|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
|
|
Saturday, 01 May 2004
Reaction weapons are inherently “clean” nuclear weapons, if they work on the same fundamental principles as the thermonuclear reaction technology that powers the VF’s and runs the capital ship’s heat piles. That is to say they are not significant radiation sources in the sense most of you are familiar with. Something as energetic as a nuclear blast will generate radiation, first as a “Gamma Pulse” which will kill anyone exposed to it, instantly, by killing every cell in their body. The result is pretty much the same as the process that irradiates food. All cells die, including bacteria, so the food doesn’t rot for a very long time. In most cases, anyone close enough to be effected by the gamma pulse will be incinerated too, so, the pulse is nothing to worry over. Gamma radiation is much like light. After that pulse--or flash--of gamma waves, it’s gone.
The “evil” radiation we’ve grown up fearing... the lingering cancer causing, rad sickness inducing, radioactive stuff of fallout and nuclear waste fame is alpha and beta radiation. These types are completely different from light, and, in theory, should not be found in a “clean” nuclear weapon.
I’m probably boring the hell out of you, but I should pass this on because your characters would know this.
Nuclear weapons are fundamentally different than atomic weapons, because the process that weapon is based on is intrinsicly reversed. Nuclear weapons are based on fusion (the process of combining two atomic nuclei to form one atom) while atomic weapons are based on fission (the process of splitting one nucleus to from two). Fission is very hard with non radioactive materials, thus the use of uranium and plutonium in fission bombs. It’s easier to get radioactive stuff to chain react. The result of fission of radioactive atoms is more radioactive atoms. Fusion is the opposite. While it is easier to get radio active atoms to fuse, the easiest fusion reaction to start is that of two hydrogen atoms into a helium atom, and no matter how hard you try you can’t make hydrogen radioactive. It is used in some types of fission reactors as a coolant for this reason. It might explode, yes, but if you are forced to vent the coolant to prevent an explosion, it isn’t radioactive in any way.
The point being, the most common result of hydrogen fusion is stable helium. Nothing radioactive goes in, and very little radiation comes out. A pure thermonuclear explosion site would be safe to enter in a few hours (from a radiation stand point) and the rads would be no different from background radiation in a month.
The question comes to mind then, “why do we worry about fallout with today’s nuclear weapons? They are Fusion bombs, right?” Right. But they aren’t “clean”. Hydrogen to helium fusion is the easiest type we know of, but the ease is relative. To make it happen you need high temps and fantastic pressure. The simplest way to do that is to set off an atomic fission blast. The radioactive type. The resulting heat and pressure hits a store of hydrogen causing it to start fusing into helium and you get a thermonuclear blast. Think of the atomic bomb as a detonator for a nuclear bomb and you’ve got it.
The radioactive stuff from the atomic blast sticks to the dirt and gasses lifted by the nuclear explosion. When that stuff cools down, it starts to drift back down and you have “Fallout”.
UN Spacy reaction weapons don’t need atomic detonators. They are pure fusion bombs, and only marginally radioactive. That’s just a guess. Kawamori and Studio Nue have not stated conclusively how they get fusion reactions, thought they have suggested it is via a two part catalytic reaction, where part A mixes with part B and you get fusion. My guess is that it is not a radioactive hazard because you don’t see mechanics fuelling or repairing VF’s in anti rad suits.
So, what’s the big deal with reaction weapons anyway? As far as I know it’s cultural. The Japanese have the dubious distinction of being the only culture ever attacked with an atomic weapon. There is a deep cultural aversion to anything like atomic weapons. You can see it plainly in the fact that it wasn’t until after all of the Macross TV series had aired, that Studio Nue admitted that reaction weapons were really nuclear weapons. The name “reaction weapon” was made up so they didn't have to say “nuclear weapon” on TV.
Why am I wasting all this text on this? Partly to clear up some confusion I’ve seen. It is actually in character to have a gut aversion to reaction weapons. About 10% of the seed population of the Earth after Space War One was Japanese, so it is normal to expect a heavy Japanese influence on human culture. But beyond that, I have future plots in mind that revolve heavily around the concept of cultural conflict between those who have an aversion to reaction weapons and those who see them as really big bombs. Cheaper alternatives to heavy particle beam cannons like the Macross cannons. If the plot comes to be, I figured this would be a good place to start laying the ground work for it.
Anywho. I’d like to thank anyone who bothered to read all of this dren. I hope it clears up any confusion about what the reaction weapons were used for, and helps to explain some of the technology and culture of Macross. Much of what you have read is my opinion, but the science is real. The Macross angles were derived from studying the material on the Macross Compendium (http://macross.anime.net) which (obliquely) supports the idea that the UN’s reticence about the use of reaction weapons is cultural.
essay by Ironside, 2004.02.02 |
| Last Updated (
Saturday, 01 May 2004 ) |
|
|
Weapons 
