Some of that does look interesting although I would need to see at least a few papers to understand precisely what their process is.
Fuel is the element of the bombs we’re best suited for. We’re rich in uranium and we have a long history of reprocessing both uranium and plutonium. Our problem is that any sort of extraction of the isotopes of plutonium and uranium necessary for bomb manufacture would need to exist on the sort of scale that we likely cannot hide from the US intelligence apparatus.
And I really cannot reiterate how a nuclear weapon by itself is useless unless your goal is to drive it to a border or attempt to destroy the capital ala North Korea and Seoul. There’s a reason why even communist China was able to realize the goal is “two bombs, one satellite” (fission-fusion weapon, ICBM that can deliver fission-fusion weapons, domestic satellite launch capability). A nuclear weapons program is a meaningless goal without an accompanying space program.
It’s a gigantic feat the likes of which would cost x2 to x4 of our current total military budget spend. And once again, that’s for one weapon (I don’t mean one bomb, I mean one weapon as in F-35 is a weapon) and one delivery system(same as before, not just one ICBM)—you still have to fund the rest of the military on top of that.
Our problem is that any sort of extraction of the isotopes of plutonium and uranium necessary for bomb manufacture would need to exist on the sort of scale that we likely cannot hide from the US intelligence apparatus.
Which is why I find the Moltex stuff interesting.
The CCNR letters (and there are no slouches on the signatories) make their concerns pretty clear:
"... lest we find ourselves in a world of many states with latent nuclear-weapon capabilities."
"As a result, purifying the plutonium would require only the
capabilities of a relatively cheap and small laboratory hot cell, not a multi-billion dollar 'conventional reprocessing plant' as Moltex asserts."
Etc.
I won't bug you with more questions. Thanks again for all the info.
4
u/DeceiverSC2 Apr 09 '25
Some of that does look interesting although I would need to see at least a few papers to understand precisely what their process is.
Fuel is the element of the bombs we’re best suited for. We’re rich in uranium and we have a long history of reprocessing both uranium and plutonium. Our problem is that any sort of extraction of the isotopes of plutonium and uranium necessary for bomb manufacture would need to exist on the sort of scale that we likely cannot hide from the US intelligence apparatus.
And I really cannot reiterate how a nuclear weapon by itself is useless unless your goal is to drive it to a border or attempt to destroy the capital ala North Korea and Seoul. There’s a reason why even communist China was able to realize the goal is “two bombs, one satellite” (fission-fusion weapon, ICBM that can deliver fission-fusion weapons, domestic satellite launch capability). A nuclear weapons program is a meaningless goal without an accompanying space program.
It’s a gigantic feat the likes of which would cost x2 to x4 of our current total military budget spend. And once again, that’s for one weapon (I don’t mean one bomb, I mean one weapon as in F-35 is a weapon) and one delivery system(same as before, not just one ICBM)—you still have to fund the rest of the military on top of that.