[oceanplexian]

Some of the implications, as far as I know:

1- A pure fusion weapon would be a "clean bomb", meaning it wouldn't emit long term radiation. Good, but bad because someone might be more willing to use it.

2- A pure fusion weapon wouldn't require a critical mass. In theory, the laws of physics don't preclude something that is really compact.

3- A pure fusion weapon would use deuterium, which is just a byproduct of heavy water. Anyone can get, or make the stuff inexpensively.

Granted, we're probably a century away from this kind of tech but if we keep getting superconductor and fusion breakthroughs it will come around sooner or later. Hopefully society will have advanced to a point where we are prepared to handle it.

[rf15]

point 1 is sadly wrong and I wish people would stop thinking that fusion doesn't cause radiation damage in all surrounding material.

[3LazTjBv-f]

The only thing I find more annoying that "fusion = totally 0 radiation" is the idea that it somehow will provide "free" energy. With any power plant, no matter the fuel, there will be cost of construction(with a limited lifespan) and maintenance. Same goes for distribution network.

It makes me wonder if we could improve fission reactors cost and safety, instead of performing biggest down scaling act in history of technology (700k kilometer Sun to mere meters)

[aradox66]

I think OP meant "radioactive fallout" which would be the source of "long term radiation." Fission bombs scatter radioactive dust of uranium, plutonium, and fission byproducts that continue to emit harmful radiation for thousands of years.

A fusion bomb with no fission stage would have a massive radiation blast, but leave no radioactive fallout. 10 minutes after the bomb, radiation levels would be more or less back to background levels. Is my understanding.

[Shawnj2]

Would it really be that infesaible to have a fusion bomb started by a non nuclear reaction?