5 ms·
Point #4. Distinction we need to make is that Australia will obtain Nuclear-powered subs, not nuclear weapons. I haven’t seen what “Nuclear Sub” entails with re
by systemvoltage 5y ago
Point #4. Distinction we need to make is that Australia will obtain Nuclear-powered subs, not nuclear weapons. I haven’t seen what “Nuclear Sub” entails with regards to this contract anywhere so please correct me if I am wrong. It’s not breaking the non-proliferation treaty.
- sudosysgen 5y agoIt entails in the case of US subs 95% enrichment uranium.
- systemvoltage 5y agoIs making rad bombs trivial? Can you just dump nuclear fuel out of the sub and stick it in a gun-type bomb with no prior experience?
- sudosysgen 5y agoPretty much, yes. Enrichment is the hard part and US subs have fuel enriched enough for a gun type nuke.
- systemvoltage 5y agoI wonder if the subs have enough quantity of fuel to make a respectable explosion. Like if they need to ditch 8 subs to make a bomb, it is pretty low risk if I were China.
- sudosysgen 5y agoIf you run the number, you'll find that a sub is going to have at least a half a ton of highly enriched uranium, perhaps even more than a ton. You wouldn't even need to ditch a single sub to make multiple warheads, certainly not if you use an implosion design as any country can pretty easily do nowadays.
- kayodelycaon 5y agoFrom what I understand, your basic nuclear weapon (WWII tech) isn’t technically difficult to build because the principles are well known. The uranium is the difficult part. Sure you could extract the fuel rods, but how many weapons will you get out of it? Is having a handful of low yield bombs worth the international sanctions? I think you’re better off having strategic strike capability with cruise missiles from submarines. They are a lot more flexible and you can have a lot of them without the other nations getting too upset.
- sudosysgen 5y agoThese submarines have 95% enrichment fuel. You only need ~10kg to make a high yield weapon with the right design. You're going to get multiple weapons with the fuel stored in a single submarine. Cruise missiles are vulnerable. They can be intercepted and shot down, and they give your position away. Low reward, high risk. Nuclear deterrence can certainly be worth it.
- fspeech 5y agoI doubt they will use 95% uranium. [This guy](https://theconversation.com/how-do-nuclear-powered-submarines-work-a-nuclear-scientist-explains-168067 https://theconversation.com/how-do-nuclear-powered-submarine...) says it is about 50%. Still that is the level Iran is being sanctioned at.
- sudosysgen 5y agoThe US uses 93-97% uranium as a matter of public record. Other countries use more weakly enriched uranium, the US and UK are the exception, so I understand the error in the article above. See this better source ; https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/06/naval-reactors-leu/ https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/06/naval-reactors-leu/
- fspeech 5y agoI wasn't questioning your numbers but thanks for the reference. I think they are being purposedly vague about this. Transferring weapons grade uranium would be a real threat to the NPT.
- markus_zhang 5y agoYes it's nuclear powered but the argument stands.
- systemvoltage 5y ago> The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) forbids signatories who don’t already have a bomb from making one. It also says they must put sensitive nuclear material, like enriched uranium, under international safeguards, monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a watchdog. But the rules have a submarine-shaped loophole. States are allowed to remove nuclear material from safeguards if they are for “a non-proscribed military activity”, such as submarine propulsion. No non-nuclear-armed state has ever tested that loophole—until now. Source: https://www.economist.com/international/2021/09/17/what-does-the-australian-submarine-deal-mean-for-non-proliferation https://www.economist.com/international/2021/09/17/what-does... So it seems that it is technically not violating NPT.