and it seems like the world is heading a similar direction). Lessening an absolutist stance on this in favor of a more nuanced regulatory policy that requires more in depth checking seems to me like something we'll regret later when we find the agency is toothless, either because it always was in regards to this or because it was slowly defanged without people noticing.
lantry 4y ago
> you can launch them using conventional propulsion and use nukes only in space and also launch from point nemo or cook islands so you are at least 3000mi away from large populations. If something goes wrong during the launch and the rocket explodes, isn't that basically exploding a dirty bomb in the upper atmosphere? Is 3000 miles really enough of a buffer zone? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- _8j50 4y ago
  From that article: > Since a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths by radiation exposure, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.[2] Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror. For this reason dirty bombs are sometimes called "weapons of mass disruption". Additionally, containment and decontamination of thousands of victims, as well as decontamination of the affected area might require considerable time and expense, rendering areas partly unusable and causing economic damage Since that paragraph is talking about detonation over a populated area, 3k miles away even in the atmosphere I would think wouldn't cause much of an actual harm. But a solution might be to enrich the radioactive material in a space station in orbit.
BenjiWiebe 4y ago
155mm was the diameter. According to Wikipedia they were 34 inches long. So quite a bit bigger than a 10cm sphere, which is what was implied in the question.
- _8j50 4y ago
  Makes sense, thanks.
YurgenJurgensen 4y ago
The other fact to remember about fission explosives is that smaller == dirtier. The tiny W54 got a 1 kiloton yield from 5kg of plutonium. The contemporary Mark 18 Nuclear Bomb got 500 kilotons out of 60kg of uranium. 12 times the fissile material gave 500 times the explosive yield. Less energy converted into heat means more energy left in the form of radioactive material. Much of said radioactive material is going to end up deposited on the inside of your engine.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]