About Nuclear Weapons

Maybe they do stack them in molecule thick sheets? That's the real problem here - we're comparing something that we know works, and something that we don't really know about. It's like fold drives: "they...uh...work?". Which is really why the whole argument comparing them is quite silly in the manner they're being compared atm.

Really, no one in this thread is doubting the power of nuclear weapons (I'm certainly not in any case), but based on the conversation mass, an Anti-Matter weapon has the potential to be the better sort of weapon if the technology that lets them work is sufficent to allow that to happen. Because they're a prevalent type of weapon on the SARP, we're forced to assume that this is the case - and a certain sized nuclear weapon is in some way inferior to an equally large A-M weapon.

Don't ask me how though because I honestly have no idea. To tell the truth, if you asked me exactly how a toaster worked I'd be hard pushed to give you exact details - never mind force fields, railguns and hyperspace missiles.

What part of directed-energy fusion warhead confuses you, sir? The weapon is designed to penetrate it's target then detonate, depositing it's destructive energy into the target.

The fusion weapon utilizes the energy produced by the warhead to create it's damage whereas the way anti-matter weapons are used is to utilize the matter-antimatter reaction to destroy matter.

Because no reaction is ever 100 percent efficient. Not every single gram of anti-matter is going to react with matter. Of course, this reaction isn't instantaneous. The first atoms to react will create a powerful energy release that will rapidly superheat surrounding unreacted portions of matter and anti-matter, imparting large amounts of energy to surrounding matter. What happens is that you have a large portion of the matter and anti-matter are blasted out of the reaction area without contacting anything.

What you have here is a weapon that randomly releases energy in all directions. A minimum of 50 percent of the weapon's energy is wasted by radiating away uselessly into space.

Bottom line is this: There isn't an anti-matter weapon in this setting that is more combat effective than a Confederate directed-energy fusion warhead. I'm basing this strictly based on how they are described to work in this setting. Anti-matter weapons simply are not as efficient as their nuclear weapon counterparts.

My original point in bringing up antimatter wasn't to start an OOC arms race. I'm simply stating this:

• Antimatter and Nuclear weapons operate on the same prinipals, yielding the same types of damage (EM Pulse, thermal energy, concussion if applicable, and so on).
• Antimatter weapons are not the flawlessly efficient weapons people assume they, simply because they're more advanced. They don't reach near-perfect yields, and lose a significant payload to shield and power containment systems.
• Once the above is factored in, their yields are in the same ballpark -- while nuclear weapons would likely require a larger payload to deliver the same yield, the size difference wouldn't be grossly so.

Cannoball: Just as nuclear warheads can't function on pure fuel with no support assembly, the same can be said for antimatter. Antimatter is naturally "unstable" so would react readily without a support assembly, true. But the fact antimatter ammunition in SARP is extremely safe (prior to launch) suggests that the weapons posses highly redundant shield generators to make them so stable -- so odds are the amount of equipment they have to shorten the yield difference in comparison to nuclear warheads.

Derran Tyler: You're assuming a 100% antimatter missile designed purely for annihilation rather than energy generation, and that it's simply uncontrolled (i.e., it has no blasting caps or directed shields to temporarily concentrate the direction and boost the reaction yield). You can't wipe antimatter viability off the board using that single example -- it's a skewed argument.

Everyone, settle down, please. There is no "best"; like all technologies, it's purely situational on engineering and size. Heck, even a very high intensity radio can surpass the destructive power of an industrial laser is you pump enough power into it. My point is they're simply in the same ballpark yield -- one can surpass the other depending on size difference, application, and so on.

(P.S.: Since when is antimatter only DR 7? The Damage Guide lists it as DR 9.)

But Derran, won't a nuclear missile just connect with the target and make an explosion in a similar fashion, with only parts of it hitting the ship and the rest just futilely expanding around from the contact point?

I mean, a nuclear explosion would waste energy in a similar fashion too. Or so it looks from where I sit. Oh, I understand nuclear warheads are more efficient with how they deliver damage, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that anti-matter would be lame in comparison. Care to enlighten me? Why does the same not apply for nuclear fusion warheads?

Jess: Aye, I was going a bit towards the other extreme. Hmmm...thinking about it, are SARP anti-matter torps handled in the same way as Star Trek photon torpedos (the fuel is actually transfered into them the moment before launch - would make it safer to store if nothing else).

As to the DR question it depends on the size of the weapon. Subspace Encased Particle Cannons are anti-matter weapons, and the smaller ones aren't DR 9. Likewise, the Positron Striker Array is only a DR 7 so I suppose it depends on the weapon system in question =o

Well, almost all explosives suffer from that same problem. The NDI utilizes directed-energy fusion warheads that penetrate their target -- then detonate. That way, most of the energy from the weapon goes into the target.

Even if you made an anti-matter weapon in a similar fashion, from what I understand, most people design anti-matter weapons in this setting with the intention of destroying matter with the reaction, and a 'directed-energy anti-matter warhead' wouldn't necessarily do this any better.

Perhaps Cannonball and others are misunderstanding my attacks on anti-matter.

It is an inefficient weapon if your intention is to destroy matter. If your intention is to use the resultant energy reaction to deal damage, then it is arguably more cost-effective than the fusion weapon.

Wait wait wait, energy reaction?

I take an anti-matter warhead and launch it at another ship. It hits and then the anti-matter is released. A-M both benefits from the shockwave of the explosion of the warhead detonating and from coming into contact with a ship's hull - no?

I'm sorry if this seems to be me thinking of nuclear fusion as 'things which go boom' and A-M as 'things which go for bigger boom'... but once the explosion was done... thought A_M did the better job of it.

I'd expect attackers destroying a M/A-M powered ship not to want to do so at close range because the resulting explosion would not be enjoyable. I thought the same applied to A-M warheads.

Oh, you're talking about A-M weapons that are designed to just consume matter on contact? In which case, I was definitely misunderstanding your point. In my eyes, anti-matter goes boom. And it's the booms that kill things. I assumed that most A-M weapons worked on this principle simply because that's how anti-matter operates. You can't not have an explosion, so you might as well use it. I totally agree that just using A-M for eating matter is a really bad way to use the anti-matter in the first place.

We seem to be on the same page now. This is a good thing -nods-

Well, almost all explosives suffer from that same problem. The NDI utilizes directed-energy fusion warheads that penetrate their target -- then detonate. That way, most of the energy from the weapon goes into the target.

Click to expand...

Derran: But...AP ammunition has nothing to do with the type of explosive payload. I mean, if you dumped antimatter inside the hull of a ship rather than on top, you would cause extremely high damage and efficiency yields, too, since the round will be fairly enclosed. Any explosive would cause much more damage inside the enemy ship rather than on top. Pure annihilation or energy release, either way, would do catastrophically more damage inside a target.

(Also, how do these "directed energy" fusion weapons work? Gun-assemblies and other shaped nuclear explosives are in fission are horribly inefficient, since the unbalanced forces allow much of the power to leak out rather than keep the fuel crushed long enough to fission -- which is why all modern nuclear weapons are spherical implosion types instead of gun assembly. Fusion would especially require an imploding (as opposed to directional) detonator due to the fact it requires vastly higher pressure to properly work, so couldn't afford to "waste" energy by having the blast leak in a given direction much more than mixed or fission bombs.)

Fred: Any sort of "bomb" weapon, when detonated on top of a hull, loses most of its force as it irradiates into space. Nuclear, antimatter, heck even chemical explosives. Your catalyst for the explosive is completely irrelevant to the fundamental physics of how explosives work. If you're against a flat plate and use an un-shaped explosive no more than 50% can hit the hull. In practice, the pressure difference (no pressure from empty space versus high pressure resistance from armor plating) causes much more than 50% to be wasted; energy travels fastest along the path with the least obstruction and whatnot.

But that's the same for both fusion and A-M missiles, right? So why is nuclear fusion more effective than A-M? A-M still ought to have the stronger boom if it releases more amounts of energy for its size.

I think.

Derran thought that we were using A-M solely to combine with the matter in an enemy target to cause the damage. Thinking on these lines, anti-matter is woefully inefficent when compared to a nuclear fission/fusion warhead.

However, taking all of anti-matter's properties onboard and factoring the resulting explosion that will occur into your weapon (as all A-M weapons should) the anti-matter creates a larger explosion when used properly and is in general more efficient.

It was a misunderstanding that caused that particular thread of this debate to occur.

The key difference is fissile fuels don't detonate on contact with matter. So you can boost it: physically compress it with explosives to prevent it from blowing itself apart before all the fuel burns up, or have neutron mirrors to reflect neutrons back onto itself during the detonation process to help "recycle" waste energy back into the main core to enhance the yield. You can also multistage (use smaller nukes to compress the cores of bigger ones) to boost yields by huge factors (adding a single stage to a pure fission bomb can literally double the efficiency) -- and so on.

Antimatter, however, would react with and destroy any boosting systems before it could have any significant effect; all it takes is a few particles and the system would already be mauled beyond recognition. Not that it could be boosted anyways -- it's already at peak efficiency, so technology can only help reduce wasted energy rather than increase the yield. You can pretty much only stick in a can and hope for the best. It's sheer mass-to-yield ratio does compensate for this -- but not so much as to warrant a [DR 3] different in maximum yield (DR 6 for nukes, DR 9 for amat).

(Also, Derran: how do these "directed energy" fusion weapons work? Gun-assemblies and other shaped fission explosives are horribly inefficient, since the unbalanced forces allow much of the power to leak out rather than keep the fuel crushed long enough to fission -- which is why all modern nuclear weapons are spherical implosion types instead of gun assembly. Fusion would especially require an imploding (as opposed to directional) detonator due to the fact it requires vastly higher minimum heat/pressure to properly work, so would have far poorer yield %s than fission if directed, as far as I know. How do you create shaped fusion charges that achieve 250 Gigaton yields -- or do you just create a gunship-sized supertorpedo to carry lots of fuel to compensate for the poor yield efficiency?)

So, Anti-Matter is a better - if hazardous - source of power than nuclear fusion. Anti-Matter is still fairly effective as a projected particle weapon (like positron cannons and such) but isn't so good in the role of a detonating warhead - a role nuclear fusion would be better.

Did I get this right?

While I find some of the discussion here (such as Della's comments) of interest, the simple fact is that we don't know.

The setting has Antimatter being the superior one not only because of explosive force, but mutual annihilation.

And Uso, try ASKING FRED before making broad assumptions. I asked him about the exact same thing several months ago. So how about asking him before saying "No you're wrong" yet again?



What irritates me is that actual arguments are lost in this madness.

Della said:

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.

Click to expand...

This sort of argument is something I can get behind and support for a DR 4-6 nuke scale. I won't have it infinitely scalable, not even REMOTELY so.

DR 4-6 is the best you will get from me.

And Nukes are DR 5 in the DR system. Period.

Click to expand...

This is wrong, DR 5 is: 'Substantial' Damage according to the DR system. A common nuke is rated at DR 5 but all nukes are not DR 5. Fred is not staff anymore from what I understand so I should not be asking him. The truth is these rules are listed on the site here: https://stararmy.com/setting/damage.html

I am reading the rules straight off the page. Nukes should be able to reach all the way up to DR 9.

First, I removed that part of my post when I re-read Della's argument and restated my original DR 4-6. You'll just have to be happy with that.


Second, Fred is staff again.


Third:

Level 5

* Starship Point Defense Weapons
* Nuclear Weapons

Click to expand...

Where is the rule that says that Nukes are anything BUT what's listed? DR 9? Not on my watch.


Fourth:

The page does contradict what Fred told me back then. I still, however, will not permit a "10-in-1" weapon.

Tohsiro: While sci-fi settings do have some unknown factors, to be sure, science isn't completely blind regarding theoretical use of utilized technologies. We, as humans, do understand antimatter and how it annihilates, and how it can't surpass X yield due to mass-energy conversion, and so on. We also understand nuclear forces, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of ... explosions

Annihilation is pointless as a weapon, as we've stated in our arguments. To annihilate an armor section you need to fire a round bigger than the armor section itself...which is effectively crap as far as weapons efficiency goes. Ergo, the "main" purpose of antimatter weapons have to be energy release -- making the damage from antimatter warheads the same type as released by nuclear weapons (mixed radiation; EMP, thermal, concussion, and so on).

Antimatter starts at 100% conversion and goes down. Nuclear weapons start at 5-90% and can move upwards via boosting**. They both do the same type of damage to a target. To say their yield must be less than a 1% of antimatter weapons is nonsensical, or at least that's what I believe.

**: See this comparison chart. In only 50 years we shrunk the size-equivalent of several freight train cars into something the size of a dog-house.

Personally, I like threads like these because it allows people to straighten out their stories about specific parts of technology. When I hear many versions of the same thing I just end up being confused. Here, people have more or less come into line behind certain ideas.

You'll notice I try to stick to questions or things I learned/was told before and try to straighten it out.

* * *

Toshiro, how about we turn out some compromise then?

Making nuclear bombs/warheads/and such sort of falls flat on my ears because DR 4 is pretty much the damage output of the LASR. I can't wrap my head around 10 LASRs doing as much damage as an H-Bomb.

DR 6 does get close, but I tend to favor thinking that a missile or warhead packs more punch than than a beam weapon usually - that's supposed to be an highlight of guided warheads.

Might we scale small and medium missile batteries based on nuclear warheads as DR 5 and 6 and leave a DR 7 niche for spatial nuclear torpedoes? The KFY AS-7-AM still strikes at DR 10... so, it doesn't sound so bad to me to make nuclear warhead a little bit more credible to use and to scale how they end up being used in the same fashion.

Well, in regard to the current Wes-made DR system, that is.

After some thought on this subject I have decided that administrative intervention is required here: Since Fred's new system is not yet complete a temporary solution is required.

Going forwards from this point, I will accept nuclear weapons with the following DR levels:

Low yield- DR5
Moderate yield- DR6
Heaviest yield -DR 7

Anything above the DR 7 that is nuclear will not/no longer be accepted. This keep in mind is a temporary solution until the DR system is changed.

I understand that this will make some of you unhappy; part of my job is to do what I think is best for the site and sometimes it may not be the most popular avenue. But I am confident of my descision...and it is final, or at least valid until a new system is completed.
Until official ammendments can be made to the DR listings, consider my post here an official ammendment and admin descision.

Thank-you.