3 ms·

This might be interesting for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency > Nuclear latency or a nuclear

This might be interesting for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency > Nuclear latency or a nuclear threshold state is the condition of a country possessing the technology to quickly build nuclear weapons, without having actually yet done so. > There are many countries capable of producing nuclear weapons, or at least enriching uranium or manufacturing plutonium. Among the most notable are Japan, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia. > Taiwan and South Korea have both been identified as "insecure" nuclear threshold states—states with the technical capability to develop nuclear weapons and the security motivations to seriously contemplate such an option.

gosub100 3y ago
That is interesting. Makes me think about the stories in the past few years that U235 can theoretically be condensed from seawater. Not good for proliferation.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > Not good for proliferation. What do you think it changes about proliferation?
  - gosub100 3y ago
    If it's proved viable wouldn't it allow anyone with access to the sea to obtain uranium? (I know you need concentrated U-235 to make an explosion, but just getting to yellowcake is enough to attract attention, right?).
    - krisoft 3y ago
      It would still require a lot of power and a lot of infrastructure to do it. If a country or organisation would try to go down that route others would see that they spend a lot of effort on slurping seawater through machines they can’t explain with anything else. That is the bottleneck how nuclear non-proliferation is enforced. You can hide your intentions, but you can’t hide that a lot or energy is flowing into a process you don’t have a good explanation for. Because of this detecting a sea water sourced extraction would be even easier than a nuclear program based on mined uranium. (Because you need to enrich from an even weaker starting condition.) What happens after detection is either diplomacy (they ask the country to stop nicely, reminding them of the consequences) or force (bombing the facilities).
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      Uranium can be obtained anywhere if cost is no object. If you own a house with a modest sized lawn, the top meter of soil probably contains several kilograms of uranium.
      - krisoft 3y ago
        > If you own a house with a modest sized lawn, the top meter of soil probably contains several kilograms of uranium. At first I thought "surely that cannot be right", then did some calculation and it seems you are right? This report[1] states that: "Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element that is present in nearly all rocks and soils; it has an average concentration in U.S. soils of about 2 pCi/g (3 ppm)." I took the 3ppm figure from this and assumed that means 3g per million gram of soil. (This assumption might be a mistake, but I don't know how better to interpret it.) Then I googled and found 1000 square meter to be a reasonable size of estimate for the lawn size and 1400 kg/cubic meter seems to be a reasonable soil density. Then just multiplied these together "1000 * 1 * 1400 * (3 / 10*6) = 4.2" and found that indeed. As a rough estimation your statement seems to be right! (I mean of course you did know this :D I just wanted to show how I checked in case others are as surprised by the statement as I was.) 1: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp150-c6.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp150-c6.pdf
        pfdietz 3y ago
        Now do the same calculation with lead and arsenic. :)
        gosub100 3y ago
        I didn't realize that either (it sounds unbelievable but it's not). It (may) also explain why radon is such a big deal for some people. There's that much U below you (and much more as you go through the crust), if enough of it is "hot" and releases Radon (which I believe is a decay product, might be wrong) it can build up enough to poison the occupants of the house.
- jjk166 3y ago
  Uranium can be extracted from sea water but it's still a natural mixture of U238 and U235. It still needs to be enriched to produce weapons material.
- fomine3 3y ago
  For those countries, they will extract from nuclear fuel

gosub100 3y ago

That is interesting. Makes me think about the stories in the past few years that U235 can theoretically be condensed from seawater. Not good for proliferation.

krisoft 3y ago
> Not good for proliferation. What do you think it changes about proliferation?
- gosub100 3y ago
  If it's proved viable wouldn't it allow anyone with access to the sea to obtain uranium? (I know you need concentrated U-235 to make an explosion, but just getting to yellowcake is enough to attract attention, right?).
  - krisoft 3y ago
    It would still require a lot of power and a lot of infrastructure to do it. If a country or organisation would try to go down that route others would see that they spend a lot of effort on slurping seawater through machines they can’t explain with anything else. That is the bottleneck how nuclear non-proliferation is enforced. You can hide your intentions, but you can’t hide that a lot or energy is flowing into a process you don’t have a good explanation for. Because of this detecting a sea water sourced extraction would be even easier than a nuclear program based on mined uranium. (Because you need to enrich from an even weaker starting condition.) What happens after detection is either diplomacy (they ask the country to stop nicely, reminding them of the consequences) or force (bombing the facilities).
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Uranium can be obtained anywhere if cost is no object. If you own a house with a modest sized lawn, the top meter of soil probably contains several kilograms of uranium.
    - krisoft 3y ago
      > If you own a house with a modest sized lawn, the top meter of soil probably contains several kilograms of uranium. At first I thought "surely that cannot be right", then did some calculation and it seems you are right? This report[1] states that: "Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element that is present in nearly all rocks and soils; it has an average concentration in U.S. soils of about 2 pCi/g (3 ppm)." I took the 3ppm figure from this and assumed that means 3g per million gram of soil. (This assumption might be a mistake, but I don't know how better to interpret it.) Then I googled and found 1000 square meter to be a reasonable size of estimate for the lawn size and 1400 kg/cubic meter seems to be a reasonable soil density. Then just multiplied these together "1000 * 1 * 1400 * (3 / 10*6) = 4.2" and found that indeed. As a rough estimation your statement seems to be right! (I mean of course you did know this :D I just wanted to show how I checked in case others are as surprised by the statement as I was.) 1: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp150-c6.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp150-c6.pdf
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        Now do the same calculation with lead and arsenic. :)
      - gosub100 3y ago
        I didn't realize that either (it sounds unbelievable but it's not). It (may) also explain why radon is such a big deal for some people. There's that much U below you (and much more as you go through the crust), if enough of it is "hot" and releases Radon (which I believe is a decay product, might be wrong) it can build up enough to poison the occupants of the house.
jjk166 3y ago
Uranium can be extracted from sea water but it's still a natural mixture of U238 and U235. It still needs to be enriched to produce weapons material.
fomine3 3y ago
For those countries, they will extract from nuclear fuel