Are Nuclear Warheads Radioactive Before Detonation?

[Kirby]

Basically what the thread title says. I've found tons of articles detailing the effects of setting off a nuclear warhead, but I still can't find an answer to my question.

In short - does a nuclear warhead give off radiation before detonation? And if so how much?

[Csonicgo]

I would assume they would give off as much radiation as any radioactive core would. Obviously the shielding on a bomb would stifle a majority of it, but I'm sure some would still get through.

[Gez]

Kirby said:

In short - does a nuclear warhead give off radiation before detonation? And if so how much?

If it's well designed, it shouldn't (much). If, on the other hand, you design the casing with a hole so that you can arm the bomb by letting a collection of ball bearings flow out of it that you have to put back inside to secure it afterwards because the bomb could go critical accidentally without warning when in storage, then yeah I'm not sure I'd trust going to look at one without a radsuit.

[Maes]

Well, of course it does. It's made of concentrated fissile radioactive materials after all, but they are relatively inert when sub-critical. After all, they are not supposed to react/decay rapidly when not "in use". If they did, they would be unsafe to store for a long time, and would deteriorate -kinda like a RTG, now those can be quite nasty.

Practically, if near a warhead, you'll register a bit higher than normal background radiation with a dosimeter, but not so high as to be judged immediately hazardous -after all, you see servicemen handling (fully assembled and encased, with their shielding properly in place) warheads with their bare hands. It's just like working in a nuclear power plant.

In any case, the radiation they emit is certainly higher than normal, but not enough to make them easily detectable past a few tens of meters.

[GreyGhost]

Kirby said:

In short - does a nuclear warhead give off radiation before detonation?

If it doesn't, you've been sold a dud and should demand a refund.

[Aliotroph?]

If airframe components are made of magnesium-thorium alloys they can be radioactive without ever having possessed a nuclear warhead.

[geo]

Thanks. Now I'm on a list for reading this thread.

Anyway, I'd assume the warhead would be contained and not radioactive on the outside of the warhead. Just a guess though.

[Maes]

geo said:

Thanks. Now I'm on a list for reading this thread.

Hah, you wish. In my day, we made backyard nuclear reactors out of plastic barrels, PVC pipes and duct tape.

[geo]

Maes said:

Hah, you wish. In my day, we made backyard nuclear reactors out of plastic barrels, PVC pipes and duct tape.

Not clicking that link. :-)

[GreyGhost]

Maes said:

Hah, you wish. In my day, we made backyard nuclear reactors out of plastic barrels, PVC pipes and duct tape.

Most of it's straightforward, though importing a dozen enriched uranium rods might be slightly problematic.

What's the bet I'm now on a watch list somewhere.

[Maes]

GreyGhost said:

Most of it's straightforward, though importing a dozen enriched uranium rods might be slightly problematic.

No worries, you can find substitutes for it. Doing so totally won't turn you into a freak.

[Kirby]

Heh, I suppose we've all been placed on various watch lists at this point (*readies the tinfoil hat*). Thanks for the responses. This actually stemmed out of a conversation I had with my brother yesterday. We came upon the topic of decommissioned missile silos being sold as real estate in the USA and my brother brought up the point of radioactivity, to which I had thought that nuclear warheads stored there weren't actually giving of significant radioactivity to cause a problem. After he explained the amount of radiation associated with creating a warhead I found that I couldn't actually prove whether stable warheads were giving of significant radiation, as I practically only have knowledge of them from movies & TV.

Upon attempting to simply find out whether warheads emitted radiation in their stable form I found nil and instead many detailed articles about nuclear fallout from detonation. Which I learned enough about back in middle school :P

GreyGhost said:

If it doesn't, you've been sold a dud and should demand a refund.

Hahaha that is a good point indeed. I shouldn't be naïve enough to think that there is no radiation emitted whatsoever, but I guess I was more asking about the severity of the radiation, which Gez aptly answered.

[Flesh420]

Maes said:

Hah, you wish. In my day, we made backyard nuclear reactors out of plastic barrels, PVC pipes and duct tape.

Totally off topic but thanks for the laugh. Lmao Made my day.

[Waffenak]

Kirby said:

Basically what the thread title says. I've found tons of articles detailing the effects of setting off a nuclear warhead, but I still can't find an answer to my question.

In short - does a nuclear warhead give off radiation before detonation? And if so how much?

NO, they dont leak radiation if the protective shells are made of quality materials which often are heavy chemicals elements. The heavier are materials = more radiation protection thats why lead is good cheap solution if you want to protect something from heavy radiation like gamma radiation. Alpha radiation you can stop with one sheet of A4 paper and beta radiation with aluminium foil

[clamgor]

Maes said:

Hah, you wish. In my day, we made backyard nuclear reactors out of plastic barrels, PVC pipes and duct tape.

What a nostalgic piece.