Talk:Nuclear weapon

Untitled
What relevance does the First Strike cover have to a nuclear bomb? Honour Light Your Way - File:HalfJaw03.jpg|20px]]  Kora ‘Morhek  '' The Battle-Net [[Special:Contributions/Specops306| My Conquests. ]]'' 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Covenant
Say, did the Covenant have nuclear weapons? Somehow I don't think they do... -- Nup (T) 13:07, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Fission warheads
Why is the UNSC still using nuclear warheads with fissile material, by now they should have converted to pure fusion weapons entirely by now. Considering this is the same UNSC that authorized the SPARTAN-II program to put down rebels, you'd think that they wouldn't be squeamish about introducing relatively practical-for-tactical use WMDs. The only reason why we haven't converted is, besides expenses and technical difficulties, to keep us from throwing them out like candy (not that any sane military would, it's just a figure of speech) since their lack of radioactive fallout consequences make them easier to use and the associated expenses and difficulties, but like I said, the UNSC was willing to go through with the S-IIs,


 * I can't speak for canonical reasons, since it may just be a writing oversight by writers unclear about the difference, but if there is one I imagine it's a cost issue - modern nuclear reactors use uranium and plutonium because the process or decay can make the material better suited to creating nuclear weapons, or in the case of depleted uranium is used in kinetic penetrator weapons. That was the rationale behind using them in the first place, during the Cold War, when the military need for nuclear deterrents was considered imperative. I imagine the UNSC does something similar. As for issues of fallout - in space combat, this is mitigated by radiation shielding and vacuum, and in-atmosphere, the fallout may be desired - if the Covenant are going to render the planet uninhabitable anyway by glassing population centres, why bother keeping it "clean" when you hit them?


 * I took a look at the wikipedia articles for fusion and fission nuclear weapons, and while it's true that fusion weapons themselves produce less fallout, it seems they need a fission reaction as a "trigger" so fallout is still created. There are also other reasons why their use is limited - political concerns, for example, or the fact that a 50 megaton warhead is simply overkill these days, and anyone who used one would be committing genocide unless they were hitting a target out in the middle of nowhere - hardly a useful application. They also seem to be considerably more expensive to develop, construct and maintain, another concern when you're fighting a relentless enemy like the Covenant. I imagine it's simply a question of fielding as many powerful weapons in a desperate situation as they possibly can, rather than focussing on making fewer, more efficient ones.


 * You raise the issue of the SPARTAN-IIs, but I think they're an example of just why the analogy works in defence of the UNSC's current method - far more effective individually, but unable to be produced in anything like the numbers required. In this analogy, the SPARTAN-IIIs and even the ODSTs fill the place of fission weapons - they're much cheaper, in far larger quantities, and while they're less effective they still get the job done. --  Qura 'Morhek   The Autocrat     of Morheka   19:41, 9 February 2014 (EST)


 * Yeah, sorry for that. Fusion warheads are ultimately a fantasy now, and they probably figured with the Covenant, "Oh well, every time we break out one of these things we're screwed. Might as well give the Elites radiation cancer or something." They probably went with the Marine Corps/general military philosophy of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There are alternatives to fission triggers, like antimatter that would be better for producing nuclear weapons (do not tell this to the Taliban), but given how justifiably far-fetched they are they probably avoided it. Not that nukes ever saved the day. Thanks for informing me Devil-Dogs.