Uranium for nukes

[UltraSonix]

As I was writing about the Missile Defence Shield topic, I had an idea. It's only minor, but the problem's been brought up before: how can you build nukes with no uranium?

I've suggested before that a civ would need to have access to uranium as a trading commodity in a city somewhere before being able to build nukes. Well, maybe the player has to actually mine (as in build a normal mine with an engineer) the square/s with the uranium (which would be a special resource like the wheat/whale). Then the player would need to set a person to work on the square, and all the square would produce would be some uranium, minerals, but no nutrients (genetically modified food, anyone?).

This minor idea might sound complicated, but it wouldn't be too much micromanagement as it'll only need to be done once.

It'll really spice up the game cause it'll place greater value on SDI and having a missile defence shield, if your civ can't build nukes. It'll also make the uranium-rich areas of the map very valuable, with nearby cities perhaps more sought after than capitals.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited July 23, 2000).]

[Shadowstrike]

Then, a later technology could take away this limitation. (since a nuclear missile, as a fission device can use any element as the catacylst, just that uranium is easier to brak apart at the atomic level)

[tonic]

Ultrasonix:
The idea certainly makes for greater realism but to be consistent one should apply the same principle to other trading commodities. At the moment it's a fixed list in your rules.txt whereas I agree with you that the commodities should be determined by the resources within your cities' boundaries eg to be able to generate a gold caravan/freight you should have access to a gold mine in your civ. This would add an interesting dimension to the game with dynamic supply-demand and hence trade route payoffs dependent on extant exploitable commodities rather than an arbitrarily predetermined one.

Edit:
Shadowstrike, can you elaborate your point?
[This message has been edited by tonic (edited July 23, 2000).]

[Shadowstrike]

Nuclear missiles us nuclear fission to produce devastating results. What this means is that inside the warhead, atoms are being ripped apart. This releases a rather large amount of energy, i.e. the mushroom cloud of nukes everywhere.

When scientists first started on the Manhattan Project, they already had some knowledge about what type of element breaks apart easiest. Eventually, they found uranium, the largest (single atom) element to be found naturally. What the first A Bombs did was break the unstable isotope (type of element) U-238 (one created in labs) into its more stable form U-235.

However, with improved techniques, nuclear fission can be accomplished with any element even a common one, like nitrogen. This would be represented by the loss of dependance of uranium in making nukes.

[tonic]

Shadowstrike:
I see where the problem is now. You may be confusing fission with fusion. The second process with light elements is fusion (where two lighter nuclei fuse and release an incredible amount of energy) whereas the one involving the heaviest elements like uranium and plutonium is fission, where the one large unstable nucleus splits into fission products and release much energy, though less than in fusion (which BTW is what keeps the sun burning bright).

That detail cleared, your point about nuclear missiles would hold, except that AFAIK the fusion device (the H-Bomb) would need a very powerful trigger like a fission device, (the Atomic Bomb) to set it off! ie one would still need to have uranium (the other fissionable element, plutonium-238 is obtained as a by-product of the reaction of the more abunddant isotope of uranium (238) with the fission neutrons).

Edit: added addressee
[This message has been edited by tonic (edited July 24, 2000).]

[UltraSonix]

Two things - I agree that after a while the need for uranium for nukes would disappear (eg H-bombs - and yes I know H-bomb does have uranium, but let's ignore that).

Also, I don't think that the uranium idea should apply to all commodities - eg can't build aircraft carrier before the steel industry isn't big enough. It'll create too much micromanagement (though it'll be realistic). I only mentioned it for nukes because they're so important.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[tonic]

UltraSonix:
I brought out the parallel with other trading commodities because your initial post was on the commodity trading aspects of uranium. So my suggestion was purely to apply the realism of availability of the resource to other commodities (currently from hides to gems to uranium in civ2).

The techtree and availability of units and improvements are another matter altogether and like you, I would dread to think about the problems in implementing them in addition to complicating the micro-management aspects of the game.

[Shadowstrike]

Tonic: In theory, any element can be used for nuclear fission. It's just not too wise (economically) to use anything other then uranium.

[Evil Capitalist]

quote: Originally posted by Shadowstrike on 07-24-2000 09:04 AM In theory, any element can be used for nuclear fission. It's just not too wise (economically) to use anything other then uranium.

I may be wrong, but I thought there was only one Uranium bomb, built to be compared to plutonium devices in the Manhattan project. I am almost certain that plutonium is used in all modern warheads.

[Shadowstrike]

quote: Originally posted by Evil Capitalist on 07-24-2000 11:09 AM I may be wrong, but I thought there was only one Uranium bomb, built to be compared to plutonium devices in the Manhattan project. I am almost certain that plutonium is used in all modern warheads.

Plutonium cannot be produced naturally. It must be manufactured from uranium.

[Napoleon I]

Do you guys see the full implications of your idea?

I mean if we really try to implement a system like this then where do we stop? See right now, we are only discussing nuclear missiles. What about the fact that a tank cannot be made without steel? Or a fact that an airplane won't fly without oil? That the trireme cannot be built without wood? Should we really make the game particular all the way to the level of using the precise resources that one needs to build something?

For me the food-shield-trade system is as good enough an approximation of the real world as we need to get. In this system a "shield" is simply an abstraction of all the production resources that you need to build a certain object, just like "food" is an abstraction of all the stuff that people eat.

My opinion on the matter is, this is a tried and true system that has proven to be fun and provide for excellent gameplay, and we should stick with this. Therefore, the argument of whether a city needs uranium to produce a nuke, would be pointless, just like an argument that a city needs to have a square of forest in its radius to produce something as basic as a chariot.

------------------
Napoleon I

[tonic]

quote: Originally posted by Shadowstrike on 07-24-2000 09:04 AM Tonic: In theory, any element can be used for nuclear fission. It's just not too wise (economically) to use anything other then uranium.

You must have a radical theory of nuclear physics - what is the source to support your claim? By definition fission can only occur with unstable heavy elements like uranium-235 and Plutonium-238. And fusion currently with the lightest elements, hydrogen particularly.

You should be careful not to use the term fission to include both fission and fusion. They are very different nuclear processes as any physics major will tell you.

[This message has been edited by tonic (edited July 24, 2000).]

[N_A]

Sounds about right to me. Theoritically you can fission any element but it would not be energetically effecient or economically efficient. Fusion can only be done with lighter elements, I believe up to Fe (iron). And an H-bomb requires a fission reaction to provide the activation energy to start a fusion chain reaction.

How does this play in the game ? Well, it should be that until people can figure out how to simulate pure fusion, all nuclear weapons whether fission or fusion should have radiation.

Argh, but nukes are simply dishonorable.

[KaoLung]

quote: Originally posted by tonic on 07-23-2000 06:42 PM the commodities should be determined by the resources within your cities' boundaries eg to be able to generate a gold caravan/freight you should have access to a gold mine in your civ. This would add an interesting dimension to the game with dynamic supply-demand and hence trade route payoffs dependent on extant exploitable commodities rather than an arbitrarily predetermined one.

Civ: Call to Power had this system, and I didn't like it myself. Essentially a city could only have a trade route if it had a specific good within its radius. But the squares didn't give any extra bonuses either.

You'd think a square with crab in it would produce more food instead of more money...

[jdlessl]

You can perform fission or fusion on any element (except fission on hydrogren, for obvious reasons) but if you try to fuse anything heavier than iron or fission on anything lighter, you lose energy. Also, you get the most energy from nuclear reactions on elements that are furthest away from iron on the periodic table. The reason is that neutrons in iron are fractionally lighter than the others, so by turning hydrogen/plutonium into elements with lighter neutron masses, you convert mass into energy.

I don't know how many Uranium-235 weapons are out there right now, but I doubt there's many. It takes so much work to separate the rare U-235 from common U-238 that it's more cost effective to convert the U-238 into Plutonium-239. Breeder reactors are great for that: Give them useless U-238 and they bombard it with free neutrons, thus turning it into useful Pu-239, part of which is used to generate free neutrons to convert more U-238... It's like being able to put water in your gas tank and have the car engine use just a little gasoline to turn the water into more gas.

Currently, fusion weapons require fission triggers, since we can do fission at low temperatures but not fusion (at least not very well; muons do allow fusion at 800 C). But it is theoretically possible to have a purely fusion device. That could be a nifty advanced tech: Cold Fusion. Not only does it boost production in your cities, but it makes all your nukes clean as well (though you'll still get nuclear winter if used too much).

Jared Lessl