The tech is the same tech used in nuclear reactors, and depending on how far you go certain therapies. Nuclear weapons are just one instance of the tech.

Simply put: no. This is just misinformation. Thermonuclear weapons derive their energy from fusion, not fission. The prompt criticality of the igniting fission weapon has nothing to do with the criticality seen in a nuclear reactor used for generating energy.

The grandparent asked about nuclear weapons, not specifically thermonuclear weapons.

Good point. I think it's fair to criticize instances of technology and innovation. So it would be fair to criticize all innovation that is specific only to weapons.

All fusion weapons use a fission core as the spark. This is why we need plutonium or uranium for nuclear warheads.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-nuclear-weapons-work

> Modern nuclear weapons work by combining chemical explosives, nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion. The explosives compress nuclear material, causing fission; the fission releases massive amounts of energy in the form of X-rays, which create the high temperature and pressure needed to ignite fusion.

And if you'd read my post, you'd note I already covered that.

I disagree that it has nothing to do with it. All of this technology was being developed at the same time, and the most important part of the technology for both purposes is criticality.

The trinity nuclear test (a fission weapon) was 1945.

Gen III nuclear reactors like those being installed at Vogtle and other sites area 21st century design.

Yes, technology advances. We're no longer pedaling around on penny farthings or driving around on Benz Patent-Motorwagens, but the technology is the same basis in many ways, just evolved.

Is fusion weapon research informative of fusion reactor research, and vice versa?

Not even remotely useful. If it was, there would be no more research on fusion reactors. They'd just process the heaps of government data available from both full weapon tests & other research projects.

The Manhattan Project literally built the world's first nuclear fission reactor. The group that built that reactor later became Argonne National Laboratory which then built the first nuclear reactor that generated electricity. Nuclear weapons and nuclear power come from the same roots.

I'm 500km from an ongoing armed conflict instead of 0km.

The nearest nuclear weapon is around 800km from my location, so you could say they're pretty effective at this.

That being said I don't believe it's mainly the nuclear weapons that let me live in peace, but I like to believe they're a component of that.

Depends on how recently you mean.

Since their inception they have revolutionized modern biology, and by extension medicine [1]. Also they gave us the seismic monitoring network we currently use to understand the earth.

Of course it wasn't the weapons that did this, but rather the offshoot technologies. But like every technology the first use was blowing something up, the later uses were arguably more peaceful.

I would agree that these days there's a bit more divergence between weapons research and useful nuclear research. But there are still some things that might belong in both camps (e.g. inertial confinement fusion).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_medicine

Not exactly the thing you're asking, but smoke detectors rely on radioactive material as do many medial imaging technologies.

But yea, not nukes themselves, just the technology and innovations that they made along the way... were the real treasure?

Thanks to nuclear deterrence I haven't been drafted into WW3 yet, so that is nice

Not that I agree with op but you could make a solid argument that they're the reason we haven't had war between major powers. You could probably argue the whole Ukraine Russia issue is because Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons in exchange for a promise of peace (and other countries can take notes on the result of that)