tritium for bombs (split from initiator in boosted fission)

[mistermack]

I don't know anything about boosted fission bombs, but from a quick read, it occurred to me that if Tritium is an essential component, then the often repeated claim that fusion doesn't contribute towards production of weapons of war isn't really true. There is a world shortage of Tritium, which they are hoping will be met by producion from fusion plants, once they become operational. So more abundant Tritium will mean smaller, cheaper and more powerful nuclear weapons.

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

I don't know anything about boosted fission bombs, but from a quick read, it occurred to me that if Tritium is an essential component, then the often repeated claim that fusion doesn't contribute towards production of weapons of war isn't really true. There is a world shortage of Tritium, which they are hoping will be met by producion from fusion plants, once they become operational. So more abundant Tritium will mean smaller, cheaper and more powerful nuclear weapons.

I thought they'd stopped using tritium in favor of lithium. 

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

I thought they'd stopped using tritium in favor of lithium.

Stopped using it in what? The bombs or the reactors? In the reactors, they will be using a lithium blanket to breed tritium. 

In the boosted bombs page in wiki it says this :

Solid lithium deuteride-tritide has also been used in some cases, but gas allows more flexibility (and can be stored externally) and can be injected into a hollow cavity at the center of the sphere of fission fuel, or into a gap between an outer layer and a "levitated" inner core, sometime before implosion.

[StringJunky]

40 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I thought they'd stopped using tritium in favor of lithium. 

Lithium deuteride is the tritium/deuterium source.

[MigL]

The only difference between a weapon and a reactor is simply the rate of energy release.

[npts2020]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

The only difference between a weapon and a reactor is simply the rate of energy release.

Also, the configuration required for slow vs instant energy release but if one has the materiel and know-how to build one they can almost certainly build the other.

[MigL]

Often, that doesn't even matter.
A hot, unshielded, uncooled reactor, if dropped on your enemy would melt through just abot anything, and contaminate his groundwater with radiation, making his area uninhabitable for many generations.
A formidable weapon.

[mistermack]

It's a shame that it's so hard to make useful fusion energy, and so easy to make a bomb. (Relatively)

What a different world we would be in, if it had been the other way around. 

But I'm pretty sure that fusion energy will be a game changer, given more time than I've got. There has to be a road block of some sort to stop it happening, otherwise, progress will inevitably be made enough to get the real investment money going into it. The only roadblock I can see ahead is the Tritium production technology, and that doesn't look too formidable at the present, but it's probably the biggest unknown. 

More Tritium production would logically make boosted fission bombs easier to make and maintain, because the Tritium has a short half life, so would need to be kept topped up in the weapons.

[swansont]

20 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Also, the configuration required for slow vs instant energy release but if one has the materiel and know-how to build one they can almost certainly build the other.

I disagree in the case of fission. One is more difficult; for a high-yield explosion you need to keep the material together for a certain amount of time. Otherwise you get a “fizzle” (and other issues can cause a fizzle as well)

Also, if you are using uranium for the fission device, it needs to be adequately enriched. Reactors can overcome the parasitic losses due to low enrichment by making them bigger to reduced neutron leakage. If you use plutonium someone has to make the plutonium.

[npts2020]

On 5/23/2023 at 8:13 PM, swansont said:

I disagree in the case of fission. One is more difficult; for a high-yield explosion you need to keep the material together for a certain amount of time. Otherwise you get a “fizzle” (and other issues can cause a fizzle as well)

Also, if you are using uranium for the fission device, it needs to be adequately enriched. Reactors can overcome the parasitic losses due to low enrichment by making them bigger to reduced neutron leakage. If you use plutonium someone has to make the plutonium.

I don't care to get in a discussion about building reactors or nuclear bombs and would pretty much agree with all of this but still maintain that if you have the ability to build one you can almost certainly build the other.