Alternative names for nuclear / atomic weapons?

matashowski

This got me thinking about colloquial names for them, such as OTL's "Nuke".

I could see some kind of biblical reference, such as refering to them as "Gomorrahs". Also, in reference to seeing the aftermath as well as the nature of the weapon, perhaps people refering to them as Comets or Comet bombs. Finally, i could see an attempt by the government to coin a term that downplays the effects, such as "Scorching bombs". (Kind of like the phrase "tear gas")
 

asnys

Saphroneth said:
If you compare airburst with airburst, yeah. I'm fairly sure that groundbursts create a lot more fallout, though, all else being equal. The whole point of airbursting even as far back as Hiroshima was to minimize fallout.
Click to expand...

It minimizes fallout because, without dirt in the mix, the fission products are lofted into the upper atmosphere, where they spend months decaying and diluting before falling back to Earth.

I don't have a reference ready to hand, but consider: a typical modern nuclear weapon is about 50% fusion, 50% fission (with most of that coming from fast fission of U-238 in the tamper). Every fission reaction produces two fission product atoms. (Since the vast majority of the fission is U-238 fast fission, we can neglect fission-produced neutrons). Every fusion reaction produces a neutron, most of which are used to split Lithium-6 into tritium and helium-3 (though there can also be neutron multipliers such as beryllium). Of the excess neutrons produced, most are used in fast fission of U-238. Of the neutrons that are not used in fast fission, most do not neutron-activate a material. Just conceptually, it doesn't make sense that neutron activation would form a significant part of the fallout even in a groundburst.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

'Atomic' was a word used in the 20s and 30s by SF writers long before anyone knew HOW to release that energy. I think any TL with a PoD later than, say 1920, has a good chance of calling them 'atomic bombs'.

However, just as 'tank' was a code name that came into general circulation, the same could be true for Abombs.

'We dropped a Tube on Tokyo'. Hmmmm... 'Tokyo took the Tube'?
'Manhattan' is too long a word - but if the project had been called Bronx instead of manhattan, a 'Bronx Cheer' might be even more impolite than otl....

Hell bomb was used for Hbomb in SF in the 50s, I think.
 
The Kiat

The Kiat

A lot of those alternatives are a bit clunky and wouldn't ring a bell to the general public. Fission, fusion and annihilation (not yet, but one day...) warheads would be a better name than some of those. Super bomb is another one, though it's not very precise. Uranium or Plutonium bombs would work.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Asnys said:
It minimizes fallout because, without dirt in the mix, the fission products are lofted into the upper atmosphere, where they spend months decaying and diluting before falling back to Earth.

I don't have a reference ready to hand, but consider: a typical modern nuclear weapon is about 50% fusion, 50% fission (with most of that coming from fast fission of U-238 in the tamper). Every fission reaction produces two fission product atoms. (Since the vast majority of the fission is U-238 fast fission, we can neglect fission-produced neutrons). Every fusion reaction produces a neutron, most of which are used to split Lithium-6 into tritium and helium-3 (though there can also be neutron multipliers such as beryllium). Of the excess neutrons produced, most are used in fast fission of U-238. Of the neutrons that are not used in fast fission, most do not neutron-activate a material. Just conceptually, it doesn't make sense that neutron activation would form a significant part of the fallout even in a groundburst.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see what you're missing. Fast fission produces a higher number of neutrons on average - that's why it's used in breeder reactors. So you absolutely can't neglect fission-produced neutrons.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Asnys said:
This is a misconception. The reason the A-bombs didn't cause long-term contamination is because they were airbursts, detonated high enough that the fireball didn't touch the ground. The heat produced by an airburst nuclear weapon lofts almost all of the radioactive fission products into the upper atmosphere, where they largely decay and are diluted before returning to Earth. This is in distinction to surface-bursts, where the earth vaporized by the fireball condenses and falls back to Earth, carrying the fission products with it. The location didn't have much to do with it.

Also, it's essentially impossible for nuclear weapons to end "life on earth", but whatever.
Click to expand...

So, Pakistan & India get into limited nuclear exchange 4-10 weapons, and every thing is hunky-dory, except of course for the folks in the immediate blast zone? Heaven forbid, the late 1960's version with potentially hundreds of weapons from US & Company vs the Soviets, where strategic targets across the globe are hit. Among a few other catastrophe's; that level of exchange is going to alter weather patterns, but whatever...
 

asnys

Saphroneth said:
Ah, I see what you're missing. Fast fission produces a higher number of neutrons on average - that's why it's used in breeder reactors. So you absolutely can't neglect fission-produced neutrons.
Click to expand...

Fast fission of U-238. Fast breeder reactors use fast fission of Pu-239. Fast fission of U-238 does produce about 1.7 neutrons each (more then I remembered, so I guess I shouldn't neglect it after all), but their energy levels are too low to trigger further fast fissions. So it's dependent on an external neutron source, namely the D-T fusion stage of the Teller-Ulam design.
 
Tom Colton

Tom Colton

Sorry if this is a bit heavy-handed, but I'm sure there's other places to discuss the effects of ground-blast versus airburst nuclear detonations, and I'm sure we can all agree that there is at least the perception that any sort of nuclear exchange would be pretty damn apocalyptic.

I'm liking the range of scientific to popularistic alternatives suggested so far, I've got to say.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Asnys said:
Fast fission of U-238. Fast breeder reactors use fast fission of Pu-239. Fast fission of U-238 does produce about 1.7 neutrons each (more then I remembered, so I guess I shouldn't neglect it after all), but their energy levels are too low to trigger further fast fissions. So it's dependent on an external neutron source, namely the D-T fusion stage of the Teller-Ulam design.
Click to expand...
My info (at the high level of what produces more fallout) is sourced from Stuart Slade, who was, IIRC, one of those people whose job it was to work out nuclear attack patterns.
I'm going to assume he knows what he's talking about, basically, without a good reason not to.
And - if fast fission of U-238 produces 1.7 neutrons on average, that means the total neutron output of the bomb is (Ballpark) as many neutrons as there were fission products.

Now, the next bit is - what duration do those have? Do fission products tend to have different half lives from swept-up irradiated dust?
 
NHBL

NHBL

A few...

If the pulps had given them a different name, that might stick. Plantet-Buster or "Duodec Bomb" would be options.

"Buck rogers Bomb" or "Bucks" taking from the name of Buck Rogers, or perhaps "Mings" after the villainous Ming of Mongo. (There could be pressure to replace "Mings" in the late 20th century, calling it insensitive, etc.

Since neutrons are so important, "Neutron Bomb" might work, which could cause massive confusion for cross-world travelers.

Fort bombs, or 29 Bombs, after the B-29 Superfortress.

Perhaps "von Brauns" or "Einsteins" could crop up--the former if they were carried on rockets early on.

Or..."Flash-Bangs"
 

scottrich

City Killer

Gods Finger

Sun Bomb

HellBurner

FlashGrinder

TEOE('toe')Bomb-The End Of Everything Bomb

'One Bomb to kill them all, One Bomb descendent .

One Bomb to crush their all, Apocalypse upon them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top