One does not simply destroy a nuclear weapon

I can't believe this doesn't mention Megatons to Megawatts!? [1]

For 20 years between 1993 and 2013, fully 10% of all US electricity came directly from dismantled ex-soviet nuclear weapons. We bought downblended highly-enriched uranium from the warheads and put it in our peaceful nuclear reactors. The bombs that were once aimed at cities then powered them. This was a beautiful and true destruction of nuclear weapons.

Same can be done with plutonium using MOX fuel (as briefly mentioned at the end of the post).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program

I"'m really shocked it doesn't mention CANDU's plutonium destruction.

https://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp461-e.ht...

"The Canadian CANDU reactors appear to be well suited to MOX fuel; they would not require physical modification and MOX fuel could be burned within existing operating and licensing envelopes. Furthermore, it is anticipated that existing safety standards governing the exposure of workers to radiation could be met or exceeded. The most significant change would be the implementation of enhanced security for the storage of new fuel prior to loading it in the reactors."

The author of the post is replying to an NYT article [0] complaining that the US doesn't actually destroy nukes, but rather aims to recycle materials and so stores those materials in the meantime while awaiting need for those materials. This makes it seem like maybe the US is just being opportunisitic and not actually disarming.

Exceprt from the blog:

Second, it's extremely difficult to destroy plutonium effectively (some weapons are built out of highly enriched uranium and that can just be diluted in U-238 and used for reactors). Obviously, you can melt it down, but that just leaves you with a chunk of subcritical plutonium which someone can re-form into a new weapon. The plutonium is highly toxic, so you can't just grind it up and scatter it around without causing huge environmental impacts (watch Chernobyl if you want to get a sense of what I'm talking about here). You can't burn it because then you're going to have oxidized plutonium in the air, which you don't want people inhaling, and while you can of course use chemicals to dissolve it, vitrify it, etc. you're still left with an equivalent amount of plutonium, just bonded to some other stuff, and so it's just a matter of (potentially highly unpleasant) chemistry to get it back out again. In other words, it's precisely the properties of plutonium that make it attractive to build nuclear weapons out of that make it so hard to dispose of.

It's also very difficult to store because while an individual weapon may not be a critical mass, if you have tens or hundreds of weapons you have to worry about them getting close enough to worry about accidentally assembling a critical mass just from proximity, which, would of course, be bad.

[0] https://archive.ph/QCaov

This is a little more complicated than what you can learn from wikipedia.

Many thousands of US and Soviet nuclear weapons were demilitarized under the START treaties, mostly at the PANTEX plant in Texas. Demilitarized means that they were disassembled and/or damaged in such a way that they cannot be used for military purposes without extensive reprocessing or re-manufacturing. The demilled components are still radioactive, toxic, and/or classified, so they have to be securely stored somewhere.

The parts from old weapons that have completely or partially been dismantled are also held in storage. Some of the non-fissionable materials can be recycled, but the uranium would require reprocessing and re-manufacturing to be used in a weapon. It may be possible to reassemble old weapons from these components, but for what purpose? These weapons were retired for practical reasons such as being replaced by newer, better, and safer weapons (from the point of view of the DOE and DOD).

There are also complete weapons in storage that are no longer in active service. Inactive weapons are unmaintained, but could be returned to service with field level maintenance. Some of these are kept to support war plans for contingencies or capabilities that are not a current priority. For the majority though, there's a significant cost to dismantle them and no pressing need to do so.

Whether we can reprocess the fuel I think misses a larger point.

We disassemble and save parts because we don't - can't - build more.

I'm told by Livermore nuclear weapons engineers (admittedly anecdotal hearsay) that it's crazy not to test these weapons. They degrade and fail in ways and at speeds not unanticipated, and computer modeling could not replace actual testing (at least back in ~2000-2005).

So we built a bunch in a rush, found they might last 3 years or 7 years or some other random number, and now... we hold on to them and hope they work, or hope they'll work with scavenged replacement parts.

I'm sure a few carefully curated ones work, but the failure rate could be closer to 90% than 10%.

Perhaps our negligence will save us all.

Good piece. IMHO the introductory narrative might be slightly enhanced by briefly pointing out that synthesis of plutonium was not achieved until several years after Szilard's brainstorm. Something like, "Researchers predicted that Pu would offer such-and-so advantages; however, nobody had quite yet come up with the recipe."

In other words: As described with the high-level bomb design, every material and component therein was concurrently being developed, improvised or straight-up invented to meet existing theory.

Thank you for recommending Rhodes' books; they are excellent. I may be alone in this; however I wish he had split 'Dark Sun' into two distinct volumes: One about the development of thermonuclear technology; and another for all of the spy stuff.

> the FAS report I linked above is from 1993 and states that "There is almost 1000 MT of reactor Pu (R-Pu) in existence now, with the amount growing by about 100 MT per year."

Why couldn't we find a few kg for NASA missions? IIRC for Juno mission the DoE said "plutonium is out of stock for now, come later", so they had to use these oversized solar panels.

> The fusion component also seems to involve some isotopes of hydrogen (tritium and deuterium), so it would be modestly helpful to have that but my understanding is that it's not that hard to get your hands on these isotopes.

Tritium is the most expensive thing on the planet that any of us can buy, by weight. Only exotic matter (non-naturally occurring elements, anti-matter) is more expensive, and that you basically can't buy. Tritium is not easy to make or get. And it has a half-life of 12 years. Deuterium can't be used instead of tritium.

There is a pic somewhere showing south africa destroying theirs literally with angle grinders.

Seems to have vanished from the internet though. Weird

The easiest thing to do would probably be to deform the pit so it can't be used in a warhead without re-processing. Then store them in a box using the same policy/procedures as weapon storage. They don't take up a lot of space and it's not like they're being manufactured like crazy.

Wikipedia says they're about 10cm in diameter which sounds about right, i thought they were around the size of a softball. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_(nuclear_weapon)#Pit_shari...

Well if the US government ran a LFTR / MSR they'd have both power for the facility and something to process a lot of the isotopes and a means for extraction.

The core contention of the article is that plutonium disposal is an issue. Not in an MSR! (at least from my reading). I can see how solid fuel rods are precisely designed in old crappy fuel rod designs, since you need to design the rods to avoid them melting down.

MSRs are meltdown proof, owing to the fluid nature of the fuel. If the fuel is overheating/overfissioning, then a "plug" that is artificially cooled will melt, and the fluid pours into a shallow pool. Since the shallow pool distributes the fissile material in a way that stops the chain reaction (since effectively a volume is reduced to a sheet, so all the neutrons in the vast majority of directions don't run into another fissionable/fissile nucleus, the reaction stops)

Aside from the plutonium, IIRC molten salt reactors can "burn" a lot of "waste" isotopes since if it isn't fissile, let it hang around in the salt and a couple absorbed neutrons will make it something that can.

The fission products are in a liquid, so the fluid can be chemically processed more easily to extract products. Yeah, there's a LOT of handwaving there, but fundamentally if you have a breeder reactor you can "process" waste into a usable form.

The best thing about MSRs is that they scale to smaller sizes: the ORNL research reactor was closet-sized. A general MSR for fission product processing would have a lot more stuff for processing the salt for waste, yeah.

As for replacement parts and the associated dangers for weapons construction, that's not really a nuclear issue once the nuclear material is separated.

The inherent chemical toxicity of all this is a problem, but fundamentally what you are doing is containing the salts and processing them. Toxic stuff will eventually get transmuted to something else, so you just need to keep the core thorium -> uranium cycle going and "work on" all the rest of it to get it to a usable or more stable element.

Yeah it's expensive, but TFA mentions billions for disposal/processing. Well, we could have had a usable MSR design and tons of knowhow to go with a good disposal method.

It literally takes 2 minutes to look up Plutonium disposition in CANDU reactors.

The US has done a lot of messed up things, but is not going to risk global escalation over silly paranoia.

If clowns are going to create defamatory mythologies about people, than at least don't use easily disproved FUD.

This raises a tricky question: Should the United States open or reopen a production line for nuclear weapons in order to avoid losing their manufacturing know-how, the way we do with M1A2 Abrams tanks? The United States once produced thousands of tanks per year. Today, there is only one tank plant left open in the nation, the Lima Army Tank Plant. For years, US Army leaders have asked Congress to stop purchasing new tanks because they didn't need them, but Congress kept ordering the Department of Defense to buy tanks anyway. They did this for two reasons. First, because the tank plant is a source of jobs in Ohio. Second, because tanks, especially modern, 21st century tanks, are specialized tools, and we wouldn't want to forget how to build them. An argument is made than it is cheaper to keep producing tanks that are not needed than it would be to restart a tank production line if one didn't exist. The argument is sensible and most likely true. After the US Air Force ordered an early end to the production of the F-22 Raptor in the early 2010s, the production line was dismantled. A report in the last few years estimated the cost to restart the production line in the billions, if not the low tens of billions.

So, back to nuclear weapons. The United States manufactured tens of thousands of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Most of these weapons have been decommissioned and the production lines have been shut down. The United States no longer manufactures nuclear weapons. Now, the incoming Ground Based Strategic Deterrent will be built by Northrop Grumman in the next few years to start replacing the aging Minuteman III ICBMs, but the warheads and the nuclear cores will be recycled from existing ICBMs.

Which raises a question: How would the United States replenish its nuclear weapons if the need arose? For example, after a nuclear war, where the US lost or expended 80% of its arsenal? The question of what to do after a nuclear war may sound absurd to some, but it's a worthwhile and interesting one. More on point, what if the nuclear cores degrade to a point where they may no longer work? This is essentially what the Department of Energy's Nuclear Stewardship Program is for. It's a program that costs billions of dollars a year and uses supercomputers to model the slow degradation of the nuclear cores in the stockpile.

But here's where it gets trickier. The New START treaty will expire in 2026. If it is not extended or replaced by a new treaty, there will be nothing stopping Russia from expanding its nuclear arsenal. China is also expanding its nuclear arsenal as we speak. Last week's report by the Department of Defense claims that China will have 1,500 nuclear weapons within a decade or so. China is building new nuclear weapons. The United States is not. And China is not bound by any arms control treaty.

Now, the US also happens to have about 1,400-1,500 nuclear weapons deployed, plus a few thousand more in storage, disassembled.

But what if China decides at some point to push past 1,500? To 2,000? 5,000?

A country with 5,000 nuclear weapons could conduct a first strike against a country with 1,500 nuclear weapons, on a 2:1 ratio, and still have 2,000 nukes in reserve for further strikes. This is why the nuclear arms race happened between the US and the Soviet Union in the first place. Any disparity in the deployed arsenals gives the side with more the advantage. So if China ever decides to expand beyond 1,500, the strategically sound move for the US would be to start building more, to match the Chinese production. It would be tragic, but it's not impossible.

But the US no longer manufactures nukes, so the old production lines would need to be reopened.

Plutonium pits can be stored and reused, but not forever. Eventually enough decay products build up to make them unreliable. It's a big problem for long-term maintenance.

> “It’s important to keep these parts around,” said Franklin C. Miller, a nuclear expert who held federal posts for three decades before leaving government service in 2005. “If we had the manufacturing complex we once did, we wouldn’t have to rely on the old parts.” He added that other nuclear powers can and do make new atomic parts.

This is depressing. It’s much like the F-22, we’ve lost the capability to make those too. It’s remarkable how rapidly the USA has declined in the past couple decades. Pretty much the only thing we have going for us is a stranglehold on international payments, and that won’t last.

I don't think there is a better use of Mordor meme

The tone of this article resembles that in http://cantrip.org/bomb.html , by the brilliant Mark O'Donnell: "matter can be neither created nor destroyed, though it can get very discouraged."

Also: "A little stray grime or margarine in your hairs-breadth mechanisms and you may find yourself festooning several square miles of nearby woodland."

Was this whole article generated by GPT-3?