assuming the ICBM is a nuclear warhead…. Doesn’t the whole process behind a nuclear warhead involve an explosion that propels the nuclear “fuel” to start a chain reaction? i.e. exploding a warhead will essentially be the same as the explosion that causes the isotope to undergo fission?
ig the same can be said about conventional bombs as well but nuclear is more confusing.
In: Chemistry
To get a nuclear blast, you need to take a bunch of the right kind of radioactive material and compress it very, very hard. The only practical way to do that is with conventional explosives, and all the parts of your explosive have to go off with extremely precise timing. You have to ignite it from many different points simultaneously; if you just stick one fuse in the side and let it chain-react, then your core will get blown to powder before it can compress to critical mass.
At that point, you’ve got a big explosion that’s full of radioactive dust, which isn’t great for anyone nearby, but it’s still just a conventional explosion, many orders of magnitude smaller than a nuclear blast.
On top of that, I think the explosives used are less delicate and require e.g. an electrical charge to trigger. They’re not like dynamite or something that goes off if you put a match to it or hit it with a hammer. So it might not explode at all, not even with a conventional blast.
Apologies if I’m off on a few of the details, but that’s the general idea.
Latest Answers