News Arms Treaty Debate - What's a Good Target Number

  • Thread starter Thread starter mugaliens
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Concerns were raised about the adequacy of the proposed nuclear arms reduction agreement between the U.S. and Russia, which aims to limit each side to 1,550 warheads. Historical data shows significant fluctuations in nuclear stockpiles, with the U.S. and Russia having peaked at over 60,000 combined warheads during the Cold War. The discussion highlighted the need for a balance between deterrence and disarmament, questioning whether 1,550 warheads is sufficient for national security. Participants emphasized the importance of maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent while expressing a desire for a future without nuclear weapons. The conversation concluded with a recognition of the complexities involved in nuclear policy and the hope for collaborative international efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals.

How many active nuclear weapons should we keep on hand?

  • None! Nukes are bad. If we lay down our arms, they'll become our friends.

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • One more than the other guy (upwards of 1k). Can't get caught with our pants down.

    Votes: 7 46.7%
  • Ten Times the world average for NPT countries (between 1k and 2k)

    Votes: 6 40.0%
  • Upwards of 10,000 (between 2k and 10k)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cold War Stockpile Levels (between 10k and 60k)

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
  • #31
mheslep said:
I meant impervious in the sense that Russ used it for the subs themselves, impervious to preemptive nuclear strikes. Multiple mile long antennas are not.

I would add, that there are known contingencies in these cases. Who is going to take a chance on disrupting communications when it might mean death?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
The letters of last resort are four hand-written letters by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that contain orders to the commanders of the four British ballistic missile submarines on what to do in the case that an enemy nuclear strike has destroyed the UK and killed the Prime Minister.

The letters are stored inside two safes in the control room of each submarine.[1] These notes instruct the captain of what action to take in the event of the United Kingdom being attacked with nuclear weapons that destroy Her Majesty's British Government and/or the chain of command.

Although the final orders of the Prime Minister are at his or her discretion, and no fixed options exist, four known options are often presented to prime ministers by military advisers when writing such notes of last resort: (i) Captain ordered to respond to the nuclear attack on the UK by launching submarine's nuclear weapons; (ii) Captain ordered not to respond with nuclear weapons; (iii) Captain ordered to use own judgement whether to return fire with nuclear weapons; (iv) Captain ordered to place himself and ship under the command of Her Majesty's Government of Australia, or alternatively of the President of the United States. This system of issuing notes containing orders in the event of the head of government's death is said to be unique to the United Kingdom (although the concept of written last orders, particularly of a ship's captain, is a naval tradition), with other nuclear powers using different procedures. Such orders are destroyed unopened whenever a prime minister leaves office, so the decision of its use or not by previous prime ministers are known only to them - however, all relevant former prime ministers have supported an "independent nuclear deterrent", as does incumbent David Cameron.[2]

Only former prime minister Lord Callaghan has given any insight on his orders: Callaghan stated that, although in a situation where nuclear weapon use was required - and thus the whole purpose and value of the weapon as a deterrent had failed - he would have ordered use of nuclear weapons, if needed: ...if we had got to that point, where it was, I felt it was necessary to do it, then I would have done it (used the weapon)...but if I had lived after pressing that button, I could have never forgiven myself[3]

According to Peter Hennessy's book Secret State: Whitehall and the cold war 1945 to 1970, the process by which a Trident submarine would determine if the British government continues to function includes, amongst other checks, establishing whether BBC Radio 4 continues broadcasting.

Then you may have Russia's Dead Hand, and who-knows what else in the USA and elsewhere.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Apparently the Treaty has now been approved 71 to 26.
 
  • #33
nismaratwork said:
The term of art Newai, just to avoid future confusion, is LTL (Less Than Lethal). I wonder if perhaps that explains your glut of google results.

Well that's helpful. Led me to this article at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon

If I haven't cemented a career goal in the next few years, I think that may be where I want to be.
 
  • #34
Newai said:
Well that's helpful. Led me to this article at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon

If I haven't cemented a career goal in the next few years, I think that may be where I want to be.

Well it's certainly a growing industry, and you can take with you the knowledge that your advances will be made in the effort to TRY and not kill, or to enhance the survivability of our troops and police. I'm glad I could help; it's not your fault that legalities and marketing led to the term, "less than lethal," and google will happily ignore "than".
 
  • #35
How many nuclear power plants could be powered with the U-235 from 60,000 bombs?
 
  • #36
dilletante said:
How many nuclear power plants could be powered with the U-235 from 60,000 bombs?

I imagine that depends a lot on the plant design, and the type of bomb, and the age of the warhead. Certainly it's valuable fuel, but it's not just a matter of cracking open a warhead and tossing it into a furnace.
 
  • #37
dilletante said:
How many nuclear power plants could be powered with the U-235 from 60,000 bombs?
I come up with on the order of one hundred 1 GW(electric) reactors for a year (the US has 104 reactors):

Russian and US nuclear weapon primaries are overwhelmingly plutonium based.* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass#Critical_mass_of_a_bare_sphere"**, so the 1200 MT (1.2e9 gm) of Pu would produce 9.6e18 joules, or 300 GW(thermal)-years, distributed in any combination of reactor - time equivalents you like. If all of the 1200 MT of the weapons Pu was eventually burned in some manner it would produce 3000 GW(t) - years, or 1000 1GW(e) reactor-years.
____________________________________________________________________
* See, e.g., the US W-80 warhead, likely the most common in the US
arsenal. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W80.html

** This source states that the burn-up of special uranium and plutonium mixed fuel called MOX can be from 30% to 60%.
With one-third MOX cores, and 2.5 percent plutonium in the MOX, it would take 8 reactors (of 1,000 megawatts electrical each) about 30 years to complete disposition of 50 metric tons of plutonium. The number of years would be reduced proportionally to the increase in MOX core loading, the number of reactors used, and their power output. Thus, three reactors operating on a full MOX core with 6.8 percent plutonium could complete the disposition in about 10 years.
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_5/5-4/moxmain4.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
Hepth said:
Do we even need 100? Imagine the destruction you could wreak with just 50. You could take out pretty much every major nation's capital, or center of commerce. Or is there something I'm missing?

The purpose of a nuclear deterrent is to insure the genocide of your opponent should they attempt to attack you.
It's called MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction.
 
  • #39
nismaratwork said:
I imagine that depends a lot on the plant design, and the type of bomb, and the age of the warhead. Certainly it's valuable fuel, but it's not just a matter of cracking open a warhead and tossing it into a furnace.

You're right. Downblending nuclear material for use in reactors is dangerous as hell. And you would HAVE TO downblend the highly enriched uranium. As for the plutonium? I wouldn't even consider using it anywhere except a breeder reactor to make fuel out of the fusion byproducts neutron output.
That would have to be done under the strictest of security, because Plutonium is the most toxic substance in the world.
 
  • #40
theunbubba said:
You're right. Downblending nuclear material for use in reactors is dangerous as hell. And you would HAVE TO downblend the highly enriched uranium. As for the plutonium? I wouldn't even consider using it anywhere except a breeder reactor to make fuel out of the fusion byproducts neutron output.
That would have to be done under the strictest of security, because Plutonium is the most toxic substance in the world.

First off please for the love of everything sane and rational please give us some links to support your rant.

The "highly dangerous" process you are claiming, the USA has been doing it for the last Fifteen years with HEU Russian bombs. Fuel made from old Russian bombs has been providing 20% of electrical energy in the USA during that time. As for my source it is the Megatons to Megawatts program signed between the Russian federation and the USA in 1993.

As for plutonium being the "most toxic" substance in the world, how about this I'll swallow half of a gram of plutonium and you can have a tenth of gram of cyanide (one fifth of what I just knocked back). I may have several years knocked off of my life expectancy due to a cancer in my GI tract, but I'm going to be alive long enough to goto your funeral, and see my children grow up, and my grandchildren, and who knows if medical science advances enough in the next 50 years my great grandchildren.

Nuclear power/materials are not some bogey man lurking in your closet or under the bed that is going to kill you. If you want to be freaked out by a energy source worry about natural gas, that has a better chance of getting you. As for the bomb, again I'll say I'd love to see every one of the damm things down-blended and turned into fuel, but in the real world that isn't going to happen. And to quote a sick institutional joke from one of my friends in the 490th Missile squad, "The safest place in the world for weapons grade plutonium is on top of a Minuteman III."

Some good reading on plutonium http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf15.html" and an older study by the "[URL Livermore National Laboratory

[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
Argentum Vulpes said:
And to quote a sick institutional joke from one of my friends in the 490th Missile squad, "The safest place in the world for weapons grade plutonium is on top of a Minuteman III."

I wouldn't say sick, I think it's quite accurate and I like it (might steal it from you).
 
  • #42
theunbubba said:
You're right. Downblending nuclear material for use in reactors is dangerous as hell. And you would HAVE TO downblend the highly enriched uranium. As for the plutonium? I wouldn't even consider using it anywhere except a breeder reactor to make fuel out of the fusion byproducts neutron output.
That would have to be done under the strictest of security, because Plutonium is the most toxic substance in the world.

That's not what I said at all! I didn't say that this was dangerous, although you need to take reasonable precautions. I said that it isn't SIMPLE; that you don't just take a spoonful of alloyed plutonium from a bomb and toss it in a blender with Uranium, then bake in a reactor until 'done'.

The rest has been ably handled by Argentum Vulpes, but I'd point out that terms such as, "most toxic", are relative. That said, Pu is NOT it, to humans or anything else. If forced I'll eat Pu before I eat Saxitoxin, Batrachotoxin, Tetrodotoxin, (or Red Tide badness, Frog badness, and Fish badness)... or a number of other substances! Besides, when these bombs are decommissioned for one reason or another everything you describe is done, except using the core for fuel?... why?!
 
  • #43
jarednjames said:
I wouldn't say sick, I think it's quite accurate and I like it (might steal it from you).

I wouldn't say sick either... at least, if that's sick then every one of my colleagues are sick, every paramedic I've met are sick, cops are sick, teachers are sick, parents are sick...

... nah, Jared is right, that's just clever and stealable! :wink:
 
  • #44
I guess I should of used a better descriptor for the humorously true quote from my friend. I guess dark humor is a better descriptor, well I guess that is what I get for surfing the net when I should be in bed.
 
  • #45
Argentum Vulpes said:
First off please for the love of everything sane and rational please give us some links to support your rant.

The "highly dangerous" process you are claiming, the USA has been doing it for the last Fifteen years with HEU Russian bombs. Fuel made from old Russian bombs has been providing 20% of electrical energy in the USA during that time. As for my source it is the Megatons to Megawatts program signed between the Russian federation and the USA in 1993.

As for plutonium being the "most toxic" substance in the world, how about this I'll swallow half of a gram of plutonium and you can have a tenth of gram of cyanide (one fifth of what I just knocked back). I may have several years knocked off of my life expectancy due to a cancer in my GI tract, but I'm going to be alive long enough to goto your funeral, and see my children grow up, and my grandchildren, and who knows if medical science advances enough in the next 50 years my great grandchildren.

Nuclear power/materials are not some bogey man lurking in your closet or under the bed that is going to kill you. If you want to be freaked out by a energy source worry about natural gas, that has a better chance of getting you. As for the bomb, again I'll say I'd love to see every one of the damm things down-blended and turned into fuel, but in the real world that isn't going to happen. And to quote a sick institutional joke from one of my friends in the 490th Missile squad, "The safest place in the world for weapons grade plutonium is on top of a Minuteman III."

Some good reading on plutonium http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf15.html" and an older study by the "[URL Livermore National Laboratory

[/URL]

I stand corrected. My understanding needed updating from what I "learned" back in the seventies. Thanks for the links.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
theunbubba said:
I stand corrected. My understanding needed updating from what I "learned" back in the seventies. Thanks for the links.

Welcome to PF, where you can catch up on decades of nuclear sciences and policy for fun and free. Isn't life grand? :smile: