Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie
From: rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Nuclear navy in combat (was cold fission)
Message-ID: <6267@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 May 89 00:35:09 GMT
References: <5538@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Computer Laboratory, Trinity College Dublin
Lines: 47
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie

In article <5538@cbnews.ATT.COM>, nelson_p@apollo.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>   Do fission-powered vessels present any particular problems in 
>   a combat situation?  That is, if they are hit, hulled, catch-fire,
>   etc, do they present any unique hazards by virtue of having radioactive
>   fuel?  Is there any danger of leakage of radioactive material, con-
>   tamination of the crew, 'melt-down', etc?  I am not very familiar 
>   with the technology involved so if this is a stupid question, break
>   it to me gently.  Thank you.
> 
>                                                     --Peter

Yes and no. If a reactor is damaged the ship will probably have been
destroyed anyway so in military terms it's not a big problem. In terms of
environmental pollution it's a _big_ problem. You've got the entire fuel
contents of a fission reactor, the deadliest mixture of substances in the
world, dumped straight into the sea with no treatment whatsoever. Of course
if it comes to that it'll probably be in World War 3 so that might not end
up mattering anyway :-)
   
> [mod.note:  I should think that fusion plants would, by and large,
> be less dangerous when hit.  If the reactor is hit, the worst that
> could happen is the release of superheated heavy water steam [am I
> correct to guess that said would be much less radioactive and toxic
> than uranium compounds and reaction products from a fission plant ? ]
> The described fusion plant can't melt down, that's a fission phenomenon.

Absolutely.
 
> On the other hand, it seems that it might be much more difficult to
> repair a fusion plant at sea; at least, considering that the loss of,
> say, an electrical switchboard or breaker panel could shut down the plant,
> and it could be 10 hrs plus to get the reactor back on line.
> - Bill ]

Not more difficult to repair than a fission plant. It might be more difficult
to repair than a diesel plant but you could probably build in enough
modularity and redundancy (even to the extent of having two complete plants
each one capable of powering the ship alone if the technology gets advanced
enough) that it wouldn't matter that much.

"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie