4 ms·

Atoms for Peace: Learning to Love the Bomb

19 points by Hooke 2y ago

cheeseomlit 2y ago
Obviously, using atomic weapons to dig a hole for an infrastructure project is profoundly stupid. The irony that the author doesn't touch on is that the incredible violence of nuclear weapons, not these 'peaceful' boondoggle projects, is what makes them such an effective force for peace
- Qem 2y ago
  > Obviously, using atomic weapons to dig a hole for an infrastructure project is profoundly stupid. It can be used to plug holes too. There's an old video that made the rounds back when BP caused the Deepwater Horizon disaster, showing how the Soviet Union used nukes to successfully control a years-long gas well blowout in the Pamuk field. IIRC there was serious consideration of using a similar technique to plug the botched Macondo well as a last resort, if conventional measures failed.
- Neonlicht 2y ago
  This was in the 1950s when a nuclear war was still considered winnable. This all changed as hydrogen bombs were combined with submarine launched ICBMs. That's when the MAD concept influenced political leaders on both sides.
  - XorNot 2y ago
    It's somewhat notable though that technically the "nuclear" part is almost less important then the delivery systems though. Consider South Korea and the North Korean conventional artillery aimed at Seoul.
godelski 2y ago
One interesting thing most people don’t think about is if you want to get rid of all nuclear bombs, what do you do with the existing materials? Sure, you could bury it in by ground, but what else? The most successful deproliferation program has been Megatons to Megawatts[0]. Where they took warheads and converted the material into nuclear reactor fuel. It’s not just more efficient but has other advantages like in helping strengthen belief in decommissioning. If you toss it into a secret mountain it’s hard to know how much was actually stored. But burning fuel is measurable and so is the enrichment process, so it’s noticeable when a country is making weapons vs fuel (there’s a lot more nuance to this, but this is even part of the compromises made in The Iran Deal. This is a HN comment do not enough but maybe AcidburnNSA will show up and fill in the details). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program Side note: it is fucking 2024, why am I still removing the m from the URL for Wikipedia and you can’t figure out if I’m on desktop or mobile, like every site does
- cyberax 2y ago
  Plutonium can be burned in existing reactors ("mixed-oxide fuel"). At one time, almost 20% of the US electricity production was powered by Russian nukes.
  - philipkglass 2y ago
    The US didn't use MOX fuel in its power reactors, though. The Megatons to Megawatts program with Russia used highly enriched uranium that was surplus from Russian weapons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program The US had hoped to dispose of its own weapons grade plutonium surplus via MOX fuel for power reactors, but the project was shut down in 2018 after running late and over budget: https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-MOX-facility-contract-terminated https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-MOX-facility-cont... Work started on the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) in 2007, with a 2016 start-up envisaged. Although based on France's Melox MOX facility, the US project has presented many first-of-a-kind challenges and in 2012 the US Government Accountability Office suggested it would likely not start up before 2019 and cost at least USD7.7 billion, far above original estimate of USD4.9 billion.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      D'oh. Yep, it was re-diluted uranium. MOX fuel is used by Europeans, though.
philipkglass 2y ago
I don't think that peaceful nuclear explosives (PNEs) were merely a public relations exercise or an excuse for nuclear testing. The USSR pursued them too and it was hardly beholden to public opinion. The US started testing applications for PNEs before there was any limitation on nuclear explosive testing. The USSR started PNE tests in the mid 1960s, after atmospheric testing was banned but before there were any treaty limitations on underground explosions. These are the respective projects for the two countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare (US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nat... (USSR) The engineering allure was basically the same as that of early atomic energy projects: nuclear fuel is much less expensive than chemical fuel, joule-for-joule. In 1969 the International Atomic Energy Agency published an article "Possibilities for Peaceful Nuclear Explosives" that gives the flavor of this argument. The nuclear explosion differs in equivalent size from chemical high explosives by several orders of magnitude. A 25 kiloton nuclear explosive (TNT equivalent - 25,000 tons) may be emplaced in a cylindrical bore hole less than a metre in diameter; even a 1 megaton explosive charge (TNT equivalent - 1,000,000 tons) would not take up more space than that. On the other hand, 25,000 tons of TNT would require a spherical cavity, 30 metres in diameter. Even if that much TNT could be assembled in one place, its emplacement costs would be enormous. Nuclear explosives are also relatively inexpensive. The US AEC has projected a charge of $350,000 for a 10 kiloton and $600,000 for a 2 megaton explosive. Equivalent TNT costs are, respectively, $4,000,000 and $800,000,000. Thus, even for "small" shots, potential economies are considerable, while for large ones, chemical explosives simply are not economically feasible. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull11-3/11303580312.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... PNE programs never delivered on the early promise for a variety of reasons (including "there are few attractive civil uses for even a 10 kiloton blast") but those numbers certainly were alluring at first glance. IIRC, India also had some early interest in nuclear explosives stoked by comparisons with TNT like that given above. One thing not highlighted by the AEC's numbers is that the costs were so low only because the US had already invested enormous resources into developing nuclear explosives for military purposes. A country starting a civil-only nuclear explosives program, with the aim of blasting harbors or whatnot with atomic bombs, would find that the conventional TNT route was much less expensive.

19 points by Hooke 2y ago

Obviously, using atomic weapons to dig a hole for an infrastructure project is profoundly stupid. The irony that the author doesn't touch on is that the incredible violence of nuclear weapons, not these 'peaceful' boondoggle projects, is what makes them such an effective force for peace

Qem 2y ago
> Obviously, using atomic weapons to dig a hole for an infrastructure project is profoundly stupid. It can be used to plug holes too. There's an old video that made the rounds back when BP caused the Deepwater Horizon disaster, showing how the Soviet Union used nukes to successfully control a years-long gas well blowout in the Pamuk field. IIRC there was serious consideration of using a similar technique to plug the botched Macondo well as a last resort, if conventional measures failed.
Neonlicht 2y ago
This was in the 1950s when a nuclear war was still considered winnable. This all changed as hydrogen bombs were combined with submarine launched ICBMs. That's when the MAD concept influenced political leaders on both sides.
- XorNot 2y ago
  It's somewhat notable though that technically the "nuclear" part is almost less important then the delivery systems though. Consider South Korea and the North Korean conventional artillery aimed at Seoul.

godelski 2y ago

One interesting thing most people don’t think about is if you want to get rid of all nuclear bombs, what do you do with the existing materials? Sure, you could bury it in by ground, but what else? The most successful deproliferation program has been Megatons to Megawatts[0]. Where they took warheads and converted the material into nuclear reactor fuel. It’s not just more efficient but has other advantages like in helping strengthen belief in decommissioning. If you toss it into a secret mountain it’s hard to know how much was actually stored. But burning fuel is measurable and so is the enrichment process, so it’s noticeable when a country is making weapons vs fuel (there’s a lot more nuance to this, but this is even part of the compromises made in The Iran Deal. This is a HN comment do not enough but maybe AcidburnNSA will show up and fill in the details). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program Side note: it is fucking 2024, why am I still removing the m from the URL for Wikipedia and you can’t figure out if I’m on desktop or mobile, like every site does

cyberax 2y ago
Plutonium can be burned in existing reactors ("mixed-oxide fuel"). At one time, almost 20% of the US electricity production was powered by Russian nukes.
- philipkglass 2y ago
  The US didn't use MOX fuel in its power reactors, though. The Megatons to Megawatts program with Russia used highly enriched uranium that was surplus from Russian weapons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program The US had hoped to dispose of its own weapons grade plutonium surplus via MOX fuel for power reactors, but the project was shut down in 2018 after running late and over budget: https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-MOX-facility-contract-terminated https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-MOX-facility-cont... Work started on the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) in 2007, with a 2016 start-up envisaged. Although based on France's Melox MOX facility, the US project has presented many first-of-a-kind challenges and in 2012 the US Government Accountability Office suggested it would likely not start up before 2019 and cost at least USD7.7 billion, far above original estimate of USD4.9 billion.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    D'oh. Yep, it was re-diluted uranium. MOX fuel is used by Europeans, though.

philipkglass 2y ago

I don't think that peaceful nuclear explosives (PNEs) were merely a public relations exercise or an excuse for nuclear testing. The USSR pursued them too and it was hardly beholden to public opinion. The US started testing applications for PNEs before there was any limitation on nuclear explosive testing. The USSR started PNE tests in the mid 1960s, after atmospheric testing was banned but before there were any treaty limitations on underground explosions. These are the respective projects for the two countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare (US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nat... (USSR) The engineering allure was basically the same as that of early atomic energy projects: nuclear fuel is much less expensive than chemical fuel, joule-for-joule. In 1969 the International Atomic Energy Agency published an article "Possibilities for Peaceful Nuclear Explosives" that gives the flavor of this argument. The nuclear explosion differs in equivalent size from chemical high explosives by several orders of magnitude. A 25 kiloton nuclear explosive (TNT equivalent - 25,000 tons) may be emplaced in a cylindrical bore hole less than a metre in diameter; even a 1 megaton explosive charge (TNT equivalent - 1,000,000 tons) would not take up more space than that. On the other hand, 25,000 tons of TNT would require a spherical cavity, 30 metres in diameter. Even if that much TNT could be assembled in one place, its emplacement costs would be enormous. Nuclear explosives are also relatively inexpensive. The US AEC has projected a charge of $350,000 for a 10 kiloton and $600,000 for a 2 megaton explosive. Equivalent TNT costs are, respectively, $4,000,000 and $800,000,000. Thus, even for "small" shots, potential economies are considerable, while for large ones, chemical explosives simply are not economically feasible. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull11-3/11303580312.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... PNE programs never delivered on the early promise for a variety of reasons (including "there are few attractive civil uses for even a 10 kiloton blast") but those numbers certainly were alluring at first glance. IIRC, India also had some early interest in nuclear explosives stoked by comparisons with TNT like that given above. One thing not highlighted by the AEC's numbers is that the costs were so low only because the US had already invested enormous resources into developing nuclear explosives for military purposes. A country starting a civil-only nuclear explosives program, with the aim of blasting harbors or whatnot with atomic bombs, would find that the conventional TNT route was much less expensive.