Were cleaner bombs never developed because it would increase the temptation to deploy them?

Were cleaner bombs never developed because it would increase the temptation to deploy them?
I look at where gasoline efficiency has gone from 1955-2022 and can't help but think they could have easily done the same with nukes, if not for doctrine.

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Easier nuke to use=it becomes easier to use a nuke
    easier to use a nuke=easier to create an accidental apocalyptic chain of mutual escalation

    Besides, governments want to spend their money, time, and energy making more powerful bombs, not cleaner bombs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The power of spite shows no bounds.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_fusion_weapon

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Pure fictional weapon

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The only thing making it not reality is the energy needed to kickstart the Fusion to cause the chain reaction is so high, but as technology improves I can forsee things like antimatter or modern condensed batteries potentially making a small version that s viable, also if you read the wiki page, they even have theoretical that don't really explode even using our current technology. The problem is really the sheer heat energy needed to compress and heat such a device making it unviable for dropping as a weapon, not that it's impossible, just not viably small yet.

        "It has been claimed that it is possible to conceive of a crude, deliverable, pure fusion weapon, using only present-day, unclassified technology. The weapon design weighs approximately 3 tonnes, and might have a total yield of approximately 3 tonnes of TNT. The proposed design uses a large explosively pumped flux compression generator to produce the high power density required to ignite the fusion fuel. From the point of view of explosive damage, such a weapon would have no clear advantages over a conventional explosive, but the massive neutron flux could deliver a lethal dose of radiation to humans within a 500-meter radius (most of those fatalities would occur over a period of months, rather than immediately)."

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The benefit of this one is not even that it's clean, but rather that it can be scaled. Since unlike for Uranium where you need at least critical mass, means you have a set minimum size of your nuke, for pure fusion the device can be as small as you manage to make it with the explosion force being scalable.
      If you manage to make some gamma ray layer on semiconductor chip that can start fusion on small scale, you can even do shit like fusion mortar shells and hand grenades. Even fusion bullets lmao. And you don't need some rare materials for it, other than maybe for the source. Fusion itself is basically heavy hydrogen, you get it from water

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >nuclear bullets
        Anon, please, I can only get so erect

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    your average air-burst nuke will have minimal fallout while destroying any legitimate target so the idea of a "clean bomb" is unnecessary.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What do you call "average nuke"? Because it was revealed that W88 warehead is 3 stage nuke, extremely fallout dirty more that notorious cobalt bomb.

      And this is feature not the bug. More dead vatniks during counter value strike = good.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not entirely sure russroaches are as vulnerable to radiation as humans, nor chemical or biological weapons. Even your average vatnik baboushka can tolerate levels of antifreeze and krokodil unimaginable in real people.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Because it was revealed that W88 warehead is 3 stage nuke
        Source? Can't find shit on that claim.

        Also, where are you getting that more stages would equal more fallout? If anything, more stages means more yield of the warhead is generated through fusion, and more of the tamper is fissioned, using it up instead of spreading it around in the atmosphere as fine dust.
        I'm no expert by any means so hook up a source if you can, I might be wrong.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The fission products are the real problem since they have a low half life. Pu-239 has one of 25,000 years.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The fission products are aerosolized and spread within the atmosphere, they barely pose any threat because their amount is miniscule compared tot he volume of atmosphere they're spread in.
            What does matter though is debris sucked up from the surface if the height of burst is below the threshold where the fireball touches the surface of the earth. This debris will scavenge fission products and get neutron-activated and fall back down to earth quickly because the particles are very heavy.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The fission products are aerosolized and spread within the atmosphere, they barely pose any threat because their amount is miniscule compared tot he volume of atmosphere they're spread in.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You clearly didn't understand my post at all. Castle Bravo was a surface burst so obviously there was a huge amount of fallout from irradiated surface debris and fission products sticking to the surface debris.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You clearly didn't read the link.
                CB fallout is attributed to fission products.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >CB fallout is attributed to fission products.
                ...because it was a surface burst and the fission products were scavenged by debris/water because of the high humidity over the sea and therefore fell back down, contaminating the earth they fell on instead of staying aerosolized and being spread throughout the whole earth's atmosphere making them negligible, as would happen with an airburst.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Frankly there's no reason to make an "easier nuke"
    The reason why people are so afraid of nukes isn't rads only, the extreme destruction and the firestorm that ensues is feared due to nuclear winter, and when used in mass you can just destroy everything, so naturally people would be afraid of using it if another party has it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nuclear winter isn't real. Congratulations, you and millions of other people fell for a communist psyop.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the post also says that the destruction inflicted by many dozens of nukes is damage not worth taking, so even if you removed winter and rads, there's still little to no reason to do it

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    nukes arent used because of their extreme destruction, not the radiation aspect

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I wished Oppenheimer was still around but you morons had to dox him >:(

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      whats the best way to find threads he was a part of in the archives? Find his trip code? I miss old PrepHole and actually learned a lot

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nukes aren't very dirty. The most dangerous radiation is very short term. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt within a few years and are thriving cities, not irradiated wastelands.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe describe for us just how "dirty" current nukes are. Citations & sources required or you're a gaymoronclown.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Cleaner bombs were developed. The newest generation of thermonuclear weapons convert 98% of their fissile mass to energy. The Tsar Bomba was the most efficient "machine" ever technically designed. Now, we can just blast bitches with short-lived hard gamma radiation and call it a day.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this.
      Project looking glass is pretty badass once you get past all the false-timetravel BS.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't even understand how morons think it's actually about time travel when there is goddamn PDF floating around about LANL's work in phase conjugation. I guess it is about time travel to a limit d extent if you're a lepton or photon.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't even understand how morons think it's actually about time travel when there is goddamn PDF floating around about LANL's work in phase conjugation. I guess it is about time travel to a limit d extent if you're a lepton or photon.

        What are you guys talking about? Shit sounds cool.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Things that the Department of Energy probably wouldn't be pleased to see being posted on 4chins.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Like this...
          >bros be violatin' CPT symmetry up in this bitch, time reversin' photons, violatin' lepton colors and flavors, and decayin' in forbidden modes up in this biatch

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Let's be honest, Nuclear War wouldn't take us back to the stone age. 10s if not 100s of millions would die, but the government would be sent to a bunker or an oil rig and the military would sweep the country once the fallout past.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because they were already clean enough. pic related. also
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >because they were already clean
      this

      https://i.imgur.com/1dpnDXn.jpg

      Were cleaner bombs never developed because it would increase the temptation to deploy them?
      I look at where gasoline efficiency has gone from 1955-2022 and can't help but think they could have easily done the same with nukes, if not for doctrine.

      The general fear of nuclear fallout (and nuclear power plants) is based on a non-threshold linear exposure model. (100000 people get 1/100000 of lethal dose one dies, and environmentalists assume all get cancer)
      This model completely ignores cell DNA repair mechanisms which might even only get stimulated and activate once low exposure happens, creating a positive, not negative effect below a certain threshhold.
      We see this in recent studies on indoor radon exposure, a positive health effect at normal (higher than outdoor) indoor radon levels, and actually more lung-cancer happening at no radon exposure, it only getting similar again at much higher levels.

      The environmentalist exposure model is death-march = people die, therefor taking a walk = likelihood to die is distance of death-march/taking a walk distance.
      Possible health-benefits are not considered, laying in bed not moving at all the ideal, most healthy behavior-pattern.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Radon exposure study, in case someone is interested
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3315166/

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >environmentalists
        Funny way to spell "Russia-backed agitprop""

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Reminds me of the pipelines these two, and why Germany is currently losing it's shit cause they based renewable energy subsidies on Russian pipelines to pretend being green.
          Germany even managed to get the EU to define natural gas power plants as green energy cause they need-them to compensate for renewable fluctuation.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the French actually had the right idea all along
          de Gualle-sama, I kneel.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Back when they started making neutron bombs there was a shitload of protests because people assumed they were too clean and thus more likely to be used

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nuclear isomers like Hafnium have the potential to be a "usable" nuclear device, but I have a strong, totally unfounded position that they are being used as batteries in "UFOs".

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Were cleaner bombs never developed because it would increase the temptation to deploy them?
    from my understanding, modern weapons are so clean when airburst, that living down wind from a coal plant is more dangerous

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >they could have easily done the same with nukes,
    they literally did though. Modern nukes are insanely cleaner than the first ones.

Your email address will not be published.