Is it possible to make...

I am asking myself lately if it not possible to make a weapon using nuclear power. fision or fusion not as we know them now like bombs but in another way as direct energy weapons of somekind. Something powered with a nano nuclear fusion or fision reactor onboard?

Why would we want to come up with a way to make another nuke???? Nukes should be destroyed. I wish there was world peace, but since that wont happen all nukes should be destroyed.

Ah, rumoured for usage in powering advanced lasers.

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
I am asking myself lately if it not possible to make a weapon using nuclear power. fision or fusion not as we know them now like bombs but in another way as direct energy weapons of somekind. Something powered with a nano nuclear fusion or fision reactor onboard?

I do not know much about weapons, so what type of weapon is he talking about? I thought it was a nuke but i guess i am wrong.

Well it looks like fusion is going to be the next big power source if the politics can be sorted out.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I should imagine that in the future this technology may be developed for military purposes but at the moment it seems to be far too early in it's development.
The only way that fusion has been achieved to date is by using massive reactors.
We'll just have to wait for the Japanese to miniaturise them before we get our ray guns.

I guess you are talking about creating a nuclea bomb with minimum radiation or? I think the US already develop and developed in this sort of bombs.

Originally posted by shoo
I guess you are talking about creating a nuclea bomb with minimum radiation or? I think the US already develop and developed in this sort of bombs.

Yup. Neutron bombs.

www.zealllc.com...

"Neutron bombs are also much cleaner than conventional nukes. A neutron blast only kills living things, leaving all buildings and weapons intact. It is the ultimate weapon to use against massed troops and armor, as all the enemies die instantly, no structures or vehicles are damaged, and, most importantly, no radioactive fallout is left behind. Unlike fission or fusion nukes, neutron bombsites are safe to walk into immediately after the explosion. Neutron technology has been developed to such a level that these devices can be produced in as small a package as the size of a common baseball! They can be used in field artillery and small rockets, and even soldiers dug in behind several feet of earth are not safe from a neutron blast."

Oh happy days...

I am not talking about bombs but otherways of using the energy / materials to use as weapon. for example a nano nuclear powered phaser or laser / partical weapon of somekind. Or using the energy to create a magnetic field high powered for blasting something towards a enemy what it is doesn't matter for now but it can be ions or somekind of residu of the powersource trapt in the field which is being beamed by using to high powered magnetic fields with one pushing the other away. Like blowing against a water in a glas a the water bends down and how harder you blow how thinner but longer the water goes down but than with magnetic field so you get a thin long beam enforced with highjield particals.

Originally posted by Leveller
Well it looks like fusion is going to be the next big power source if the politics can be sorted out.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I should imagine that in the future this technology may be developed for military purposes but at the moment it seems to be far too early in it's development.
The only way that fusion has been achieved to date is by using massive reactors.
We'll just have to wait for the Japanese to miniaturise them before we get our ray guns.

All nuclear bombs have a fusion reaction...so far we dont have the means for cold fusion, or a fusion reaction that hasnt been triggered by fission which makes it possibly

[Edited on 24-12-2003 by Shoktek]

The USA already developed a super-laser but it takes hours to load it and then it gives one hell of a precise shot. You can shoot down flying rockets with no problem at all.

Problem is that it needs big reload time after one shot, big batteries, so it is very heavy(about 30t) and not warfare compatible in other aspects - but it really works like the lasers you see in sciene fiction.

And now to answer your question. Yes with alternative energy sources like cold fusion etc it is possible to build and use such weapons in regular warfare and for stuff that make more sense.

www.popularmechanics.com...




www.northgrum.com...

www.defenselink.mil...

what you are talking about is concievably possible, as evidenced by the large scale lasers that have already been posted, but we dont have the technology yet to develop Nuclear reactors as small as what you are talking about, yet

It's possible, just not right now

Neuclear fusion requires temerature far too high to be carried out reliably in reactors on the ground at the moment, so using them in a weapon seems a little far off at the moment.

as for all the laser guff youve all been on about, try reading about the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser platform. Designed to shoot theatre ballistic missiles out of the sky. However, unlike starwars they dont imediatly explode on impact from the laser. The limiting factor of using lasers as a weapon is that they rely soley on heating something up, in the case of ballistic missile, the fuel tank, so that it ruptures and explodes, which can take time depending on the range and weather conditions. lasers have been thought of for battlefield infantry weapons as non leathal weaponry, used to blind the enemy rather than kill. this would prevent them from returning to the battle after treatment, permanently removing them from the battle, without killing them. this, however, brings up a lot of moral issues, which i will not be going into since its not relevant to the discussion!

i know in the cold war the US and russia were trying to make a nuclear powerd airplane because of its unlimited range and flight time. Now that we are putting lasers on planes it would seem to make even more sense

Neuclear powered aircraft are FAR too impractical, thats why they binned it! the amount of power needed for flight, means a more powerful reactor is needed, meaning the radiation shielding has to be increased. the more shielding you add the less fuel and usefull payload you can carry. lead is an extremely heavy metal, and nothing else is really good enough at blocking the radioactive particals. there are other reasons as well, but suffice to say, they are great for ships and subs, but useless in Planes.

Actually back in the 80s I was reading about the use of a nuclear explosion to power an X-Ray laser. The weapon was of course a one shot deal however they had a way to split beam to engage multiple targets in space. I dont know if one was ever built but space weapons treaty would not have allowed use under normal circumstances.

i heard russia had created tiny nuclear reactors that cud sit on a desk they were so small - scarey stuff if its true....unlikely tho eh

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I hope this helps a little.

Originally posted by Knowsstuff
Neuclear powered aircraft are FAR too impractical, thats why they binned it! the amount of power needed for flight, means a more powerful reactor is needed, meaning the radiation shielding has to be increased. the more shielding you add the less fuel and usefull payload you can carry. lead is an extremely heavy metal, and nothing else is really good enough at blocking the radioactive particals. there are other reasons as well, but suffice to say, they are great for ships and subs, but useless in Planes.

You are rong
They are practical but you have to consider for what you are gonna use them
The nuclearpowered bomber became inpracticall because balistic missils could do the job better.

though they still have some advantefes:
1) never refuel (maybe in 50 years but untill than tha plane would be obsolete) so it can patrol an eria constantly which was the case with b-52 in the early years of the cold war and a nuclear reactor is not more dangerous than a nuclear bomb in case of a crash(there was such a crash with a b-52 bomber)

2)As for the boing airbord laser concept it is perfeckt
the batteries are huge - replace them with a single powergenerator - the turbines could power the laser and propell the aircraft

and a nuclear power bomber can fly in to space and being based on the moon as its better protected there and the cooling is much better in space.