|
Post by tangentialthreat on Jan 8, 2018 4:13:23 GMT
Details about killing underground bunkers with nukes tend to be kind of scarce for some reason.
There is also no kill like overkill. If you're even thinking about this then subtle options like drilling a hole first or pouring foam insulation down the heat vents weren't seen as sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 8, 2018 6:21:46 GMT
open the vents and drop a container of ClF3 down, then run away
|
|
|
Post by heroeblaster on Jan 8, 2018 10:08:45 GMT
Details about killing underground bunkers with nukes tend to be kind of scarce for some reason. There is also no kill like overkill. If you're even thinking about this then subtle options like drilling a hole first or pouring foam insulation down the heat vents weren't seen as sufficient. No kill like overkill indeed. I was not sure that several dozen teratons of nuclear shaped charge would do the trick against a bunker designed for synthetics that is submerged in upper mantle. Well there are also 'supercavitation drills' in the setting but they are usually seen as harder to setup.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Jan 9, 2018 8:19:23 GMT
Details about killing underground bunkers with nukes tend to be kind of scarce for some reason. There is also no kill like overkill. If you're even thinking about this then subtle options like drilling a hole first or pouring foam insulation down the heat vents weren't seen as sufficient. No kill like overkill indeed. I was not sure that several dozen teratons of nuclear shaped charge would do the trick against a bunker designed for synthetics that is submerged in upper mantle. Well there are also 'supercavitation drills' in the setting but they are usually seen as harder to setup. A large rock on a retrograde intercept could unleash exatons of energy; we have identified over 140 very large 100km plus objects in the main belt. Given the orbital velocity of Earth is ~30kms we can get a ideal (ideal practical, that is) 60km/s relative velocity at impact. Wolfram gives me an estimate of about 1.36 exatons for a 100km chunk of nickel-iron at these impact velocities... Which still might be survivable for advanced synthetic intelligences. However, most industrial processes capable of operating at such an environment are going to be less efficient simply due to thermodynamics, so once you turn the surface into lava, you can put a bunch of spysats/spydrones around, and deny any attempts at reindustrializing the surface while you exploit the system's resources vastly more efficiently.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jan 9, 2018 14:48:23 GMT
Details about killing underground bunkers with nukes tend to be kind of scarce for some reason. There is also no kill like overkill. If you're even thinking about this then subtle options like drilling a hole first or pouring foam insulation down the heat vents weren't seen as sufficient. No kill like overkill indeed. I was not sure that several dozen teratons of nuclear shaped charge would do the trick against a bunker designed for synthetics that is submerged in upper mantle. Well there are also 'supercavitation drills' in the setting but they are usually seen as harder to setup. If you are interested in an totally overkill idea, use an sun gun, an >1% dyson swarm powering an mini deathstar destroying the entire crust in under a month. Otherwise, a heck ton of small antimatter catalyzed bombs. An single microgram can just as well catalyze an 1kT bomb as an 100MT one. Requiring only lithium deuteride. Which can be generated from water and lithium. 1t of LiD creates 10MT of explosive force, an megaton would create 10 teratons, etc. Sounds low but it is much cheaper than accelerating an giant asteroid in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by heroeblaster on Jan 9, 2018 22:48:00 GMT
No kill like overkill indeed. I was not sure that several dozen teratons of nuclear shaped charge would do the trick against a bunker designed for synthetics that is submerged in upper mantle. Well there are also 'supercavitation drills' in the setting but they are usually seen as harder to setup. If you are interested in an totally overkill idea, use an sun gun, an >1% dyson swarm powering an mini deathstar destroying the entire crust in under a month. Otherwise, a heck ton of small antimatter catalyzed bombs. An single microgram can just as well catalyze an 1kT bomb as an 100MT one. Requiring only lithium deuteride. Which can be generated from water and lithium. 1t of LiD creates 10MT of explosive force, an megaton would create 10 teratons, etc. Sounds low but it is much cheaper than accelerating an giant asteroid in most cases. The issue is of how difficult it is to set up space infrastructure due to parallel earths acting as anchors for trans-universe travel in that setting. It is relatively easy(in comparison) to dump stuff anywhere geostationary between the surface and LEO but it would be difficult to fight an entrenched AI by somehow deploying a rocket launchpad into a planet covered in turrets and teletanks, launching space operations under fire from orbit and ground and then building enough infrastructure to beam lasers from the sun or ramming a planet with a dinosaur killer. Stuff that can nail the entrenched AI by ramming it with a mile long rod at 30% c is a thing but you kind of need to get it there and up to to speed first. If anyone is interested I could write down my ideas on how the setting should work so far. To be fair it is a result of injecting myself with a ton of ProjectRHO, Orion's Arm, a bunch of Isaac Arthur's work and some other things.
|
|
|
Post by darksat on Jan 18, 2018 22:25:23 GMT
Just build a Nova Bomb & blow up the sun. Actually not that hard. The trick would be getting a nuke to penetrate deep enough into the sun’s photo-sphere without being vaporized by the high temperatures and pressure. The explosion then needs to be powerful enough to cause a chain reaction in the hydrogen of the sun that propagates faster than the shock wave from the explosion. This could only be done using a thermonuclear device which would need to be at least 0.5 MT The white paper listed below is quite informative, if very technical. It would require massive advances in technology though from current levels to get a thermonuclear device far enough into the photosphere of the sun that it has enough hydrogen around to maintain a chain reaction at a fast enough speed to spread faster than the shock wave from the explosion. Very very very difficult, but yes, it may be possible to blow up the sun to a certain extent. This would be a Nova however, not a Supernova. We would only know if it is viable after significant supercomputer modelling has been done, and then it may take decades or longer to be able to develop the technology to deliver a thermonuclear device to a deep enough depth within the suns photosphere. It may not be possible with our star but it seems likely that some starts in the galaxy would be quite susceptible to this. Brown Dwarf stars would probably be much easier targets and by the time we have the technology to visit other stars we would possibly have the technology to create effective Nova Bombs for use on certain stars like Brown Dwarf’s. Quote: “The Sun contains ~74% hydrogen by weight. The isotope hydrogen-1 (99.985% of hydrogen in nature) is a usable fuel for fusion thermonuclear reactions. This reaction runs slowly within the Sun because its temperature is low (relative to the needs of nuclear reactions). If we create higher temperature and density in a limited region of the solar interior, we may be able to produce self-supporting detonation thermonuclear reactions that spread to the full solar volume. This is analogous to the triggering mechanisms in a thermonuclear bomb. Conditions within the bomb can be optimized in a small area to initiate ignition, then spread to a larger area, allowing producing a hydrogen bomb of any power. In the case of the Sun certain targeting practices may greatly increase the chances of an artificial explosion of the Sun. This explosion would annihilate the Earth and the Solar System, as we know them today. “ file.scirp.org/pdf/CWEEE_2013071113213239.pdf
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jan 19, 2018 7:31:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by darksat on Jan 24, 2018 13:39:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Jan 24, 2018 23:55:55 GMT
What exactly would detonating a tiny speck of nuclear bomb do to a massive runaway fusion explosion that has been at it for billions of years accomplish?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 25, 2018 0:52:36 GMT
feather that broke the camels back, enough to boost solar output enough to glaze the rocky planets
|
|
|
Post by darksat on Jan 26, 2018 0:30:02 GMT
What exactly would detonating a tiny speck of nuclear bomb do to a massive runaway fusion explosion that has been at it for billions of years accomplish? The fusion that occurs inside the core of the sun is proton proton fusion that is only possible due to the immense pressure enabling fusion to occur at lower temperatures than normal due to quantum tunneling. Fusion from quantum tunneling also occurs fairly slowly. If you used a thermonuclear explosion to ignite fusion in the suns hydrogen using heat you could possibly trigger a fast fusion reaction using the hydrogen in the sun as the third stage of the nuke.
|
|
|
Post by heroeblaster on Jan 29, 2018 15:49:19 GMT
What exactly would detonating a tiny speck of nuclear bomb do to a massive runaway fusion explosion that has been at it for billions of years accomplish? The fusion that occurs inside the core of the sun is proton proton fusion that is only possible due to the immense pressure enabling fusion to occur at lower temperatures than normal due to quantum tunneling. Fusion from quantum tunneling also occurs fairly slowly. If you used a thermonuclear explosion to ignite fusion in the suns hydrogen using heat you could possibly trigger a fast fusion reaction using the hydrogen in the sun as the third stage of the nuke. Wait, i thought that P-P fusion can’t be in the fast form. I probably remember it wrong but doesn’t it require a rare fission event to happen somewhere along the way?
|
|
|
Post by SevenOfCarina on Jan 30, 2018 6:09:35 GMT
heroeblaster, the fission reaction you might be thinking of is the beta plus decay of Helium-2 to Deuterium after the initial proton-proton fusion reaction, which Wikipedia states has a significantly lower probability of occurring than the proton decay of Helium-2 to two protons. To quote verbatim; "The first step involves the fusion of two 1H nuclei (protons) into deuterium, releasing a positron and a neutrino as one proton changes into a neutron. It is a two-stage process; first, two protons fuse to form a diproton: 1H + 1H → 0He followed by the beta-plus decay of the diproton to deuterium: 0He → 2H + e++ νewith the overall formula: 1H + 1H→ 2H + e++ νe + 0.42 MeV This first step is extremely slow because the positron emission of the diproton to deuterium is extremely rare (the vast majority of the time, the diproton decays back into two hydrogen-1 unbound protons through proton emission). This is because the emission of the positron is brought about by the weak nuclear force, which is immensely weaker than the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force."Also relevant: "The half-life of a proton in the core of the Sun before it is involved in a successful proton-proton fusion is estimated to be about one billion years, even at the extreme pressures and temperatures found there."To be honest, using thermonuclear warheads to screw with the solar fusion rate sounds kind of outrageous, but I'm no expert.
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Jan 30, 2018 10:19:10 GMT
Is it possible to aim the enemy system's star with a RKV to do the same thing? After all the key is to heat up the star interior and fasten the fusion reaction within.
EDIT: we can still add a nuke on RKV even the vehicle itself can't do all the things itself.
|
|