You’re in the mood for destruction. One day, you hear about this phenomenon of “radiation” where matter gives off energy. You think—perhaps you can harness this property of nature to make a big boom.
"That is the optimistic scenario. In a more pessimistic scenario, law and order would break down entirely and societies might split into factions waging civil wars with nuclear weapons, producing famine and pestilence. The disintegration might end only when society has been so reduced that nobody is able any longer to put together a bomb and a delay detonator from stored materials or the scrap of city ruins. Even then, the dangerous insight – once its importance had been so spectacularly demonstrated – would be remembered and passed down the generations. If civilization began to rise from the ashes, the knowledge would lie in wait, ready to pounce as soon as people learned once again how to make sheet glass and electric current generators. And even if the knowledge were forgotten, it would be rediscovered once nuclear physics research was resumed.
We were lucky that making nukes turned out to be hard."
We could have been even luckier, though, if the laws of the universe only gave rise to shorter half-lives, making it nigh-impossible to find enough fissile material...
I think it's hard to say, since there's kind of an infinite variety of biological weapons. But overall I think you're probably right that the hardest steps wouldn't be nearly as difficult as enriching uranium...
Best for uranium? I think that depends on what "best" means. I guess you might want to prioritize something that would make it very hard to obtain critical mass. In that sense, I guess you might want to choose a shape where an optimal packing had a minimal density. Not sure if such a shape exists and if it would keep you below the threshold to get a reaction!
Related: https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf
"That is the optimistic scenario. In a more pessimistic scenario, law and order would break down entirely and societies might split into factions waging civil wars with nuclear weapons, producing famine and pestilence. The disintegration might end only when society has been so reduced that nobody is able any longer to put together a bomb and a delay detonator from stored materials or the scrap of city ruins. Even then, the dangerous insight – once its importance had been so spectacularly demonstrated – would be remembered and passed down the generations. If civilization began to rise from the ashes, the knowledge would lie in wait, ready to pounce as soon as people learned once again how to make sheet glass and electric current generators. And even if the knowledge were forgotten, it would be rediscovered once nuclear physics research was resumed.
We were lucky that making nukes turned out to be hard."
We could have been even luckier, though, if the laws of the universe only gave rise to shorter half-lives, making it nigh-impossible to find enough fissile material...
At least it would be nice if we could be in a universe where all the technological bottlenecks didn't slowly seem to be getting solved.
I am very worried about nukes in general, but at least, as you say, they are hard to make.
Have you done the same exercise with biological weapons? I think it would make you lose some sleep...
I think it's hard to say, since there's kind of an infinite variety of biological weapons. But overall I think you're probably right that the hardest steps wouldn't be nearly as difficult as enriching uranium...
Brilliantly conveyed - thanks
So is a sphere the best shape for storage and transport?
Best for uranium? I think that depends on what "best" means. I guess you might want to prioritize something that would make it very hard to obtain critical mass. In that sense, I guess you might want to choose a shape where an optimal packing had a minimal density. Not sure if such a shape exists and if it would keep you below the threshold to get a reaction!