4th Generation Nuclear Weapons
Δημοσιεύτηκε στις 16 Δεκ 2013
Like me on Facebook,
https://www.facebook.com/Enigmahood
Follow me on Twitter,
https://twitter.com/EnigmaHood
This
is an overview of the 4th generation of nuclear weapons outlined in the
report, Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and
collateral effects, condensed into an easy to digest video.
Full report click here,
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071v5
FAQ:
Q: In a nutshell what is a Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW)?
A:
It is a nuclear fusion weapon that doesn't use a fission trigger. The
most feasible method to trigger fusion in a FGNW is to use microscopic
amounts of anti-matter.
Q: What advantages do FGNWs have over conventional nukes?
A:
They are "clean" (radioactive fallout negligible, about on par with
conventional depleted uranium weapons that are already in use), they are
very small (potentially can fit in your pocket), and fill in the "yield
gap" between the most powerful conventional weapons and the lowest
yield conventional nukes.
Q: Will FGNWs really be more politically acceptable to use in actual combat?
A: Who knows? Only time can tell for certain, but their "radioactive cleanness" is a compelling argument in favor for it.
Q: What would be the TNT equivalent of a FGNW be?
A: A 3 gram pellet of fusion fuel would release around 302 gigajoules of energy (about 72 tons of TNT), so around that.
Q: How much antimatter is needed to catalyze a single FGNW?
A: A 3 gram pellet of fusion fuel would need 1x10^11 antiprotons to catalyze nuclear fusion
Q: Isn't carrying antimatter dangerous? What would happen if containment failed?
A:
The quantity of antimatter is extremely small. 1x10^11 antiprotons
would release the equivalent of about 6 milligrams of TNT, that's less
than a firecracker. However the energy would be released in the form of
ionizing radiation so it would be a radiological hazard if containment
failed.
Q: Wouldn't failure of antimatter containment result in the FGNW detonating?
A:
No, nuclear fusion requires very precise injection of antimatter to
catalyze fusion. Failure of containment would not result in the precise
injection of antimatter to the fusion fuel. Added safety measures can be
taken by separating the fusion fuel from the antimatter containment
until the weapon is ready to be armed.
Q: If you accidentally drop it, wouldn't containment fail?
A:
These weapons are intended to be incredibly rugged with one of their
applications being bunker busters. They contain little to no moving
parts and are "full like eggs". The FGNW report indicates that the
overall ruggedness would be far superior over conventional nuclear
bunker busters so no, simply dropping it wouldn't cause containment to
fail.
Q: Wouldn't FGNWs be attractive for nuclear terrorism?
A:
No, it's easier to build conventional nuclear weapons. FGNWs require
extremely large particle accelerators to manufacture the antimatter
necessary for the FGNW. A terrorist who wants a suitcase nuke is better
off with something like the M-388 Davy Crockett.
Q: Are FGNW a proliferation concern?
A: No, see above.
Q: Why not make pure anti-matter weapons instead?
A:
A couple of reasons. It's prohibitively expensive. It's single handedly
the most expensive substance in the world and incredibly difficult to
make. Right now, if we took all the antimatter we produced and
annihilate it, it would only be enough to power a lightbulb for a few
hours. On the other hand, fusion fuel is incredibly cheap and abundant,
you can literally make it from sea water as all it is are isotopes of
hydrogen. But even if we had large quantities of antimatter, it's
questionable how useful it would be as a weapon on its own. It's
incredibly difficult to contain as if it touches any normal matter, it
will annihilate. Containing microscopic quantities is not a problem, but
macroscopic quantities are. Even if you could contain it, it would be
incredibly unstable. Fusion and fission weapons fail safely, if you
damage a nuclear weapon the nuclear weapon doesn't detonate. An
antimatter weapon would detonate as soon as containment fails. From a
cost-benefit point of view, pure antimatter weapons do not make sense.
Q: Can you use conventional explosives to catalyze nuclear fusion?
A: No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_...
https://www.facebook.com/Enigmahood
Follow me on Twitter,
https://twitter.com/EnigmaHood
This
is an overview of the 4th generation of nuclear weapons outlined in the
report, Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and
collateral effects, condensed into an easy to digest video.
Full report click here,
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071v5
FAQ:
Q: In a nutshell what is a Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW)?
A:
It is a nuclear fusion weapon that doesn't use a fission trigger. The
most feasible method to trigger fusion in a FGNW is to use microscopic
amounts of anti-matter.
Q: What advantages do FGNWs have over conventional nukes?
A:
They are "clean" (radioactive fallout negligible, about on par with
conventional depleted uranium weapons that are already in use), they are
very small (potentially can fit in your pocket), and fill in the "yield
gap" between the most powerful conventional weapons and the lowest
yield conventional nukes.
Q: Will FGNWs really be more politically acceptable to use in actual combat?
A: Who knows? Only time can tell for certain, but their "radioactive cleanness" is a compelling argument in favor for it.
Q: What would be the TNT equivalent of a FGNW be?
A: A 3 gram pellet of fusion fuel would release around 302 gigajoules of energy (about 72 tons of TNT), so around that.
Q: How much antimatter is needed to catalyze a single FGNW?
A: A 3 gram pellet of fusion fuel would need 1x10^11 antiprotons to catalyze nuclear fusion
Q: Isn't carrying antimatter dangerous? What would happen if containment failed?
A:
The quantity of antimatter is extremely small. 1x10^11 antiprotons
would release the equivalent of about 6 milligrams of TNT, that's less
than a firecracker. However the energy would be released in the form of
ionizing radiation so it would be a radiological hazard if containment
failed.
Q: Wouldn't failure of antimatter containment result in the FGNW detonating?
A:
No, nuclear fusion requires very precise injection of antimatter to
catalyze fusion. Failure of containment would not result in the precise
injection of antimatter to the fusion fuel. Added safety measures can be
taken by separating the fusion fuel from the antimatter containment
until the weapon is ready to be armed.
Q: If you accidentally drop it, wouldn't containment fail?
A:
These weapons are intended to be incredibly rugged with one of their
applications being bunker busters. They contain little to no moving
parts and are "full like eggs". The FGNW report indicates that the
overall ruggedness would be far superior over conventional nuclear
bunker busters so no, simply dropping it wouldn't cause containment to
fail.
Q: Wouldn't FGNWs be attractive for nuclear terrorism?
A:
No, it's easier to build conventional nuclear weapons. FGNWs require
extremely large particle accelerators to manufacture the antimatter
necessary for the FGNW. A terrorist who wants a suitcase nuke is better
off with something like the M-388 Davy Crockett.
Q: Are FGNW a proliferation concern?
A: No, see above.
Q: Why not make pure anti-matter weapons instead?
A:
A couple of reasons. It's prohibitively expensive. It's single handedly
the most expensive substance in the world and incredibly difficult to
make. Right now, if we took all the antimatter we produced and
annihilate it, it would only be enough to power a lightbulb for a few
hours. On the other hand, fusion fuel is incredibly cheap and abundant,
you can literally make it from sea water as all it is are isotopes of
hydrogen. But even if we had large quantities of antimatter, it's
questionable how useful it would be as a weapon on its own. It's
incredibly difficult to contain as if it touches any normal matter, it
will annihilate. Containing microscopic quantities is not a problem, but
macroscopic quantities are. Even if you could contain it, it would be
incredibly unstable. Fusion and fission weapons fail safely, if you
damage a nuclear weapon the nuclear weapon doesn't detonate. An
antimatter weapon would detonate as soon as containment fails. From a
cost-benefit point of view, pure antimatter weapons do not make sense.
Q: Can you use conventional explosives to catalyze nuclear fusion?
A: No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_...
Κατηγορία
Άδεια
- Τυπική άδεια YouTube
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου