About Nuclear Weapons

[Abwehran Commander]

As I've read in the Serious Business thread, Nuclear Weapons can never go over DR 6. I also know from my time playing D20 systems that the Admin/GM's mandate cannot be overruled. But I would like an explanation to better understand a very things.

Does the "Nuke cannot be greater than DR6" rule include multistaged thermonuclear devices as explained in Jess' approved article on nuclear weapons? Or are you just talking about single staged fission missiles?

 

[Della]

Apparently, multistaged devices ARE DR 6, like the Pseudonova.

 

[Zack]

Either way according to the rules nukes should be able to be stacked all the way up to DR 8? A mutli-multi staged device should be able to hit DR 7 according to the DR rules.

 

[Strangelove]

Nuclear weapons operate on the same principals as anti-matter -- converting matter into energy. Nuclear weapons typically reach 10-90% conversion rates on their fuel, while antimatter typically achieves 99% conversion rates.

The problem is we have a common misconception on SARP: That antimatter only requires fuel. No one ever considers that the containment shield generator might actually have mass...well, not one but three of them since a failed warhead containment could create a chain reaction and detonate an entire ammo bay, so redundancy through multiple generators would be very likely as is common in most modern weapons of mass destruction. And that doesn't include power supply either to maintain such an composite shield grid. Or likely shield generator protection system (i.e., EMP shielding) to prevent containment from breaching prematurely. It all adds up.

And for those who say antimatter weapons get the "bonus" of disintegrating the ship's hull, think carefully: one antimatter particle annihilates one standard particle. So something that caries five pounds of antimatter only destroys five pounds of hull plating. That means to destroy a section of armor via antimatter annihilation alone, you have to launch a warhead larger than the armor section in order to annihilate it (once casing and support systems for antimatter containment are factored in for the round). So annihilation itself is hardly viable as a weapon unless you carry around hundreds of thousands of tons of ammunition; an antimatter's primary purpose would have to be spewing out energy in the exact same way as a nuclear bomb if you wanted an effective weapon.

Mass-for-mass an anti-matter still might still be much better, but it's not nearly enough to justify a 3 DR point gap in maximum yields -- especially since nuclear weapons can be built on huge scales capable of ravaging entire planets. In fact, theoretically a fission-fusion weapon should be capable of matching any given antimatter weapon if it's built to sufficient size.

Edit: Typo fix

 

[Fred]

...which is basically why in my proposed revisions that anti-matter still packs the most punch, but the nuclear fusion warhead is only a step behind... and that's mostly because there's little matter in space to interact with, meaning that much of the power behind an anti-matter warhead and a zero-point energy warhead is somewhat wasted.

Of course, that's mostly based off stuff I learned over this page, so feel free to shake chicken legs at it.

 

[Zack]

Well considering that an anti-matter weapon isn't going to be 99% efficient (due to Derran's law of anti-matter) and a high yield nuke could be 90%ish efficent and considering the scale you proposed was a 5 tier system high yield nukes and anti-matter would be on the same teir.

Also considering that the link you gave seems to have an affinity for bending facts towards its advantage when it comes to trek, I wouldn't consider it a very trustworthy source for anything.

 

[Fred]

Actually, the website this link is part of seems hellbent on one-upping Star Trek in favor of Star Wars... and I don't really like Star Wars. However, there are several articles pretty much talking about the numbers and effects involved, their pros and cons, and articles that include a lot of engineering related stuff.

*shrugs*

I think anti-matter is still more efficient than nukes since there isn't just the cancelling out of matter and anti-matter, but also the point of the energy released by that too. That ought to count for something... at least according to Thomas.

 

[Zack]

Actually it should be just the opposite. After all as Jess pointed out matter cancellation isn't a real big threat and people keep forgetting the containment issues. Technically with a 90% efficient nuke (which is WAY more efficent than an anti-matter weapon would be as near 60%ish would be blasted away from the target on impact?) you could have the same output as an anti-matter weapon in a smaller package.

Ontop of that as Jess pointed out you could have virtually any output with a nuclear weapon dependent on Yield, so there should be no issue with Nukes going as high as DR 9, or DR 10 if you don't want to count DR 10 as infinite.

 

[Fred]

So, the point you're getting at is that while anti-matter in itself produces more energy than nuclear fusion, the effectiveness of anti-matter as a weapon is inferior to a nuke because much of anti-matter's potential is wasted?

What about shaped charges? Not all warhead impacts create an explosion; I hear some detonate and 'push' their payload toward the target.

 

[Wes]

That makes sense.

so there should be no issue with Nukes going as high as DR 9, or DR 10 if you don't want to count DR 10 as infinite.

We'll definitely look into this with the DR revisions, also DR 10 stay as "Total annihilation."

 

[Strangelove]

It's purely situational, really. But I'm assuming there is some sort of way to create a directional forcefield "scoop" to press at least a little more amat against the hull. Or, if all else fails, people might have to settle for a weapon that's only >100% yield instead of >200% by having the warhead contain its own specially pre-positioned matter payload for the antimatter to reactor with.

To answer your question: A shaped charge basically is a hollow cone with copper in it. When it contacts, an explosive goes off in the back of the round, and it squeezes/heats the copper into molten metal which when shoots out the cone in a stream. Since antimatter reacts upon touching matter, this probably wouldn't work, unless you had a lot of complex shield generators or the round casing was made out of antimatter. Either way, not viable.

Anyways: in a typical scenario antimatter would in fact carry more punch per pound. *But* all it would offer is miniaturization, really. Nuclear warheads would still be able to match the yield of a given amat warhead by being only a few sizes larger, which as I previously mentioned, makes the current cap of DR 6 nonsensical. Regardless of the technical specifications of each, the two weapons still remain in the same damage ballpark -- well, save for very extreme tech levels (i.e., penny-sized shield generators, remotely zero-entropy and perfect-efficiency warheads).

 

[Cannonball]

Actually, when discussing the DR 7 nature of Anti-Matter, most weapons in that catagory aren't warheads. They're beams or blasts which would dump the vast majority of their energy straight onto the target. They aren't explosive missiles but particle streams. Which would be far more efficient than a simple missile.

As to the efficency / shaped Anti-Matter debate. For starters, you could create a shaped Anti-Matter warhead as easily as you could create a shaped nuclear warhead really. Even if we don't assume something else is being used for the missile's shaped charge (that being defined as a secondary explosion to penetrate armour). For example, a small plasma warhead may drive the missile deeper into its target before exploding.

Also, I see it as very possible that you could use force fields to dump most of your Anti-Matter straight into a target. After all, we're already looking at shielded missiles that fly near or several times the speed of light. Wouldn't be any more difficult to give it an Anti-Matter based shaped charge really.

Also, I find it funny that while we're arguing about damage and everything - if we used these weapons on a planet their destructive potential wouldn't much exceed DR 5. But I digress.

 

[Toshiro]

I agree containment is often overlooked in antimatter in ship mass, that's why I rarely touch it. I am wondering, however, if a different system is used than magnetics for antimatter containment in this setting, such as a subspace pocket.

In the case of such a pocket, you could store more in a smaller space (in this universe) and pull out what you need, as long as the system can handle it. Given the dangers of antimatter, it MIGHT be a more explicable form of containment which could be considered retroactive to previous submissions, albeit more exotic.

As I keep saying, Uso, The DR system doesn't work that way. That's how the shields work. But you seem intent on ignoring me there.

The problem with multistages is that you assume that detonating one won't detonate the rest, which is very hard to pull off, if possible at all. Making a DR 10 nuke would be implausible.

I should never have given Jess the leeway for her nuke, because you people want to take a mile where I gave that inch. Keep this up and I may pursue retroactively removing the DR 6 rating and toning to DR 5 if I have the authority, and there would be no Nukes DR 5 or higher--which is the way it originally was meant to be.

I don't want to do this, but I'll not stand for my rulings to be twisted in this way to undermine the DR system. To those of you who are asking out of actual curiosity rather than in an effort to skew things, I apologize.

For the others....I plan to be much more rigid in DR ratings in the future because of what has resulted from this.


Edit: It's been confirmed by admin, I do hold the authority to do so.

 

[Della]

So, basically, the only quantifier for the DR damage inflicted by weapons is the weapon's nature and energy source, and not the actual amount of damage?

I'm asking because this is not terribly clear from the DR rules, and I'm a bit confused. I'd like to know exactly how those rules work before creating another ship so that i don't get it wrong again.

(please keep in mind that I'm talking from a purely "game mechanics" point of view - no technobabble or anything)

DR rules right now seem to follow a mixed system, where damage is sometimes increased by increasing yield, power and caliber, and sometimes not.
Such as, small arms (DR 1), HMGs (DR 2), cannons (DR 3) and railguns (DR 4) have all the same nature (projectile weapons) but their damage increases with size, whereas for example we just said that nuclear weapons, no matter their size or yield, all have the same DR.

But then, I've heard that DR rules are being worked on (which I personally think is a good thing, for the sake of consistency). Perhaps this is not the place where to ask such a thing, but I'd really like to be able to help. Who should I ask to?

 

[Andrew]

Edited out by Andrew

 

[Zack]

Ten weapons of one level are equal to one of the next.

First off, this does not apply only to shields. Shields are used as an example but are not the sole instance of when this applies according to the rules. So 10 lvl 6 weapons could be used as a single DR 7 weapon. This would apply for any weapon except for lvl 0 weapons which deal no damage.



The second thing that needs to be addressed here is that nuclear weapons are not restricted to DR 5 based on the DR rules themselves. That was something added that isn’t listed in the rules that doesn’t fit with the rules themselves.

The rules state damage ranges from negligible all the way up to removed from existence and is scaled 1-10. A basic nuclear weapon is used as an example for DR 5 weapons but again this shouldn’t be restricted to DR 5 any more than rail guns or star army pods are restricted to 4 and 6 respectively. If a nuclear weapon can deal heavy, or even massive damage it should be rated appropriately.

Rather, the variation in the rules is not allowing nuclear weapons to be DR 6 but rather it is keeping nuclear weapons at DR 5.

 

[Derran Tyler]

Actually, when discussing the DR 7 nature of Anti-Matter, most weapons in that catagory aren't warheads. They're beams or blasts which would dump the vast majority of their energy straight onto the target. They aren't explosive missiles but particle streams. Which would be far more efficient than a simple missile.

[/quote]

That makes no sense.

Anti-Matter, by and large, is a retardedly inefficient weapon. Doesn't matter if it's a shaped charge or a beam, it's still inefficient compared to any other weapon type. Upon first impact, the remaining anti-matter is going to be blasted away or completely consumed because of the resultant energy reaction.

It's far more efficient to use a rather small amount of anti-matter and use the energy reaction as a weapon rather than trying to rely on the fact that anti-matter and matter destroy each other on impact.

And honestly, the NDI's directed-energy fusion warheads have yields right at 250 gigatons. Try to tell me any anti-matter in this setting is going to do more damage than one of the Starhammer's fusion warheads and I'll laugh at you. In order to get a comparable yield from anti-matter, you're gonna need to have thousands of pounds of anti-matter actually react with matter -- and with the weapons described in this setting, that's virtually impossible.

Nuclear Weapons > Anti-Matter

The DR system is skewed in favor of anti-matter only because it seems more futuristic, but it's actual practicality isn't taken into effect.

 

[Fred]

Then, ah, I was wrong in previously thinking that nuclear weapons had 80% of the damage potential A-M warheads had and it'd actually be the reverse?

...if so, actually, seeing A-M is so bothersome to keep under wraps... no one ought to use it except as projected particle weapons?

 

[Cannonball]

A-M warheads are just as viable weapons as nuclear ones. What people here are failing to take into account is the fact that we cannot ascertain the practicality of an anti-matter weapon because they don't exist. Nuclear weapons, when they were first developed were stupidly impractical - a lot of people thought they would never work - and even today they require ridiculous ammounts of maintinance to keep effective when compared to other weapons.

Also, by Derran's anaolgy with an Anti-Matter reaction, the minute a fusion reaction starts the rest of the fuel will be blasted away into outer space and will do absolutely nothing at all. When talking about particle beams for instance, you don't take into account they're going at near light speed and will either scythe through a ship or splash over its hull before getting blown away (not even considering the fact that the beam is partially sustained to allow for penetration to occur).

Again, as we've proven in this thread A-M has a higher energy rate than nuclear weapons. If people really, really want then - like Jess said - the warhead itself can contain an equal ammount of matter. The explosion from that is several order of manginute greater than a comparable nuclear explosion. This is, of course, not even taking into account things like catalyst anti-matter reactions (going back to the "we don't have these weapons yet so you can't compare them" lark).

You show me a 250 gigaton fusion missile, I'll show you an Anti-Matter missile the same size containing matter and anti-matter in equal ammounts and damn will my explosion be bigger than yours. Simply because the fuel used creates and releases more energy than the fusion warhead. After all, a gram of anti-matter theoretically creates a detonation equivalent to a 16 kiloton nuclear detonation. If I stuck a kilogram of matter and anti-matter together the explosion would be massive.

Bottom line, futuristic or not, A-M does have a better conversion rate than nuclear weaponry. The factions that use A-M weapons have obviously got the technology to make their A-M weapons better than equivalent nuclear weapons.

 

[Zack]

Actually we can ascertain the practicality of Anti-matter weapons based on containment technologies we have today compared with the nuclear weapons of today. I think we can safely assume that technology will improve from today but we will still be able to contain more nuclear weapon style mass inside of a space than an anti-matter weapon because a nuke doesn’t explode if it touches something. As such we can put fissionable material in the buffer zone that anti-matter would require. With a difference of only 20%ish between the two yields at the best reaction it is easy to assume that smaller weapons would favor nukes over anti-matter.

Derran’s analogy is also not flawed in the way that CB suggests. Unlike anti-matter, a nuke doesn’t need ‘fuel’ as such, it can be compressed and detonated by itself with no problem. Almost all of the useful material is used up in the reaction. Anti-matter, on the other hand, has to contact with matter which means that surface area, not volume, is a deciding factor in output. Even with particle beams surface area is still an issue for anti-matter, meaning an explosion on the enemy ship will create a blast and a debris which will detonate anti-matter further from the ship. An anti-matter beam is logically going to loose power quickly.

When it comes to higher energy per mass, as I said before, because of the need for containment with an anti-matter weapon we can store more nuclear weapon style material in the same space when compared with anti-matter + containment systems + backups + energy supply.

So when it comes to using these weapons a nuke is going to be able to make use of almost all of its mass while an anti-matter weapon is going to be hindered because it has to use surface area to create a blast instead of volume. It may have higher energy but it isn’t going to be able to produce as efficient a blast as a nuclear weapon. Regardless of your technology this handicap can’t be overcome without something like freezing time or preventing anti-matter and matter from reaction. Both of which aren’t making appearances in this setting. Or in other words you can’t strike a kilogram of matter and anti-matter together unless they are both in molecule thick sheets.