Reactive Weapons

[KingNor]

Now if Japan didn't surrender, we probably would have been screwed. How long would it have taken to make another bomb??? (not fast enough) the US at the time did not have the technology to rapidly produce "high-grade" uranium.

at that point the allies would have invaded.

[ewilen]

All this historical discussion is off-topic. If you want to discuss the decision to drop The Bomb, please take it somewhere else. (You also might want to do some reading of educated arguments on both sides.)

[Duke Togo]

All this historical discussion is off-topic. If you want to discuss the decision to drop The Bomb, please take it somewhere else. (You also might want to do some reading of educated arguments on both sides.)

If somebody asked me if we should have bombed Japan, a simple, "Yes, by all means. Drop that frakker... Twice!"

[Agent ONE]

All this historical discussion is off-topic. If you want to discuss the decision to drop The Bomb, please take it somewhere else. (You also might want to do some reading of educated arguments on both sides.)

You may want to catch the flik "Fog of War" the story of Robert McNamara.

Informative as well as touching both sides of the issue.

As for this thread: Nuke a gay whale for Jesus!

[justvinnie]

Cold fusion is a product of sci-fi imagination. Cold fusion simply cannot exist. If two deuterium atoms were able to initiate fusion at ordinary temperatures and pressures, it would have occurred already given the amount of time and abundance of such collisions.

vinnie

[Agent ONE]

All this historical discussion is off-topic. If you want to discuss the decision to drop The Bomb, please take it somewhere else. (You also might want to do some reading of educated arguments on both sides.)

You may want to catch the flik "Fog of War" the story of Robert McNamara.

Informative as well as touching both sides of the issue.

As for this thread: Nuke a gay whale for Jesus!

By the way man, that movie is playing on Center street, like half a block from where you work (thats where I saw it). If you haven't seen it yet that is.

[Stamen0083]

Cold fusion is a product of sci-fi imagination. Cold fusion simply cannot exist. If two deuterium atoms were able to initiate fusion at ordinary temperatures and pressures, it would have occurred already given the amount of time and abundance of such collisions.

vinnie

Who's to say what is and what is not a product of sci-fi? There are things out in the universe that's stranger than any sci-fi can ever get, but once again, I digress.

Spontaneous cold fusion reactions of course does not exist, but catalyzed cold fusion does. Take your time to look up muon catalyzed fusion reaction. Last I checked on it some 3 years ago, they reached economical break-even, meaning they're able to get as much energy out of the reaction as they put in, when viewed from an economical standpoint.

[Agent ONE]

[pfunk]

and the bait.................................

[1st Border Red Devil]

Cold fusion is a product of sci-fi imagination. Cold fusion simply cannot exist. If two deuterium atoms were able to initiate fusion at ordinary temperatures and pressures, it would have occurred already given the amount of time and abundance of such collisions.

Not to collide this with another series discussion (sorry...) but thats what several people came to the conclusion at "the other site" (Dont nuke me!). What someone ended up proposing (RevPrez IIRC) was basically super-hot fusion reactions (ala the Sun) as the answer. I will defer to the scientists cause I dont know crap about physics and chemistry.

My main concern, however, is the environmental impact of said reaction when said mecha is blown to pieces. Is it possible that the plasma in such a reaction would burn itself out before causing massive amounts of damage if such an explosion would occur in an atmosphere?

[JB0]

My main concern, however, is the environmental impact of said reaction when said mecha is blown to pieces. Is it possible that the plasma in such a reaction would burn itself out before causing massive amounts of damage if such an explosion would occur in an atmosphere?

IT's not only possible, it's extremely likely.

Once the container responsible for keeping it compressed and heated is removed, it fizzles down to low-level plasma, AKA fire, and from there back down to just plain old gas rapidly.

Edited February 21, 2004 by JB0

[Aurel Tristen]

My apologies.... I was mistaken. I checked the Macross 7 liner notes and I was mistaken. It says "Reactional Weapons". Don't know what I was thinking there....

Now I must correct my entries.... ^^;

[amptor]

You have to remember, the Japanese civilians did not know what was going on out in the Pacific. (correct me if I am wrong) Of course the civilians probably turned a blind eye to when they enjoyed the spoils of war.

actually, the civilian puplic of japan knew invasion was iminent, the japanise government was training them for hand to hand combat. even women, children and the elderly were prepaired to fight to the death.

this is why the predicted cost of life was expected to be so high, the actual japanise military had been desimated, all their seasoned soldiers were dead (just ask ww2 pacific allied fighter pilots)

imagine allied soldiers having to fight heavily fortified strongholds every couple of miles, and when finally breaking though, having to slaughter women and children because none would surrender, and would continue to fight untill dead...

its easy to take all these reasons and try to defend the a-bombs as having been dropped on a 'kind' of military target since the entire japanise populace was consider hostile and had proven earlyer that they would not surrender, choosing fighting or suicide instead. this isn't the case though, the targets were selected more to test the power of the bombs, wich is something i'm not proud of.

before you judge the americans of the time however, you have to remember that all through europe, city wide carpet bombing from both allies and axis was common practice, and had cost far more lives on both sides than both atom bombs combined. it was the way war was conducted, true persision bombing just didn't exist. times have changed though, and for the most part the US doesn't do that sourt of thing anymore. we do have tactical nukes aimed at enemy citys, but these are retaliatory defence systems that i don't think anyone seriously plans on using. one can hope anyway.

...not to mention that the japanese did have underground bunkers throughout tokyo and such..which I think my dad said they used as machine shops when he was there in the 60's during vietnam times.

I just wanted to post something on topic, I think your icon is hilarious

[DestroidDefender]

Just to broaden the historical perspective a bit....

In the pacific war, the US submarine fleet devasted the japanese shipping, outdoing the german u-boats several times over. The food and resource situation in Japan in the last months of the wars was really, really grim. The Emperor and his civilian cabinet had been advocating surrender for some time but were overruled by Tojo. Even after the 2 A bomb attacks, Tojo would not surrender. The Emperor had to make a recording of the surrender and have it smuggled out of the Imperial palace to a radio station. Only after it had been annouced on the radio by the emperor did the Japanese military surrender.

It's a very complicated issue. Certainly the Japanese military were not "good guys" - look at what they did in Nanking. But would the US have used the A Bomb in Europe? I don't know. I do know Japanese animation is full on apocalyptic explosions - everything tends to "blow-up" at the end of the tv show or movie.

[1st Border Red Devil]

You may want to catch the flik "Fog of War" the story of Robert McNamara.

McNamara is a jackass btw.....

[Syngyne]

What someone ended up proposing (RevPrez IIRC) was basically super-hot fusion reactions (ala the Sun) as the answer.

Just as a side note, fusion reactions that are created here on earth are already hotter than the center of the sun. From what I've read (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) part of the reason the sun is able to maintain fusion is the tremendous amount of pressure created by its own gravity. As we can't recreate that kind of pressure on earth, we have to go the other route and use lots and lots of heat.

[1st Border Red Devil]

From what I've read (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) part of the reason the sun is able to maintain fusion is the tremendous amount of pressure created by its own gravity. As we can't recreate that kind of pressure on earth, we have to go the other route and use lots and lots of heat.

I think you're wrong about the heat portion of it. I know that the only way to get a nuclear reaction now that is as hot as the sun is to detonate a hydrogen bomb. Not exactly the way to harness energy to power mecha. As for the pressure...that too is what was discussed IIRC. Basically the advanced technology in the SDF-1 (Overtechnology and even, dont snicker, Robotechnology) somehow gave the answer in some form to solving this problem. It allowed to literally harvest the same level of power as the Sun...just in very compact form. Thats how you can have the power requirements to allow ships to open a wormhole (essentially what space folding is IIRC) and do other nifty things.

[JELEINEN]

Cold fusion is a product of sci-fi imagination. Cold fusion simply cannot exist. If two deuterium atoms were able to initiate fusion at ordinary temperatures and pressures, it would have occurred already given the amount of time and abundance of such collisions.

vinnie

Not to mention, cold fuzion would be next to useless since it's the heat (energy) of the reaction that we want to use. Also, I wouldn't call it the product of SF, at least not real SF (remember, 'science' is part of the name).

[Syngyne]

I think you're wrong about the heat portion of it. I know that the only way to get a nuclear reaction now that is as hot as the sun is to detonate a hydrogen bomb. Not exactly the way to harness energy to power mecha. As for the pressure...that too is what was discussed IIRC. Basically the advanced technology in the SDF-1 (Overtechnology and even, dont snicker, Robotechnology) somehow gave the answer in some form to solving this problem. It allowed to literally harvest the same level of power as the Sun...just in very compact form. Thats how you can have the power requirements to allow ships to open a wormhole (essentially what space folding is IIRC) and do other nifty things.

I checked around again, and found the reference here.

To recreate the conditions of the sun and stars for the production of fusion energy on earth, scientists must accomplish three major tasks. They have already passed the first test by achieving the necessary temperatures. In some cases, they have attained temperatures as high as 510 million degrees, more than 20 times the temperature at the center of the sun.

[Stamen0083]

Please delete me.

Edited February 28, 2004 by Stamen0083

[JELEINEN]

I know that the only way to get a nuclear reaction now that is as hot as the sun is to detonate a hydrogen bomb.

Wrong! Dead wrong!

A hydrogen bomb uses FUSION as its power source.

You detonate a FISSION bomb to get a fusion reaction going. Basically, you're trying to get the Hydrogen atoms to go so fast that when two atoms collide, their protons fuse into Helium, annihilating a little of their mass and convert that into energy.

E = mc^2 actually means something, you know? It's not just a catchphrase.

Your statement has nothing to do with what you quoted. Nowhere did 1BRD say that an H-Bomb produced a fission reaction. You might try reading first, responding second. It really helps.

[Stamen0083]

Your statement has nothing to do with what you quoted.  Nowhere did 1BRD say that an H-Bomb produced a fission reaction.  You might try reading first, responding second.  It really helps.

I've embarassed myself.

Thank you for putting me in my place.

I read, but apparently not carefully enough.

Edited February 28, 2004 by Stamen0083

[JELEINEN]

Your statement has nothing to do with what you quoted.  Nowhere did 1BRD say that an H-Bomb produced a fission reaction.  You might try reading first, responding second.  It really helps.

I've embarassed myself.

Thank you for putting me in my place.

I read, but apparently not carefully enough.

Hey, it's cool to see you say that. It's rare on the internet. And my post was more snippy than it should have been, for which I appologize.

[Stamen0083]

Hey, it's cool to see you say that. It's rare on the internet.

Indeed.

And my post was more snippy than it should have been, for which I appologize.

No need. Mine was far less than courteous, but I've found that establishing a firm voice is the best way to not let people walk all over you.

[EganLoo]

Are there any "official" sources online explaining what reaction weapons are and why they were called that? There's a debate going on at another message board concerning what reaction weapons are.

'Reactive Weapons' (also 'reaction weapons') are nuclear, thermonuclear, or certain other extremely destructive weapons; especially those that were developed with OTM (Over-Technology of Macross); either, but not limited to ones whose primary designated use is anti-ship, air-defense and/or anti-celestial object (planetary bombardment). These weapons can either be launched from a fighter and/or a warship etc. The first successful test of an OTM-derived reactive weapon took place on the lunar surface in the year 2004 (February). These weapons were used in Space War I and their use was subsequently diminished and limited shortly thereafter. In 2040, the AVF Program, Project Super Nova on Planet Eden was developing next generation of Variable Fighters which could use fold boosters and could perform so well that, among other things, reactive weapons would not be needed further except in extreme situations. One such instance in which they were issued was towards the end of the Macross 7/Protoculture conflict in 2047.

Please note these inaccuracies in the above post:

* Despite the confusion, Shoji Kawamori notes that the correct term is reaction (hannou), not *reactive* (riakutibu) or "reactional." He emphasizes that the term is an oblique reference to thermonuclear reaction, not to modern-day reactive armor (a la Reactive Armored VF-OS).

* It's not just "especially those that were developed with OTM" -- it's *only* Overtechnology-developed weaponry. For example, previously developed nuclear fission and fusion weaponry are not considered reaction weaponry in Macross.

*There's no such thing as a "Macross 7/Protoculture conflict" in 2047.

* The Protodeviln War took place in 2045-2046, not 2047.

For accurate, official data that is not based on fan speculation and unofficial doujinshi, please see:

http://www.anime.net/macross/story/encyclo...eaction_weapon/

http://www.anime.net/macross/story/encyclo...clear_reaction/

http://www.anime.net/macross/story/chronology/2040/

[EganLoo]

hold on - isnt the armoured vf-0 made of "reactive armor"? there was even a slo-mo of the arm armor shearing off when the bullet hit it - so this "reactive" technology is diff than the nuclear stuff? im confused, i always thought earth tech was reactive technology, vs supervision or zent, etc.

Yes, the basic concept of reactive armor is conventional.

However, reactive weapons (reaction weapons) are OTM derived

I say "reactive weapon" (???? / hannou heiki) because that is how it is written in English on the Macross 7 liner notes which would make it an official spelling.

As already noted, the Macross 7 liner notes says "reactional weapon," not "reactive weapon." However, even "reactional weapon" is not the correct official spelling according to the creators. According to Shoji Kawamori, the official wording is reaction.

http://www.anime.net/macross/story/encyclo...eaction_weapon/