Re: Can hydrogen deliver?

From: Richard Bell (rlbell_at_csclub.uwaterloo.ca)
Date: 10/26/04 

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 05:25:01 +0000 (UTC)

In article <qP6dnQzWDeYcO-TcRVn-1A@gwi.net>,
Tim O'Flaherty <pinwheels_Fudge_@gwi.net> wrote:
>
>"Richard Bell" <rlbell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>news:cl0vq9$8gd$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>> In article <a8qdnfajlP2pl-7cRVn-1w@gwi.net>,
>> Tim O'Flaherty <pinwheels_Fudge_@gwi.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> >
>> >So are you saying it is impossible to make weapons from civilian nuke
>waste?
>> >How about from Pu reprocessed from civilian nuke waste? "You can't get
>> >there from here" However if you first go there......
>>
>> We are not saying that it is impossible. Merely that it is a stupid way
>> to do it.
>
>Well, Ignoring whether making nuke weapons is stupid or not overall, if you
>are determined and this is the only means at your disposal it wouldn't be
>stupid. What we are talking about is using Pu already separated by
>reprocessing. There is plenty of it already and we can expect more with
>more reprocessing.

You missed my point. There are easier ways of getting weapons grade
plutonium than extracting it from reprocessed nuke waste. These methods
are safer, cheaper, and faster than using spent nuclear fuel, and the
end product is easier to fashion into a crude nuclear device that will
actually detonate.
>
>> The plutonium in civil nuke waste is mixed with highly radioactive
>> fission products and the isotopic ratio of Pu240 to Pu239 means that the
>> plutonium recovered from civil nuke waste is not weapons grade.
>
>Less reliable but still possible to create a weapon with relatively little
>resources once you get your hands on the separated Pu as pointed out in the
>article I posted above.

Okay, you have reactor grade plutonium. You still have to design a nuclear
explosive to use it. Even with weapons grade plutonium, you still have to
design a complicated device that myriads of devices, all of which has to work
within narrow tolerances, or it will not work, at all. With reactor grade
plutonium, the tolerances get smaller and it is more difficult to get the
big explosion. As for "relatively little resources", relative to what?
>
>
>
>
>> When you
>> use a neutron flux to turn U238 to Pu239, there are few fissions happening
>in
>> your uranium slug, so it is less radioactive and much easier to handle.
>
>Irrelevant, we are discussing the use of materials stolen/misdirected from
>commercial reprocessing into the hands of terrorists.
>
>
><snip>
>
>> Compared to the irradiating of non-fuel uranium slugs, extracting Pu from
>> spent fuel is a waste of resources.
>
>A terrorist group wouldn't have to do any of this, just steal some small bit
>from the growing tonnage of already separated Pu from commercial fuel
>reprocessing. More reprocessing means more opportunities.

>From the perspective of a power reactor, unlike a nuclear bomb, there is no
difference between Pu239 and Pu240, so the stolen material will still not
be weapons grade. Also, terrorism is not new. State-sponsored terrorism
is not new. Nuclear facilities have been required to plan for terrorism for
nearly thirty years. The stuff is not just stacked in boxes in some warehouse,
(except, possibly, in the FSU), protected by a rent-a-cop, if that, it is
stored in a fenced in compound, within a strong building, guarded by what
are nearly trained regulars.
>
>
>>
>> Plutonium from spent fuel, Pu240 contamination and all, can be made into
>> a weapon of sufficiently tweaked design, but the only way that you can be
>> certain that it will detonate with a bang, not a whimper, is to actually
>> embark on a test program.
>
>You only need to be certain if it is to be used as a detererent as between
>two opposing states like the US and Russia or India and Pakistan. A
>terrorist group will use NY, CLE or LA as a testing ground.

That would be a terrorist group's undoing, as the fizzle may not even wipe
the fingerprints on the bomb casing, let alone vaporise the vehicle used to
deliver the bomb (WTC bombing, all over again, with every bit as much
evidence to find the perpetrators).

If building a bomb from spent reactor fuel was so easy, why didn't the US
do it in the cold war, given the US government's obligation to dispose of the
soent fuel, anyways?
>
>
>
>
>>
>> So if North Korea has built weapons from material scavenged from spent
>fuel,
>> but not tested any of them (Have I missed the news that North Korea has
>> conducted a series of bomb tests?), there are serious questions that they
>> are more than paper tigers (albeit, highly radioactive ones).
>>
>
>North Korea is dangerous not just for what they may lob on to Seoul or Tokyo
>but because of what they may sell on the black market.
>
>Regards,
>Tim O
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can hydrogen deliver?
    ... plutonium than extracting it from reprocessed nuke waste. ... >> plutonium recovered from civil nuke waste is not weapons grade. ... >> spent fuel is a waste of resources. ... Also, terrorism is not new. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Can hydrogen deliver?
    ... There are easier ways of getting weapons grade ... >> plutonium than extracting it from reprocessed nuke waste. ... the bomb goes off as equivalent to kilograms ... you have reactor grade plutonium. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Can hydrogen deliver?
    ... There are easier ways of getting weapons grade ... >> plutonium than extracting it from reprocessed nuke waste. ... the bomb goes off as equivalent to kilograms ... you have reactor grade plutonium. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)