AFAIK all modern fusion bombs require a fission device to trigger. Of course, it is possible that in SR4, since they've got fusion a lot more figured out than we do, that a fission detonator is no longer necessary.
Although somehow it seems to me that a fusion reaction will always need something on the order of fission to get jump-started.

Yep. All existing nuclear warheads with fusion fuel require a fission device to start the fusion reaction -- here's an example of such a warhead design.

I'd have to agree with Moon-Hawk that something on the order of fission would be needed to start the fusion reaction. Seeing as how there has apparently not been any extensive research into fusion warheads that do not require a fission device as well, even though those are extremely expensive to manufacture and maintain, it doesn't seem likely that alternatives will pop up any time soon. On the other hand, plenty of unlikely things have obviously occurred in the SR world.

So that level of reaserch will occur only if world governments become aware that something's wrong with fission.
Interesting.

There can't be anything systematically wrong with fission, considering that there must be hundreds of fission power plants, not to mention dozens or hundreds of fission powered ships, operational around the world at least up to the 2060s which have apparently not experienced any trouble.

so its more the blast potential in fission thats strange in SR then the heat potential of fission

Just in case someone doesn't know, no such distinction exists IRL.

oops your right, a blast is just a very quick buildup of heat
silly me.

so to redo the point of the post:

there is something limiting the speed of combustion, while not limiting the max energy output?

and therefor its not noticed in nuclear power plants because they start the fission prosess up to slow for the change to show up on their instruments. but if they where to take a nuke out to the desert and set it off, their predictions and the outcome would not match.

I may be way off on this, but I believe that energy is being released at a MUCH higher rate in an a-bomb than in a fission reactor, yes? Well, maybe when that rate rises above a certain threshold, then some of the released energy seeps over to the astral plane. Perhaps?

I did not claim there is no distinction between blast and heat. What was being discussed was the "blast potential" and "heat potential" of fission, and such a distinction does not exist.

I think my problem re: magic messing with nuclear reactions is simply that I find it a bit silly that the simple existence of magic would have predictable, measurable, observable effects on the physical world. I can't bend my mind around "energy leaking into the astral" -- what does that even mean? It's not like there is any actual matter/energy on the astral plane. Would that allow us to develop directed energy weapons capable of disrupting the astral plane? A particle accelerator capable of instantly creating level 10 Astral Warps?

"Misleading", then. Either way, the reason I didn't correct you last night was that I was pretty sure that you knew what you meant, even if it wasn't coming across entirely.

That and the fact that my internet connection doesn't want to connect me to the internet these days.

~J

Hardly my fault if what goes on between the soft X-rays and the surrounding matter and then inside and on the outer surface of the resulting fireball "misleads" people.

I have to say, regardless of the concept it's trying to put across, seeing the word "mana" in any kind of connection to SR makes me cringe.

A fireball spell doesn't bust any physical laws in my games, it simply requires the addition of a disclaimer: "Except when magic's involved." I prefer my magic as unscientific as possible.

that blast was contained by (and interacted with) a ritualy cast physical barrier...

It's still there, it's just not linked on his index. Forgotten in an update, or perhaps I just missed something.

System Failure is SR3. The very last SR3 book released..........outside of the still pending PDF release of Shadows of Latin America, gggrrrrrrrr.

Its purpose is largely to set up the world for SR4, so I've personally filed it under "SR4-related".

Nukes do work. Just in the Shadows of Asia book, Kashmir had 3 tactical nukes turn that place into a glowing wonder land. An earthquake in China detonated several nukes in a stockpile bunker depriving China of a portion of its nuclear arsenal. Israel used a few tacticals as well, suitcase bombs some say, planting them in middle eastern capitals.

The Lone Eagle incident was already admitted to being a sabotaged missile and the Cermark blast is just flakey. As for the Winternight nukes, I already said what I think about that particular bit of writting.

Other then the plants melting down during all the world changing history of the SR universe, nukes have pretty much worked the way they should, unless Im missing something else, which I might be, I havent finished the SoA book.

It just goes to prove as had already been said, nukes in SR = PLOT not E=MC2

EDIT: Ok, I did just find that North Korea launched a bunch of nukes themselves adn none of those detonated. No numbers on how many were launched. But it still shows its only plot that determines detonation, not actual rules. Also those nukes were launched in 2005, 7 years before the awakening.

Well that other passage is a bit confusing because in the Kashmire section it says 3 tactical nukes detonated, nothing about a glitch. Then the Pakistan section says 2 of the 4 missiles launched detonated over the launch site. It doesnt say the nukes malfunctioned, just the missiles. Which could have spread the radiactive material all over. So, so far there is no indication that the nukes didnt work as planned.

Umm, missles don't "detontate".

blakkie is probably referring to the fact that 'detonate' is most often used to indicate an on-purpose explosion, while the Pakistan section, i believe it says that the missiles themselves (not their nuclear payloads) exploded due to malfunction.

of course, the word choice is a moot point. detonate, explode, they blew the fuck up. i vote that we drop blakkie's tangent and get on with the main discussion.

it doesn't seem to me like there's any general force that prevents nukes from going often--it's much more likely, in my opinion, that there is an entity or entities who are consciously working, most likely via magic, to prevent the successful use of nukes.

I vote against it. If blakkie is going to claim that missiles don't undergo supersonic combustion, I would definitely like to hear his explanation, as in the event that he's actually correct it would be correcting a sizable misunderstanding on my part.

If he really was saying what you think, then I'm content in the fact that it's been demonstrated that he's using the wrong word.

~J

i admit that my choice was biased by the fact that i'd rather not discuss anything with blakkie. if you've got a stronger stomach than me, then by all means, proceed.

I try to avoid it too, but this is a win-win for me. Either he says something even more stupid, or (not that I think it's likely) he actually turns out to be right and I learn something.

Of course, it probably isn't going to turn out as well as I'm hoping, but at 2:15 AM my judgement is a little cloudy.

~J

...