3 ms·
For greater context, Russia and America maintain their nukes very differently. The US DOE studies them and works hard at maintaining existing stocks without bu
by sandworm101 4y ago
For greater context, Russia and America maintain their nukes very differently. The US DOE studies them and works hard at maintaining existing stocks without building many new warheads. Russia does it differently. Their nukes have a finite lifespan. Once past, they are torn down, fuel reprocessed, and rebuilt from scratch. So pulling "20k" nukes out of the Russian system had a very different impact than pulling 20k would have from the US system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak
- sokoloff 4y agoI’m not sure I understand how it’s different, assuming that the fuel for 20K warheads is no longer available for use in active warheads.
- hattmall 4y agoThey were upgraded instead of simply deleted from the arsenal. Russia maintains a much more active enrichment program than the US. For some reason the US seems to want to keep it that way, or at least doesn't have a problem with. It's great that we used that fuel for domestic energy but those funds paid to Russia supported their further enrichment activities. Even today the US is supplying Russia with radioactive material and procuring enriched products from Russia. Maybe less in the last year but we generally have an open exchange of supplies and information with nuclear technology. From a war standpoint the nuclear material isn't that big of deal, the delivery system is vastly more important for national security.
- yummypaint 4y agoRussia has been putting the squeeze on the US with regard to isotopes for many years, particularly medical isotopes. That was one of the motivating factors behind building HFIR at oak ridge.
- SoftTalker 4y agoThey make more fuel. They are still running RBMK reactors (Chernobyl type) that can produce plutonium as well as generate electricity.