4 ms·
Proliferation concerns for reactors are silly IMO. Any nation state with access to U and graphite can simply construct a pile reactor to make Pu. Much easier to
by evilos 3y ago
Proliferation concerns for reactors are silly IMO. Any nation state with access to U and graphite can simply construct a pile reactor to make Pu. Much easier to conceal and operate compared to trying to mask reactor operations at a civilian plant. Plus with a CANDU, the fuel patterns for making energy are incompatible with the ones for making Pu so it would be very obvious.
The cat has been out of the bag for a while. Most major nation states could come up with a crude nuclear weapon in a few years or less if they wanted to. The existence of civilian energy facilities is irrelevant to the weapons question. We might as well reap the benefits of fission if we must live with its drawbacks.
- credit_guy 3y ago> Any nation state with access to U and graphite can simply construct a pile reactor to make Pu. Much easier to conceal and operate compared to trying to mask reactor operations at a civilian plant. The pile reactor that the US built during WW2 at the Hanford Site employed 45000 construction workers. Making plutonium is quite straightforward in theory, but practice tends to disagree with theory. Two nations that I know of decided that uranium bombs make more sense for them, South Africa and Iran. South Africa went on to build six such bombs.
- evilos 3y agoLooks like 40k workers was the peak during construction. And to be fair, it was also the 1940's, they were in a massive rush, and it was the literal first time it was done.