3 ms·
One factor to consider is the US military wanted fissile material so lobbied for US nuclear plants to be made in a way that created weapons grade material, even
by charwalker 6y ago
One factor to consider is the US military wanted fissile material so lobbied for US nuclear plants to be made in a way that created weapons grade material, even if it needed refining. If the US had opted for alternative reactor types we may have had a boom of very safe, non weapons grade material creating reactors today. Instead, we have many nations with the technology to create weapons grade material as that was the reactor type they were sold or were trying to copy.
The military has a goal, and it doesn't always line up with civilian interests. Unfortunately, their involvement could further drive dangerous variations of otherwise comparably safe and effective tools.
- catalogia 6y agoIt's not clear to me what the modern concern would be with nuclear powered military rockets. ICBMs don't have particularly high performance demands by modern rocket standards, and modern ICBMs are built with solid fuel boosters because they're simpler to deal with in every way. A nuclear powered ICBM doesn't make much sense; I don't think they'd make those and if they did, I don't think they'd be more alarming than the ICBMs which already exist. So what would the military even use such engines for? Maybe an X-37 successor, but why would that be particularly alarming?
- throwaway2048 6y agoA minor nit, the us military created the nuclear industry to begin with, it did not lobby and co-opt it into building nuclear weapon material, that was a major goal from day one.