.com.unity Forums - OT: Nuclear War???

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - OT: Nuclear War??? (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=22381)

Re: OT: Nuclear War???

Quote:

Slick said:

Quote:

aiken said:
Offense? No, it's always good to learn something new or dispel delusions. What equation would be correct? Asking this out of curiosity.

I'm not vouching for everything on this website, but here's an overview. Any college textbook also has the basics.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ne/fusion.html

So what was wrong with an equation? It was just written in simplified form, and equalent to strict equation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...gnuk/hfus1.gif

edit: see Last reaction

Re: OT: Nuclear War???

I wonder how the military was able to keep its war mongering fanatics of the 50's and 60's from lighting up Russa with our nukes?

You know there had to be at least one guy who wanted to push the button without permission. I wonder what ever happened to him?

Re: OT: Nuclear War???

[quote]
Slick said:

Quote:

Baron Munchausen said:
As far as earth's heat source goes, most reputable studies have postulated that there is a contribution from some long-lived radioisotopes in earth's core as well as some frictional heating due to a difference in rotational velocities of the earth's surface relative to the core. As to the exact nuclide(s) heating the earth, different studies have postulated different nuclides.

Funny, I always assumed it was via tidal forces due to the moon effectively "stirring" the core...very...slowly...

Re: OT: Nuclear War???

Quote:

Atrocities said:
I wonder how the military was able to keep its war mongering fanatics of the 50's and 60's from lighting up Russa with our nukes?

You know there had to be at least one guy who wanted to push the button without permission. I wonder what ever happened to him?

[trolling]Yeah, JK was quite in the mood to starting WW3 during Caribbean Crisis. Thanks lord our GenSek was smarter than your President and receded.[/trolling]

Re: OT: Nuclear War???

My understanding is that at one time (80's I think) the Soviet Union was anxious about NATO excercises in Germany (I may be getting confused with Gen. Hackets WW3). Anyhow at one stage there was a malfunction in the Soviet Unions detection system that for a short while made them think the US had launched nukes. It was up to one officer to decide if he should react. Luckily he did not want to overreact and decided not to jump the gun.

Re: OT: Nuclear War???

Quote:

aiken said:

Quote:

[trolling]Yeah, JK was quite in the mood to starting WW3 during Caribbean Crisis. Thanks lord our GenSek was smarter than your President and receded.[/trolling]

Well those missiles in Cuba might have had something with provoking our President at the time. Besides his dad gave in the russan demands for Germany lock stock and barrel. Not that I could car about such things, but what do you think would have happened if your GS had decided to stick to his guns?

Have any of you ever dreamed about seeing a nuke light off? I have, a couple of times, and lets just say that I awoke and was very sobered by the experience. If our world leaders, those who have the nukes, have ever had one of these dreams, I will bet they too awoke in a cold sweat and voved to do what they could to prevent such a thing from ever happening.

How we made it out of the 80's without lighing up the world like a roman candel is beyond me, but I am thankful that we did not. I can remember where I was when the movie the Day After was aired on ABC. It was a sunday in October 83. There was a follow up movie about life after the bLast, where people went on with their lives like normal as the depth of what happend began to sink in. People died not only from radation poisoning, but because they simply saw no hope in the future. It was a deeply profoundly sad movie and one, if watched, will turn your stomic.

I would not want my children, if I had any, to live in such a post war world. The thought of them trying to survive the death around them would be too much to bare. Better to die in the bLast than live in the aftermath.

Re: OT: Nuclear War???

Consider me a crazy sob, but since I've seen nuclear tests chronicles for the first time, I had thought that nuclear explosion and bLast wave are one of the most beautiful things in the world. I'm talking about destructive beauty of catastrophes in general, as if there are no people who could be killed by disaster.
You could agree, that there's something fascinating in tsunami, volcano eruption or nuclear explosion. Maybe it's an inconceivable power, but probably it's only my kooky brains.

Re: OT: Nuclear War???

I agree with Aiken, Although Destructive there is Nothing more Awe Inspiring or Humbling than the force of Nature. (The Exception to Nature being Nuclear Weapons) The Extreme power of these is a reminder to us that it's far easier to destroy than preserve or create.

Also Aiken. JFK and the Russians? No, everyone knows that it was the British M16. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Re: OT: Nuclear War???

"Oh look at that beautful ligh----------------"

Excuse me for saying this, but there is nothing beautful about it. If you happen to see one up close, your blinded. By the time you realize what it was that blinded you, your roasted.

If you happen to be at a distance and see the bLast, "its beautful" will be the Last thing on your mind as the horror of what your looking begins to settle in.

No guys, beautful is something I would not use to describe a nuke bLast. Perhaps awe inspiring, but defenantly not beautful. Just my take on it.

Re: OT: Nuclear War???

Quote:

aiken said:

Quote:

Slick said:

Quote:

aiken said:
Offense? No, it's always good to learn something new or dispel delusions. What equation would be correct? Asking this out of curiosity.

I'm not vouching for everything on this website, but here's an overview. Any college textbook also has the basics.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ne/fusion.html

So what was wrong with an equation? It was just written in simplified form, and equalent to strict equation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...gnuk/hfus1.gif

edit: see Last reaction

Aiken, sorry for the confusion, but I never said your equation was wrong. This is what I said:

Quote:

Slick said:
<snip>
Fusion is considered "clean" because we won't have to mine fissionable materials from the ground; we can pull deuterium out of the ocean - ocean water is abundant, right? and has an infinite supply of deuterium, right? They also think that the the reaction is Hydrogen -> Helium. I don't see any "dirty" by-products in that reaction (that equation is not correct, by the way, but it is "common knowledge") And Helium is very safe and very clean. We all know that. We put it in our kids' balloons. We inhale it to make our voices sound funny.

What I did disagree with is the Last sentence here:

Quote:

aiken said:
Probably it came from the most trivial fusion reaction: D+T->He+n+E. It doesn't have a decay products in form of radioactive isotopes, so it's considered "clean".

because of unmentioned following reactions involving the free neutron and I said:

Quote:

Slick said:
Again, no offense, but even in your example of one of the basic fusion reactions:

D+T->He+n+E

Free neutrons just don't hang around, the free neutron "n" in that equation can/does activate surrounding materials and does create radioactive isotopes.

I see that I am becoming a pain here and that wasn't my intention. I'll leave this thread quietly now. Sorry if I upset anyone.