3 ms·

I think you're misunderstanding that reference. The amount of radioactive material is not that different; the distinction is that a ground burst localizes some

by uvdiv 14y ago

I think you're misunderstanding that reference. The amount of radioactive material is not that different; the distinction is that a ground burst localizes some of it at ground zero. It creates a small area which will be an acute radiation hazard for a short time. An air burst gives a very large, diffuse, atmospheric plume. In the maps from the CDC link, large areas -- whole states (check out pages f29-f35) -- are contaminated with low levels of airborne radioactive fallout. From the isotope data, it's clear most of this is from the weapons, not environmental activation products. The doses are too low to be immediately dangerous (<1 mSv), but can have chronic health effects, as a slightly increased cancer risk.

rdl 14y ago
You can tune your weapon to have MUCH lower fission products; essentially the smallest size fission primary you can (ideally, with boosters), and then a big fusion stage and no U-238 tamper. Conventional thermonuclear weapons are usually fission-fusion-fission since a U-238 casing for the third stage is a cheap and compact way to scale up the weapon, but that last fission stage is responsible for >95% of the fission products/long lived pollution. A "neutron bomb"/ERW/etc. is one application of the low-radioisotope weapon (and a "dirty bomb", a non-critical radiological weapon, is the other extreme). I'm still hoping fission-free fusion weapons are not possible before I can live somewhere other than Earth, since all arms control essentially rests of preventing access to fissile materials. Once you eliminate that gate, it becomes much easier for a clandestine group to build a weapon. Pure fusion weapons would be amazingly destabilizing and, if they were approximately as hard to make as seems likely, would absolutely get used by some group.

3 ms·

I think you're misunderstanding that reference. The amount of radioactive material is not that different; the distinction is that a ground burst localizes some

by uvdiv 14y ago

rdl 14y ago
You can tune your weapon to have MUCH lower fission products; essentially the smallest size fission primary you can (ideally, with boosters), and then a big fusion stage and no U-238 tamper. Conventional thermonuclear weapons are usually fission-fusion-fission since a U-238 casing for the third stage is a cheap and compact way to scale up the weapon, but that last fission stage is responsible for >95% of the fission products/long lived pollution. A "neutron bomb"/ERW/etc. is one application of the low-radioisotope weapon (and a "dirty bomb", a non-critical radiological weapon, is the other extreme). I'm still hoping fission-free fusion weapons are not possible before I can live somewhere other than Earth, since all arms control essentially rests of preventing access to fissile materials. Once you eliminate that gate, it becomes much easier for a clandestine group to build a weapon. Pure fusion weapons would be amazingly destabilizing and, if they were approximately as hard to make as seems likely, would absolutely get used by some group.