On 24/2/21 12:23 am, Kurt Feltenberger wrote:
> I'm trying to wrap my mind around how effective nuclear dampers would
> be in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange.  I understand that they can
> essentially "turn off" nuclear weapons as they approach a ship and be
> used to "clean up" small areas that are contaminated, but I have some
> questions that go beyond that.  It could be that I haven't read every
> book or supplement, my interest pretty much ended when TNE came on the
> market and acted like a 5 year old being beaten at Chutes and Ladders
> by flipping the table and wiping clean the slate.
>
> So...
>
> 1.  How long do the results of a nuclear damper last or are they
> permanent?  If permanent, that would open some interesting
> implications with regards to alloy and refining developments.
>
> 2.  What is the area of effect?  Is it on the order of 10s of m^2 or
> something larger?
>
> 3.  Can the damper be scaled up to be used on large swaths of
> land/water?  If so, how long can they operate?
>
> 4.  How long would it take to "clean" the area of effect?  Is it like
> a vacuum cleaner where you simply sweep it over the area and it's
> technomagically rendered free of radiation or does it require more time?
>
> I understand that most of these are likely going to be subjective and
> "house rules", and that's cool.  I'm trying to get an idea of how I
> want them to operate in the the scenario mentioned above.
>
> Thanks!
>
Kurt,

What scale of nuclear exchange are you thinking of?

Great Day Of Universal Bereavement?

Border skirmish?

Asset depletion (where the miscreants involved use probably-subtactical
devices to cause enough damage to put $FACILITY out of commission, but
not enough for the rightful owners to just abandon it)?

Nuclear-tipped planetary defense missiles?

Air or ground bursts? (The former trashes more area per device, but the
latter may be needed to put the boot into hardened targets).

p113 of GT: Ground Forces quoth:

"Nuclear Damper.  This is a nuclear damper (see p. GT51) capable of
being focused to prevent nuclear fission or fusion detonations. 
Multiple modules increase area of effect; maximum range is a 5 mile
radius times number of modules installed."

sidebar, p122, ibid:

"A nuclear damper normally operates in a wide area mode, but is not
completely omnidirectional.  There's plenty of time to focus it in a
20-minute space-combat round, but in ground combat its use requires an
Electronics Operation (Force Shields) skill roll for each nuclear weapon
detonating in the area.  A failed roll means the weapon was not damped
and instead will detonate.  A damper can also be focused precisely on a
single area of ground to eliminate residual radiation from a nuclear
ground burst, or it can be focused on a single vehicle or building and
"sterilize" all nuclear munitions that are carried within it
(effectively transforming them into duds).  Again, an Electronics
Operation (Force Shields) roll is required to do this properly."

p51 of GT itself quoth:

"Nuclear dampers are force-field devices that focus on nuclear warheads
or isotopes to prevent or disrupt nuclear reactions by making atomic
nuclei more or less stable."

...

"“Damper boxes” that prevent radioactive decay of unstable isotopes also
exist. They weigh 80 pounds, take up 1.6 cubic feet, cost Cr40,000, and
require 160 kW per cubic foot of cargo capacity that they possess at TL11."

p154, ibid:

"Nuclear Damper (TL12): A nuclear damper focuses a field that subtly
interferes with the strong nuclear force causing nuclear warheads to
fail to detonate. A spacecraft damper field protects a 10-mile radius,
increased by +5 miles each time the number of modules installed is doubled."

GT: Starships p50 has a very similar description, but adds 4 crew
members are required to operate a damper system, regardless of number of
modules installed.

GT: Starports, p82:

"Highports and downport buildings often have nuclear dampers installed,
even if the last armed threat to the facility took place a century ago.
The dampers work just as well against radioactive HAZMAT incidents as
they do against warheads."

At least in the Lorenverse, it would seem dampers' effects are permanent
("eliminate residual radiation from a nuclear ground burst",
"effectively transforming them into duds", etc).  Would definitely
simplify nuclear ordnance disposal.

I've always thought of an operating damper suppresses radioactive decay
within its area of focus - as long as the juice stays on (ie, you don't
get something for nothing).  Likewise, dampers modified to _enhance_
radioactive decay (I called them, with overwhelming originality,
"nuclear ampers") would be more useful for long-term cleanup by
accelerating fallout decay.

Range-of-effect is clear-cut (see above), but the size of the
area-of-effect within said range is not so well-defined.  GT:GF implies
the focusable volume is approximately that of a heavy armoured vehicle,
like an MBT or the like, at least to the level of affecting fission
and/or fusion devices.

Wider-area application doesn't seem to be addressed canonically, but I'd
lean towards a centred-on-vehicle omni range of maybe 1/20 of max
focusable range (so a single damper would damp approx 400m around the
carrier vehicle - somewhat like a mobile gap generator in the original
Command & Conquer games, IIRC).  That wouldn't stop nuclear initiations
(would probably cause them to not-quite-fizzle, with a nontrivial but
small fraction of design yield), but would put the skids on fallout
decay and thus the associated ionising radiation.

Cleanup time is again unaddressed canonically.  And I don't really have
any ideas here, either, for dampers.

A 10-fold nuclear amper left running for 2 days would (big surprise)
decrease radiation levels (from just before it was turned on to just
after it was turned off) by 20 days' worth of radioactive decay, at the
cost of 10x greater radiation levels (compared to otherwise) while it
was running.

Is matter/antimatter annihilation also mediated via the strong nuclear
force?

Hope that's a start.

Alex

--