Uranium is used to make modern projectiles heavier, but are there any low-tech weapons that could benefit from the increased density?
Yes, higher sectional density is always good.
In fact people suspect gold initially acquired its desirability partly because of its lustre and partly because people noticed that the little yellow rocks were really good at killing other people when you lob them with a sling.
>>47076038
So, just projectile weapons? Sling bullets, crossbow bolts and catapult rocks? Nothing like uranium lucerne hammers?
>>47076043
Melee weapons don't care that much about sectional density. Sure if you have a heavier hammerhead it will do more damage when you swing it, but it's also harder to swing.
Your regular steel is plenty heavy for bludgeoning weapon so there's no point.
>>47076085
Okay, thanks.
What about low-tech (pre-gunpowder) nuclear weapons?
>>47076105
>What about low-tech (pre-gunpowder) nuclear weapons?
What is this even supposed to mean? How are nuclear weapons supposed to be low-tech?
>>47076105
Tactical nuclear catapults and long range atomic trebuchets, duh.
>>47076111
I mean, could a civilization that found the right minerals cause a nuclear reaction without understanding the physics?
>>47076111
If you have weapon grade Uranium and explosives, it's pretty simple to make it go boom. The problem is how to acquire said Uranium without modern centrifuges.
>>47076105
I think the problem there is that, assuming you've got the physics knowledge and the methods to refine the right materials, you still need a way to make the nuke actually go off.
Which is going to require high-grade explosives, so unless you can do it with magic, it's probably not happening.
>>47076138
>Simple to make it go boom
Maybe as a dirty bomb.
>>47076138
>If you have weapon grade Uranium and explosives, it's pretty simple to make it go boom.
More like if you have weapons grade uranium and explosives, it's pretty simple to make it accidentally go boom. There are good reasons why modern weapons use plutonium and implosion design.
>>47076122
The only (utterly unrealistic) scenario I can think of why anybody would even try is an alchemist trying to make Gold out of Uranium with royal mandate and blowing the country capital in the process.
>>47076138
We can always use the "Old Ones" and "lost ancient tech" cliches.
>>47076138
>it's pretty simple to make it go boom
You do still need high-powered explosives to set of the initial chain reaction... So nuclear weapons before gunpowder are extremely unlikely
>>47076179
Nah it's doable. Little Boy required the uranium bullet to move at 300m/s to achieve sufficient fission. Black powder can generate 370m/s so it's definitely possible.
Gun type bombs are by the nature very inefficient use of fissile material though.
>>47076201
I haven't looked into the details of it, but I'm pretty sure they didn't use black powder for any atomic bombs.
>>47076179
>>47076160
>>47076152
>>47076151
>>47076138
>>47076138
You don't need to make a nuclear bomb to make uranium or plutonium a weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident
Simply drop a critical mass of uranium in the enemy camp and watch as they all succumb to radiation poisoning after a few days.
>>47076212
Not that anon, but i think he was just saying the speed needed for the fission starting impact was possible, not that they actually used black powder to do so.
>>47076258
That'd be hilarious. "Hey, what should we use to set this off?" "Eeeehhh,, here, take this, I'm busy at the moment." "But uh, that's just black powder. "Iiii said, I'm busy, now shoo."
>>47076122
The sheer amount of science, innovation and industrial development required to develop a nuclear weapon was staggering at the time. Even when they did it the fact that it was even possible was still mind boggling to the people with the biggest brains in that day and age. It is not as simple as weapons developing over time as new technologies are introduced and culture changes, nuclear weapons were almost a completely new paradigm altogether.
Some things you need to invent before a nuclear weapon is possible
>early plastic explosives for gun-type
>early chemical explosives for compression/implosion type
>other plastics
>atomic theory
>the entirety of humanity's knowledge of physics up until your world's equivalent of 1938
>people smart enough to figure out the next 10 years of physics within 2-3 years
>flight (unless you want to kill yourself)
>uranium enrichment (or use far more than is practical and hope you get lucky)
>a shitload of other stuff
>>47076393
>>uranium enrichment (or use far more than is practical and hope you get lucky)
This is really really hard. To put into perspective Little Boy used up half of the world's supply of Uranium-235 at the time in one blow. In fact when the navy delivered the core to Pearl Harbor it had order that should the USS Indianapolis be attacked and the order to abandon ship be issued, the core must be safely aboard a life boat before anyone else is allowed off the ship.
>>47076448
Well, let's assume our notEarth has a fuckloaded supply of uranium, like mines under every other hill
>>47076393
>flight
Or mechanical or electrical triggers, timers and a VERY fast horse.
>>47076457
Everyone and everything would be dead.
Except for maybe those mushrooms that eat radiation.
Realistically, animals would probably find SOME way to evolve to resist radiation by pure natural selection....but that just makes the whole nuclear bomb thing pointless if everyone can resist it.
>>47076461
So your plan would then be to run into the enemy camp with this super-heavy contraption, plant it, and run away fast without getting killed?
>>47076457
It's still very hard because you need to sort out that U-235 from U-238, and U-235 only makes up 0.72% of natural uranium.
To enrich uranium you need huge banks of gas centrifuge, and these are some of the fastest spinning machines on earth full stop. You can't make such centrifuges with anything less than modern technology.
It's so hard that even today tinpot dictators are still having trouble with this step.
>>47076457
problem is that during the formation of a planet uranium tends to sink quite deeply
so if there was a lot of surface uranium there'd be a shitload of mantle and core uranium which in turn would heat up the planet something fierce
>>47076226
And watch yourself die a couple days before them, since you didn't have the technology needed for protecting yourself from radiation
-alternatively-
Watch yourself die a couple months later from lead poisoning because your were handling that shit with your bare hands while crafting your medieval hazard suit
I think using radioactive compounds in a low-tech environment is just an overall bad idea
What's the point anyway? There are plenty of ways to create magical weapon of mass destruction. In fact just last week we had this interesting discussion about using magic to squeeze 2.6 million tons of rock into a 1.5m diameter sphere and the consequences thereof.
>>47076201
>Black powder can generate 370m/s so it's definitely possible.
The amount of black powder require to move a 40g lead ball at 370m/s is a little bit less than the amount required to move a 64kg lump of uranium at 300m/s. Black powder's energy density is actually quite shitty compared to even the most rudimentary plastic explosive (nitrocellulose), which is probably why they didn't even consider it.
If you have to use black powder the bomb is probably going to be big enough to destroy whatever your target is with a conventional explosive, though it will probably kill you first during transport or assembly. Though it won't be terribly reliable because black powder is rather hydroscopic and the more of it you have in one place the more moisture it's going to draw.
>>47076502
Pic related kinda misses the mass from mass destruction part.
>>47076487
or you know, use one of those budget slaves
the ones with missing limbs, disfigurements or various diseases
>>47076512
If you have access to those, just send the ones with multiple diseases in the enemy camp (since the getting there does not seem to be the problem here), have them spit and vomit on all the food and then throw carcasses in all the wells... Way cheaper than acquiring and handling enough radioactive material to poison an entire camp
>>47076043
You could make very compact swinging/hacking weapons, basically imagine a Uranium Machete or mace or axe.
maybe throwing knives/axes too? You could make tiny ickle wickle frank axes with the same weight as regular ones but with less wind resistance and thus further range and improved accuracy.
>>47076043
Trading durability for density is not as great for melee weapons. It's also kind of hard to make a core of uranium encased with another metal that keeps an edge.
Most blades are thin enough that that kind of micromanagement just isn't possible or useful. Hammers....eeeh.
>>47076167
I'm stealing that one, thanks for the idea!
I wonder, just how big a health risk would an uranium arrowhead stuck in a person's body be?
>>47075993
Arrows?
>>47076626
Depends if it remains intact or not when being removed.
>>47076634
say it was designed to chip easily for maximum dickitude
>>47076644
Yeah, if not death in battle, death by radiation poisoning.
>>47076474
Or bait the enemy over where the place it's hidden.
Or smuggle it into the enemy capital.
Plenty of ways you can use it.
>>47076487
If you knew how it worked;
Grab two halves of it, put a brick between it, tie horse to brick, ride off on horse.
You get minimal exposure, everyone else doesn't realise there's radiation around and gets a lethal dose over a few days time.
Or get a suicide guy to do it. Eh.
So, you could use magic to solve all of the supply and trigger problems, but with that magic, could you create a better super weapon?
>>47076043
Mate, it's all about initial velocity. How fast can you swing your hammer or other melee weapon?
And how fast the bullet will go?
It all boils down to simple physics, inertia and air resistance. Oh, and of course gravity. Few calculations and small redesign later of either weapon or projectiles, and ANY projectile-based weapon can get much more powerful, no matter how you will count that "power" (be it range, piercing capacity, stopping power or whatever else).
But in the end, firearms are - for listed reasons - the only weapons that will truly benefit from using depleted uranium.
If you want low-tech version of it, try crossbow bolts and arrows. Not by changing their weight directly, but distribution of it, so different parts of bolt/arrow have slightly different weight (achieved by shape of the wood piece), allowing them for better acceleration while maintaining as much inertia as possible. For example, for specific poundage of crossbow, you would need bolts of specific weight and shape, so you would maximalise the weapon range and stopping power, greatly increasing it overall performance
>>47076167
>>47076122
It's actually shockingly easy to make a deadly dirty nuclear reactor using a few lead blocks and a relatively pure uranium sample.
Like, kill-a-village-with-invisible-poison deadly.
I wonder, given it is a possibility, how could a medieval society use a naturally occurring nuclear reactor?
>>47076122
>I mean, could a civilization that found the right minerals cause a nuclear reaction without understanding the physics?
Nuclear reaction in the sense of natural decay? Absolutely, it does that on its own just fine.
Nuclear reaction in the sense of an explosion due to nuclear fission? Absolutely not. You need a staggering amount of calculations, nuclear and explosive physics, resources, manpower, rare materials and machined components of intricate complexity to even approach a working design.
Then you need to put it together and make sure it will work and go off when you want it to.
To ever imagine a real-world nuclear warhead existing in any sort of timeframe before the equivalent of the 1940's is absolutely ridiculous.
>>47076855
Staying warm during the winter provided there is enough dirt between them and it that it doesn't irradiate them.
>>47076793
Involving magic handwaves any sort of rationalization and actual science.
Your question is retarded and you should take a good, hard look at yourself in a mirror.
>>47076502
Would any sane DM actually allow this?
>>47076793
well if healing magic in a setting worked by magically enhancing the body's own capacity for growth and regeneration I could see trying to use healing magic on a tumor to have...adverse effects
benefits of a radiation based weapon become obvious
>>47076855
>a naturally occurring nuclear reactor?
like the sun?
>>47076899
Well they wouldn't freeze
>>47076899
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
>>47076855
I'm boring, I can only come up with heating steam, maybe /tg/ has better ideas?
>>47076899
nah naturally occurring fission reactor near earth's surface
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
>>47076906
steam in itself has a lot of possibilities like say a society with an extremely technologically advanced (literal) upper class using the steam produced by the reactor to fuel all sorts of contraptions and a lower class made up of say criminals and their descendants forced to work in the caverns maintaining the reactor and the flow of water leading to it while steadily getting radiation poisoning
>>47076924
Please explain how a medieval society would maintain a naturally-occurring nuclear reactor without everybody interacting with it dying.
>>47076936
The workers become a slave race of twisted sickly mutants
>>47076943
Unfortunately there would be less sickly monsters and more peasants dying horrifically.
>>47076885
It costs 2,500 or the bag of holding and 200,000 for a portable hole.
The weapon doesn't destroy what it hits, it just transports it to the astral plane, which isn't actually that deadly.
It's great against animals and people who don't have access to plane shift or summons that do, other than that you just wasted a lot of money to move the bad guy somewhere else for a while.
>>47076936
the example in the wikipedia article was entirely self sustaining and only temporarily shut down when its water supply was insufficient
if say a small river was diverted and through trial and error a semi-optimal water supply was established there wouldn't be much more work other than ensuring the water kept flowing and the steam pipes were maintained thus if they had a large enough group of people they'd only die of radiation poisoning at say 40 or so
they'd still have horrific living conditions and what not but well that's the part that makes it interesting
>>47076956
Aren't most deformities and such caused by chemicals anyways?
>>47076956
seems like it would be just another mercury mine or similar
>>47076626
Uranium is pretty poisonous, so that would probably kill you before even factoring in the radiation(and faster than the radiation as well).
>>47076122
Technically speaking, yes, but not how you think.
They could not make a weaponized nuclear device simply because the process needed to enrich uranium to that point is very technical and is the largest hurdle in nuke making.
But nuclear reactor effects have occurred naturally on Earth albeit millions of years ago when there was a higher concentration of U-238 in deposits.
Water would trickle into the ground with uranium ores and act as a neutron medium allowing for nuclear fission to begin taking place. However heat from the reaction rapidly evaporated the ground water thus stopping the reaction as air gaps are a poor neutron medium. Then it would trickle back in and the process would begin again.
Self-regulating naturally occurring nuclear reactor.
>>47077344
Sorry meant U-235
>>47075993
He used to put enriched polonium on his fingers to augment his thrusting attacks, so...
>>47076122
Technically yes. In fact there's a naturally occurring nuclear reactor in Mexico that burnt out centuries ago after apparently experiencing fission for over three thousand years.
However, there's an enormous difference between a critical, supercritical, and prompt critical reaction. If you have the means to refine uranium (or the ridiculous luck to discover a quantity of naturally rich ore) than producing a critical reaction, one where the rate of fission is self sustaining, is trivially easy: all you need to do is put all the material in a pile above critical mass.
A supercritical reaction, in which the rate of fission is increasing, is much harder, because the energy of the reaction is trying to push the fission material apart. This is what leads to meltdowns if unchecked, so you need a strong containment system and, well, pretty much a whole reactor complex. Not doable at a medieval level beyond the simplest means, like stacking bricks of neutron-reflective material around a critical mass.
A nuclear weapon requires a prompt critical reaction, in which the rate of fission spikes immediately to the maximum possible rate supportable by the fuel supply. In other words, forcing as much of the fuel mass as possible to undergo fission at once. This is impossible without compressing the fuel with a powerful and extremely precise shockwave, generated by a carefully controlled sphere of shaped explosives, to compress the fission material far past normal critical density, reducing the effective mass required for a critical reaction and holding it in place for a thousandth of a second while the force of the ensuing exploring tries to fling the whole mess apart. Even with modern equipment, less than half of the fission material is consumed, the remainder scattered by the blast before it can undergo fission and wasted as fallout.
>>47077602
So... not a bomb, but perhaps a time bomb of supercritical material that kills a town over hours or days?
