Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Is it possible for nukes to carry their own oxidixer!

  1. #1
    Second Lieutenant Milleniumlance's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Cleveland, OH, USA
    Posts
    444

    Default Is it possible for nukes to carry their own oxidixer!

    to boost the effect of the explosion...

  2. #2
    Second Lieutenant Melak's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern Ontario
    Posts
    421

    Default Re: Is it possible for nukes to carry their own oxidixer!

    1. I and probably many people don't know that much about nukes or how an oxidixer works so if you could explain, it would be helpful

    2. My gut response when reading the question was "Who needs an oxidixer when you've got Naquadah/Naquadriah?

  3. #3
    Second Lieutenant Milleniumlance's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Cleveland, OH, USA
    Posts
    444

    Default Re: Is it possible for nukes to carry their own oxidixer!

    Everyone in threads have been saying that nukes in space do little damage because there is no atmosphere for the fission reaction to feed on...Im just throwing something out there..
    Last edited by Milleniumlance; February 9th, 2006 at 06:01 PM.

  4. #4
    First Lieutenant alaskannut's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 2004
    Location
    Prior of the Coffee Gods
    Posts
    553

    Default Re: Is it possible for nukes to carry their own oxidixer!

    Nuclear explosives do NOT require oxygen or for that matter any kind of gas atmosphere, nor do any other types of military explosive. The only affect that an atmosphere has is that it propagates the pressure wave created by an explosion which is responsible for blast damage.

    Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
    http://photobucket.com/albums/a375/alaskannut1/
    http://www.michaelyon-online.com/michael-s-dispatches/

    "We're not going to Guam are we?"

  5. #5
    First Lieutenant
    Member Since
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    534

    Default Re: Is it possible for nukes to carry their own oxidixer!

    You'd have to be carrying a ton of atmosphere, and distribute it around the nuke, and I doubt that would even help.

    If you use the old analogy of ripples in the water, without the water, the rock just hits the ground, now with a nuke its still a VERY big rock, but it doesn't rupple outwards.

  6. #6
    Colonel Major Tyler's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 2004
    Location
    Den Haag
    Posts
    6,040

    Earth Symbol Re: Is it possible for nukes to carry their own oxidixer!

    The fact that the nuclear weapons in space don't create an enourmous blast wave is an advantage if you want to use them in a battle that includes (relatively) close-quarters ship-to-ship combat, or combat involving your own fighters. That way the missiles would only damage their intended target.

  7. #7
    First Lieutenant tony's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2005
    Location
    jersey
    Posts
    526

    Default Re: Is it possible for nukes to carry their own oxidixer!

    Soo wait if i am getting this right you guys are saying that nukes don’t need an atmosphere to explode its normal ability... then how come in like every thread I read in here everyone is yelling saying nukes do crap in space.... are these guys on crack that say this then? Does it not matter that there is no atmosphere in space the nuke will be the same power regardless? What exactly are you saying!!!!
    http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...glia/jaffa.jpg


    See Jaffa are Crazy! (pic of a Tia food place in the US of A )

  8. #8
    Staff Sergeant
    Member Since
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55

    Default Re: Is it possible for nukes to carry their own oxidixer!

    Oxidizers won't help a nuclear explosion get "bigger" under any circumstances. Because a nuclear explosion is not a chemical explosion like TNT or dynamite. What happens is the atoms inside the nuke split apart in the case of a fission bomb, or fuse together in the case of a fusion bomb. Only certain atoms (uranium, hydrogen, plutonium, deuterium, etc.) are useful for weapon purposes. So an oxidizer wouldn't add anything useful to a nuclear explosion unless it also consisted of similar atoms, but then the explosion would be called a pumped up nuclear explosion rather than nuclear explosion with an oxider.

    In real life, nuclear weapons like fusion bombs are "enhanced" by surrounding the core with extra uranium. In the stargate universe, it seems that they use Naquadah

    As for nuclear weapons in space, as another poster mentioned, any explosion in space isn't very powerful because there is no atmosphere to carry the blast wave. You need some kind of fluid material to carry the wave. Without one, the bulk of the damage comes from the flying shrapnel from the bomb itself.

    In real life, a pure chemical explosive will certainly rip you in two at close range but at further range you'll only suffer hearing loss. So military designers pack their explosives in thick metal casings so then the pieces of metal will rip through their targets like bullets.

    Nuclear weapons are a little more devasting because they are so powerful that the blast wave alone going through air is enough to cause massive devastation.

    In space, without that air, things are a little different. The nuke must be at close range when it goes off to damage its target, but how it does it is not from shrapnel, but from radiation. When the nuclear weapon goes off, it releases a massive burst of radiation that instantly vaporizes any nearby objects. Like getting too close to the sun, you need to be close to the nuclear explosion for this to happen. But when it does happen that vaporized section of the hull is essentially a bubble of superheated gas that explodes outward. This explosion is right on the hull and damages the ship like a normal explosive shockwave. So your nuclear device need not actually TOUCH your target, it just needs to get close enough to vapourize the hull.

    In real life, during the hiroshima incident, a sad thing that happened was that people wearing dark clothing died more often than people wearing white clothing. what happened? The sudden burst of radiation, including light, was like a million suns going off. People wearing dark clothing absorbed more of the light and where instantly set ablaze. They then spend the next few agonizing seconds of their lives on fire. People wearing white clothing were still burned, and still had to contend with radiation poisioning and the oncoming blast wave, but suffered less burn damage than those with dark clothing. Their chances of survival (although still slim) were better.


    So how do we augment a nuke? a bigger bomb would be nice, then you can either A) have your device further away and do the same damage, or B) get closer and do more damage.

    Alternatively the effect may be better if somehow the radiation can be directed toward the target like a beam, greatly extending our range. But that kind of technology is something we do not yet possess, although the Asgard and the ancients probably do.

    If we could also tune the radiation energy to be of the right frequency to cause the most damage that would also help.

    However doing all of that, its not a nuke anymore, its a beam weapon

  9. #9
    First Lieutenant alaskannut's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 2004
    Location
    Prior of the Coffee Gods
    Posts
    553

    Default Re: Is it possible for nukes to carry their own oxidixer!

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexein
    Oxidizers won't help a nuclear explosion get "bigger" under any circumstances. Because a nuclear explosion is not a chemical explosion like TNT or dynamite. What happens is the atoms inside the nuke split apart in the case of a fission bomb, or fuse together in the case of a fusion bomb. Only certain atoms (uranium, hydrogen, plutonium, deuterium, etc.) are useful for weapon purposes. So an oxidizer wouldn't add anything useful to a nuclear explosion unless it also consisted of similar atoms, but then the explosion would be called a pumped up nuclear explosion rather than nuclear explosion with an oxider.

    In real life, nuclear weapons like fusion bombs are "enhanced" by surrounding the core with extra uranium. In the stargate universe, it seems that they use Naquadah

    As for nuclear weapons in space, as another poster mentioned, any explosion in space isn't very powerful because there is no atmosphere to carry the blast wave. You need some kind of fluid material to carry the wave. Without one, the bulk of the damage comes from the flying shrapnel from the bomb itself.

    In real life, a pure chemical explosive will certainly rip you in two at close range but at further range you'll only suffer hearing loss. So military designers pack their explosives in thick metal casings so then the pieces of metal will rip through their targets like bullets.

    Nuclear weapons are a little more devasting because they are so powerful that the blast wave alone going through air is enough to cause massive devastation.

    In space, without that air, things are a little different. The nuke must be at close range when it goes off to damage its target, but how it does it is not from shrapnel, but from radiation. When the nuclear weapon goes off, it releases a massive burst of radiation that instantly vaporizes any nearby objects. Like getting too close to the sun, you need to be close to the nuclear explosion for this to happen. But when it does happen that vaporized section of the hull is essentially a bubble of superheated gas that explodes outward. This explosion is right on the hull and damages the ship like a normal explosive shockwave. So your nuclear device need not actually TOUCH your target, it just needs to get close enough to vapourize the hull.

    In real life, during the hiroshima incident, a sad thing that happened was that people wearing dark clothing died more often than people wearing white clothing. what happened? The sudden burst of radiation, including light, was like a million suns going off. People wearing dark clothing absorbed more of the light and where instantly set ablaze. They then spend the next few agonizing seconds of their lives on fire. People wearing white clothing were still burned, and still had to contend with radiation poisioning and the oncoming blast wave, but suffered less burn damage than those with dark clothing. Their chances of survival (although still slim) were better.


    So how do we augment a nuke? a bigger bomb would be nice, then you can either A) have your device further away and do the same damage, or B) get closer and do more damage.

    Alternatively the effect may be better if somehow the radiation can be directed toward the target like a beam, greatly extending our range. But that kind of technology is something we do not yet possess, although the Asgard and the ancients probably do.

    If we could also tune the radiation energy to be of the right frequency to cause the most damage that would also help.

    However doing all of that, its not a nuke anymore, its a beam weapon
    What he said

    Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
    http://photobucket.com/albums/a375/alaskannut1/
    http://www.michaelyon-online.com/michael-s-dispatches/

    "We're not going to Guam are we?"

Similar Threads

  1. Deadalus Mach 8 Nukes Question? (sp?)
    By albitros in forum SGA General Discussion
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: October 29th, 2005, 02:26 PM
  2. What sort of weapons do F-302's carry?
    By Dave C in forum General Stargate Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: October 27th, 2005, 01:09 PM
  3. Naquadria (sp) hyperspace nukes
    By 5150 Joker in forum SGA General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 7th, 2005, 06:36 PM
  4. What weapons do SG Teams carry?
    By Dragonel in forum General Stargate Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: July 30th, 2004, 12:24 PM
  5. What would you carry through the Stargate
    By ABYDOSCITY2 in forum General Stargate Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 1st, 2004, 09:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •