|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on Apr 30, 2019 13:04:42 GMT -6
Lets take this elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Apr 30, 2019 23:37:55 GMT -6
Rubbish. There is always the possibility of engagement without the use of nuclear weapons. It is therefore easy to separate nuclear weapons from nuclear propulsion. I'd love to see an expansion that introduces Nuclear Propulsion. In a world where the whole purpose is to be at war with someone else, you're telling me that the same people who invented a controlled, power-yielding nuclear reaction in a reactor small and safe enough for submarine use (very difficult) did not think to give their nation unbeatable power by weaponising it??? The theory of at least an atom bomb is much simpler than that of building a commercially viable reactor. Yes. That is what I am telling you. You, and most of the posts I've read are looking at this game through the lens of history. RTW does not repeat history. The game makes history anew. So therefore it is not out of the realm of possibility that nuclear propulsion would be created during peacetime before any appreciable effort to develop a useable maritime atomic weapon. You cannot imply that 'weaponising' nuclear power 'in a world where the whole purpose is to be at war with someone else' precludes all the other non-nuclear wars fought since WW2 (which is 100% of them) by countries that possess said 'weapons' and never used them because that's simply a false statement. Your argument is a non sequitur.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 1, 2019 2:43:32 GMT -6
In a world where the whole purpose is to be at war with someone else, you're telling me that the same people who invented a controlled, power-yielding nuclear reaction in a reactor small and safe enough for submarine use (very difficult) did not think to give their nation unbeatable power by weaponising it??? The theory of at least an atom bomb is much simpler than that of building a commercially viable reactor. Yes. That is what I am telling you. You, and most of the posts I've read are looking at this game through the lens of history. RTW does not repeat history. The game makes history anew. So therefore it is not out of the realm of possibility that nuclear propulsion would be created during peacetime before any appreciable effort to develop a useable maritime atomic weapon. You cannot imply that 'weaponising' nuclear power 'in a world where the whole purpose is to be at war with someone else' precludes all the other non-nuclear wars fought since WW2 (which is 100% of them) by countries that possess said 'weapons' and never used them because that's simply a false statement. Your argument is a non sequitur. My key point is that I look through a lens of historical realism, not history as occurred. You are correct that "RTW does not repeat history", but nor does it violate logical outcomes possible in history. It is quite possible that some country could blithely develop nuclear reactors without weaponisation. Our opinions diverge here, as I believe that it is illogical, especially when conventional forces are roughly balanced. Your point that RTW does not repeat history voids your point of the fact that "100%" of wars after WW2 were non-nuclear. This was definitely because of the policy of mutually assured destruction. In fact, the French wanted to use them in their colonial Vietnamese War in 1946 but the anti-colonialist US refused. Without a nuclear armed enemy, I believe that, especially by the French, nuclear bombs would be used in most wars as the surest means of success.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 1, 2019 12:58:58 GMT -6
Yes. That is what I am telling you. You, and most of the posts I've read are looking at this game through the lens of history. RTW does not repeat history. The game makes history anew. So therefore it is not out of the realm of possibility that nuclear propulsion would be created during peacetime before any appreciable effort to develop a useable maritime atomic weapon. You cannot imply that 'weaponising' nuclear power 'in a world where the whole purpose is to be at war with someone else' precludes all the other non-nuclear wars fought since WW2 (which is 100% of them) by countries that possess said 'weapons' and never used them because that's simply a false statement. Your argument is a non sequitur. My key point is that I look through a lens of historical realism, not history as occurred. You are correct that "RTW does not repeat history", but nor does it violate logical outcomes possible in history. It is quite possible that some country could blithely develop nuclear reactors without weaponisation. Our opinions diverge here, as I believe that it is illogical, especially when conventional forces are roughly balanced. Your point that RTW does not repeat history voids your point of the fact that "100%" of wars after WW2 were non-nuclear. This was definitely because of the policy of mutually assured destruction. In fact, the French wanted to use them in their colonial Vietnamese War in 1946 but the anti-colonialist US refused. Without a nuclear armed enemy, I believe that, especially by the French, nuclear bombs would be used in most wars as the surest means of success. I think it is still very unlikely. In history there was a lot of "coincidences" that lead to development of nuclear power and weapons. Practically only US has large economy enough to develop it. But it is need to understand that it was under major pressure and with practically unlimited budget. And it was not only possible budget but willingness to spend it which was because of dangerous possibility Germany can do it.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 1, 2019 14:03:53 GMT -6
My key point is that I look through a lens of historical realism, not history as occurred. You are correct that "RTW does not repeat history", but nor does it violate logical outcomes possible in history. It is quite possible that some country could blithely develop nuclear reactors without weaponisation. Our opinions diverge here, as I believe that it is illogical, especially when conventional forces are roughly balanced. Your point that RTW does not repeat history voids your point of the fact that "100%" of wars after WW2 were non-nuclear. This was definitely because of the policy of mutually assured destruction. In fact, the French wanted to use them in their colonial Vietnamese War in 1946 but the anti-colonialist US refused. Without a nuclear armed enemy, I believe that, especially by the French, nuclear bombs would be used in most wars as the surest means of success. I think it is still very unlikely. In history there was a lot of "coincidences" that lead to development of nuclear power and weapons. Practically only US has large economy enough to develop it. But it is need to understand that it was under major pressure and with practically unlimited budget. And it was not only possible budget but willingness to spend it which was because of dangerous possibility Germany can do it. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I still think that nuclear reactors such as those used to nuclear propulsion systems are only logical in a RTW setting as a follow-on to at least a simple atomic bomb.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 1, 2019 17:53:59 GMT -6
www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Begin/MAUD.shtmlThe above is a link to the Maud Report dated 1941 about the feasibility of using atomic energy as a weapon. However, if you read this : So, the answer is that the main committee in the pursuit of the atomic bomb, in fact believed that atomic energy could be used as a source of power. On December 20,1951, near Arco, Idaho, the engineers of the Argonne National Laboratory had setup a reactor and connected it to a steam turbine generator. Now, this does not mean it could have become a reality before or during WW2, In wars. you tend to look for weapons, not power stations. But it does show that the concept was considered viable and doable.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on May 1, 2019 22:08:35 GMT -6
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I still think that nuclear reactors such as those used to nuclear propulsion systems are only logical in a RTW setting as a follow-on to at least a simple atomic bomb. Let me offer a more specific scenario. An early soviet reactor was the OK-150: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK-150_reactor. This only requires ~75 kg of Low Enriched Uranium (5% U-235 content). A nuclear bomb test on the other hand required 50 kg of High Enriched Uranium (89% content). It takes roughly 25 times the refining cycles to produce a kg of the 89% U-235 as the 5% U-235. Before the Manhattan project the only proven means of Uranium separation was centrifuges. This is the process that also won out in the long term because it is cheaper and more efficient in terms of Uranium waste and electricity costs. However this process wasn't used in the Manhattan project because they needed speed not efficiency. The proposed 80 million facility would have only produced 1 kg of highly enriched uranium a month. That was not sufficient for the Manhattan project but if used towards reactors it would be sufficient for four reactors a year. Now, suppose you are an admiral during peacetime. You have been given three technology proposals: A) For an 80 million dollar investment (the cost of an aircraft carrier), 2 capital ships a year could be given a pair nuclear engines each starting two years from now. This would be giving them effectively unlimited endurance and more raw power then any ship currently on the ocean. B) For the same 80 million dollar investment there could be sufficient fuel for a nuclear test in four years time followed by production of one bomb every two and a half years afterwards. These bombs are so heavy they need to be carried by the very largest bombers and could only be deployed from extremely high altitudes. C) For a 2000 million dollar investment (the cost of 25 aircraft carriers), speculative refining technologies could be funded which would allow for greater production of bombs. I think it's extremely plausible that nations would regard nuclear engines as a much better payoff then nuclear bombs. But it does show that the concept was considered viable and doable. This is also something that was culturally apparent. Science fiction novels from before the Trinity test such as Foundation or If This Goes On feature nuclear power generation but not nuclear explosives. People interested in technology were very much thinking about fission being harnessed. It was only with the era of MAD that nuclear power became associated with existential doom.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 2, 2019 0:45:13 GMT -6
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I still think that nuclear reactors such as those used to nuclear propulsion systems are only logical in a RTW setting as a follow-on to at least a simple atomic bomb. Let me offer a more specific scenario. An early soviet reactor was the OK-150: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK-150_reactor. This only requires ~75 kg of Low Enriched Uranium (5% U-235 content). A nuclear bomb test on the other hand required 50 kg of High Enriched Uranium (89% content). It takes roughly 25 times the refining cycles to produce a kg of the 89% U-235 as the 5% U-235. Before the Manhattan project the only proven means of Uranium separation was centrifuges. This is the process that also won out in the long term because it is cheaper and more efficient in terms of Uranium waste and electricity costs. However this process wasn't used in the Manhattan project because they needed speed not efficiency. The proposed 80 million facility would have only produced 1 kg of highly enriched uranium a month. That was not sufficient for the Manhattan project but if used towards reactors it would be sufficient for four reactors a year. Now, suppose you are an admiral during peacetime. You have been given three technology proposals: A) For an 80 million dollar investment (the cost of an aircraft carrier), 2 capital ships a year could be given a pair nuclear engines each starting two years from now. This would be giving them effectively unlimited endurance and more raw power then any ship currently on the ocean. B) For the same 80 million dollar investment there could be sufficient fuel for a nuclear test in four years time followed by production of one bomb every two and a half years afterwards. These bombs are so heavy they need to be carried by the very largest bombers and could only be deployed from extremely high altitudes. C) For a 2000 million dollar investment (the cost of 25 aircraft carriers), speculative refining technologies could be funded which would allow for greater production of bombs. I think it's extremely plausible that nations would regard nuclear engines as a much better payoff then nuclear bombs. Your summary is nice.
But in this case, you will choose A) and C). Why C) was not done? And it took a lot of years even after war to be done? It seems some premises are probably not completely correct.
How long it takes after WW2 to produce nuclear reactor for ship usage? And it used all knowledge obtained through the war.
Question is could it be done quicker if there is no war especially if we can see that after war it took a lot of time to do it. I will not take Soviet achievements as important as they used information from foreign programms quite a lot and without it it would take them much longer.
One thing is knowing that concept is doable and the second thing is to achieve it. Just look at fusion power.
Q: So basic question? Was nuclear propulsion doable till 1950? A: Yes, it was.
Q: Was nuclear propulsion be likely available before 1950? A: Probably not and if yes, just around 1950
Q: Is nuclear propulsion important for RTW? A: Not at all as it is unlikely that it would even be available in alternative history and in real history it was not.
Note: At end of 40s a lot of new technology emerged from WW2 reserch but question is what is important to 1900-1950 timeframe. If technology is started being used in 1950 it is very likely not important.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on May 2, 2019 0:58:38 GMT -6
There are also additional problems associated with damage model. After all, ships in game fight, are damaged and sunk. Then what happens with nuclear reactor that is hit with 16in shell or heavy AP bomb? Would it just stop working? Blow up? Turn into a nuke and obliterate entire fleet? Thankfully, we do not have data for such situation, but without data we cant simulate this happening.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 2, 2019 4:35:17 GMT -6
There are also additional problems associated with damage model. After all, ships in game fight, are damaged and sunk. Then what happens with nuclear reactor that is hit with 16in shell or heavy AP bomb? Would it just stop working? Blow up? Turn into a nuke and obliterate entire fleet? Thankfully, we do not have data for such situation, but without data we cant simulate this happening. we know what happends to reactors which melt down i would like to note though destroying a ships nuclear reactor is usually not easy due to these factors outside ship armor and the reactors shielding reactors are usually shielded with some 5-6 meters of concrete to protect from radioactivity a shell cannot feasably go through a 200 mm steel belt and 6 meters of concrete but cooling equipment and other things could be damaged the thing is though cooling equipment can be placed below the reactor or very heavily shielded and it uses sea water to cool it down it shouldnt be hard to protect it completely with regards to a meltdown it is highly unlikely it will happend but if it does the ship will likely just have a hole in the floor of the ship with the fuel and reactor slipping into the ocean and the ship now having a reactor core sized hole in it ship will live but be unable to move and also highly irradiated also nuclear reactors dont blow up or turn into nukes you need a highly controlled release of energy to make a nuke and special "fuel" this cannot happend in a nuclear reactor nuclear bombs use very precise explosives to precisely control the detonation of the bomb and control how the uranium is handeled nuclear reactors would give you a speed boost infinite range alot of power for systems high level of boiler protection but be expensive
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on May 2, 2019 6:48:00 GMT -6
There are also additional problems associated with damage model. After all, ships in game fight, are damaged and sunk. Then what happens with nuclear reactor that is hit with 16in shell or heavy AP bomb? Would it just stop working? Blow up? Turn into a nuke and obliterate entire fleet? Thankfully, we do not have data for such situation, but without data we cant simulate this happening. We understand enough about nuclear reactors, at least, to know that hitting one with a shell or bomb won't cause a nuclear explosion somehow.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on May 2, 2019 8:57:55 GMT -6
Why C) was not done? And it took a lot of years even after war to be done? Oh sorry about the confusion, C is the historical Manhattan project. Instead of centrifuges the Americans used techniques (magnetic and membrane filtering) which were both more expensive and more wasteful of uranium but could deliver results more quickly. That allowed 8 times the production compared to the "A" or "B" scenario but 3 times the cost per kilogram[1]. And these techniques couldn't really be scaled down very easily. They would be even less cost effective if they weren't done to scale and they have to build the facility with either the intention of making a large quantity of LEU or a small quantity of HEU and some LEU byproduct. Since they couldn't use such large quantities of LEU until either nuclear submarines or civilian nuclear power become possible[2]. So the issue here is time. In 1940 it's clear that centrifuges are possible and by 1943 they have a workable if flawed prototype. They could build a large scale facility and start getting enough uranium for a bomb a year by the end of 1945. But if they go with the less efficient techniques they could be getting two or three bombs a year by the end of 1945. Their mandate was deliver the bomb quickly so they went with the thing that gave them more bombs faster. But what if instead of time the issue is cost? Spend less money and by the end of 1945 you dont have any HEU capability at all but you can have a couple BBNs or CVNs a year with the LEU. That is what scenario A amounts to. 1. This probably would have been even worse for any nation besides the US/USSR because other nations wouldn't have hydroelectric dams available for the massive electricity requirements. Centrifuges on the other hand are much more energy efficient. 2. Although I do wonder if they could have made a nuclear snorkel submarine with a stirling engine and air as the throughput fluid. I will not take Soviet achievements as important as they used information from foreign programms quite a lot In this case the Soviets are very pertinent because after getting a workable weapon the Soviets returned to the concept of centrifuges before the Americans did. That means the Soviets are kinda useful in assessing the potential for low enriched uranium. Then what happens with nuclear reactor that is hit with 16in shell or heavy AP bomb? Would it just stop working? Blow up? Turn into a nuke and obliterate entire fleet? Thankfully, we do not have data for such situation, but without data we cant simulate this happening. A fission explosion is basically impossible, that requires every possible factor be done to maximize the rate of sub-atomic particle creation through careful geometry and maximum purity. A meltdown would be possible, the machinery breaks down, the rate of chain nuclear reactions start to rise (while still being many, many orders of magnitude below an explosion) and unless the crew can successfully pull off an emergency shutdown (which generally means many casualties), the superhot reactor eventually becomes so hot that it burns a hole right through the ship. The opposite is also possible, the machinery breaks down and the chain reaction slows down. Then it becomes subcritical and no longer works as an engine. If the ship survived either of these shutdowns and returned to port they could reprocess the Uranium (basically they just need to reshape the metal and replace any damaged machines) into a new engine. And it's also possible that the locomotive equipment could be damaged without actually knocking the reactor outside the range of stable operations. It's not exactly fragile stuff and there is at least a little margin for error as long as you still have some heat dispersion. In that case if the crew could restore the equipment that could conceivably get the motor powering the ship again at a lower output. be unable to move and also highly irradiated The crew members too close to a damaged engine could be killed or sickened by the radiation and heat emitted by the reactor itself but there wouldn't be any fallout. So if the ship was returned to port and the reactor repaired there wouldn't be a radiation problem.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 2, 2019 15:35:16 GMT -6
Yes. That is what I am telling you. You, and most of the posts I've read are looking at this game through the lens of history. RTW does not repeat history. The game makes history anew. So therefore it is not out of the realm of possibility that nuclear propulsion would be created during peacetime before any appreciable effort to develop a useable maritime atomic weapon. You cannot imply that 'weaponising' nuclear power 'in a world where the whole purpose is to be at war with someone else' precludes all the other non-nuclear wars fought since WW2 (which is 100% of them) by countries that possess said 'weapons' and never used them because that's simply a false statement. Your argument is a non sequitur. My key point is that I look through a lens of historical realism, not history as occurred. You are correct that "RTW does not repeat history", but nor does it violate logical outcomes possible in history. It is quite possible that some country could blithely develop nuclear reactors without weaponisation. Our opinions diverge here, as I believe that it is illogical, especially when conventional forces are roughly balanced. Your point that RTW does not repeat history voids your point of the fact that "100%" of wars after WW2 were non-nuclear. This was definitely because of the policy of mutually assured destruction. In fact, the French wanted to use them in their colonial Vietnamese War in 1946 but the anti-colonialist US refused. Without a nuclear armed enemy, I believe that, especially by the French, nuclear bombs would be used in most wars as the surest means of success. I think my point is well placed. 100% of the wars since ww2 were non-nuclear, yet many were fought between nations that were a proxy for those with MAD policies.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 2, 2019 16:59:51 GMT -6
My key point is that I look through a lens of historical realism, not history as occurred. You are correct that "RTW does not repeat history", but nor does it violate logical outcomes possible in history. It is quite possible that some country could blithely develop nuclear reactors without weaponisation. Our opinions diverge here, as I believe that it is illogical, especially when conventional forces are roughly balanced. Your point that RTW does not repeat history voids your point of the fact that "100%" of wars after WW2 were non-nuclear. This was definitely because of the policy of mutually assured destruction. In fact, the French wanted to use them in their colonial Vietnamese War in 1946 but the anti-colonialist US refused. Without a nuclear armed enemy, I believe that, especially by the French, nuclear bombs would be used in most wars as the surest means of success. I think my point is well placed. 100% of the wars since ww2 were non-nuclear, yet many were fought between nations that were a proxy for those with MAD policies. MAD policy requires that 2 or more opposing powers have roughly equivalent nuclear capability, or at least enough low-tech delivery systems to launch blanket attacks. In real life, this was the USSR against the US and the UK (before others joined in). However, the US could have beaten Russia until 1949 as they were the only nuclear power. The main reason that there wasn't a war was the war-weariness after WW2. By the time there was an appetite for war, it was too late. This would not necessarily be the case in RTW, which is the main objection I have. The tension system is rather fickle and it is relatively common to be back at war with the same power within the year, before they manage to 'pull a Russia' and develop a deterrent.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on May 2, 2019 21:53:41 GMT -6
I hope they fix that. I've gone to war as France with Italy 3 times in as many years.
|
|