Military Review

US Nuclear Weapons Complex: The False Path to Success

50
In one of the previous publications, the topic with the US nuclear arsenal and its successful negative growth and negative development was described in some detail. But many probably wondered: how did the shining city on the hill, and the only (and unique) superpower, reach such a life, having lost the ability to produce nuclear weapons? weapons for a considerable time? We will try in the first approximation to consider the most likely answer to this question. Of course, the author does not claim to be absolute truth and may well be missing something.




The nuclear arsenal and nuclear weapons complex is like potatoes. If you don’t start fighting pests on time, they will devour the whole field. If you don’t sort the potatoes that started to rot, everything in the cellar will rot. Everything must be done continuously and thoughtfully, otherwise trouble will come. Only nuclear weapons and the nuclear weapons complex are much more complicated and dangerous.

Nuclear and thermonuclear (and now mostly thermonuclear) weapons have a very clear, and very difficult and very long production cycle. This cycle is continuous - this is a prerequisite. And it gives the opportunity to be very inflexible, but to regulate the volumes of output. And exactly the same clear cycle should be in its maintenance, storage, maintenance of combat readiness, repair and modernization and reassembly of ammunition. And most importantly - and this cycle is continuous, as the steel production cycle, say. And the ability to adjust the volume of work is also very limited. That is, the top and bottom bars are there, but they are not that far from each other, and the volumes cannot be drastically increased, as with the production of nuclear weapons.

And God forbid disrupt this rhythm and the integrity of the cycle. Failures in the production process, in the process of storage cycles, maintenance, modernization, reassembly of ammunition will first lead to the accumulation of problems with the degradation of the arsenal, and then the quantity goes into quality. And the degradation increases at a dramatically increased pace, including with the production itself. With the US nuclear complex and nuclear arsenal, this transition took place in the 2003-2004 area. This can be seen, by the way, from this picture (which was already given in the article “Nuclear Arsenal of the USA. Upward along the stairs leading down”), where, starting from this period, a quantitative collapse in the number of charges in the arsenal began. In general, the adjusted mechanism of the nuclear weapons complex failed, then failures began to intensify and crawl out in different places, resonant vibrations began and the destruction and inability to produce nuclear weapons from scratch began - only upgrades, and quite limited ones. And now many years of work, hard work are needed to restore, and not scribbling on Twitter and speeches from the podium and plans that do not fit either among themselves or with the real state of affairs.

US Nuclear Weapons Complex: The False Path to Success

As we see, after the initial mass reductions of the beginning of 90-x, the number of the arsenal changed little, and in the area of ​​2003-2005. "process went" much faster.

And what led to this result? After the collapse of the USSR, the USA decided that they caught God not only by the beard, but also because it does not allow him to become a goddess, and now they can reap the benefits for all eternity. And not only the average man was convinced of this by the vigorous little books about "Pax Americana" and "The End stories"but the ruling circles themselves believed in it. And they continue to believe that they" won the Cold War "(where, in fact, one of the participants simply did not go out for another fight), and everyone owes them now for this life, like the earth - a cropless collective farm. But Russia should be even more so. "Russia should (fit in it)." Recall the hysteria of Mrs. Samantha Power with the late Ambassador Churkin - it’s all expressed in it. The Americans believed in their exclusivity for a long time, and temporary successes after 1991 strengthened them in this faith, more precisely, in this heresy. In general, as comrade S said Alina, came "dizzy with success".

This affected not only the nuclear weapons complex, but it had a stronger impact than many others. In addition, just before the collapse of the Union, the START-1 Treaty was concluded, forcing the parties to reduce SNF by 50%, and "gentlemen's" agreements were concluded (because they did not include control procedures, as opposed to START) to reduce tactical nuclear weapons ( TNW) by half. Moreover, the Americans liked so much to cut TNW that they didn’t stop half, and two thirds couldn’t, and then there wasn’t even a chance to stop and grow to half a thousand B-61 bombs, which strongly resemble a broken trough. Russia, however, also did not stop half, but kept its arsenal of TNW at a decent level and continues to improve it. However, our arsenal was much more solid initially, and there are enough “friends” on the same continent with us.

The beginning of such a massive reduction in nuclear arsenals led to a sharp reduction in financial rations, stopping the production of new ammunition (where to make new ones, there would have time to dismantle and destroy everything). Again, in Russia it was the same, but the safety margin was much higher - thanks to the USSR. And one more circumstance played a role - we had an urgent need to create new ammunition, firstly because of the obsolescence of a part of the arsenal we needed in the future, secondly, the conclusion, in fact, of the enslaving START-2 Treaty (a typical example of Kozyrev’s “Atlantic diplomacy ") forced to invest in the development of ammunition that would be consistent with this contract. The fact that this Treaty was never ratified was a very nice bonus, which is to say.

But in the US, the tendons of the legs were specifically cut off in the nuclear industry, so that the patient could walk only by himself. And one more blow was dealt by the insidious Russians - with their “HEU-LEU” deal, which in the USA was considered to be a successful embodiment of the principle “they cheated a fool on four fists”. And for so many years we have been attacking this deal, both patriot patriots and various colors, hysterics on permafrost and near-nuclear themes, they say, how can we be left without weapons-grade uranium (and not nearly left), how can it be so cheap (and what about if you don’t need it - salt it?), why help the enemy and so on. I think many people remember these publications and speeches. But when the transaction was terminated by the Russian Federation, it became clear that “HEU-LEU” became the classic addiction of a client for heroin (when first “friends” give free pricks, then “for inexpensive”, and then claw got stuck and the whole birdie is missing) . More precisely, cheap uranium. This was probably not so intended, but sometimes nonsense is a far more powerful weapon than cunning and deceit.

But it turned out that the American nuclear patient on a cheap uranium needle from Russia after the termination of the transaction was not something that was "breaking up", but almost dying. True, it was a blow to the US atomic peace, mainly, but it also affected the military component, in particular, because these components are interconnected. And, which is very important - in the scientific part. Fundamentally, funding has stopped for the development of new nuclear weapons (although some improvement and subcritical experiments are being conducted by the Americans), and on scientific issues related to this, as well as with nuclear power in general. Although not all - for example, the improvement of boat reactors is quite well underway.

The problems of the peaceful atom of the United States greatly please the French, who, in general, have a much better situation. And we, of course, too. Although there are problems with the French and in Rosatom there. And if you listen to the workers there - and even more so, the situation does not seem very healthy, but this is what matters - any structure strives to maintain a state of rest, therefore no one will ever be satisfied with the results of the system reform, being part of it. Only time will tell if there was any sense in reforming at all. This is how the reform of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation came about - in the end, albeit not immediately, it came out quite successfully. But about the medicine, say, the author has no such confidence, but we will see.

Again, based on the heretical belief in the “sole superpower,” “exclusive nation,” and other dregs, a new military doctrine was adopted, proclaiming the actual departure from nuclear weapons as one of the most important tools of superpower power. Instead, the thesis was proclaimed about "wars of a new generation", with a predominance of high-precision weapons, supposedly capable of replacing even nuclear as well as air operations. In fact, it was the “Douay Doctrine” in a new wrapper. Time has shown that this thesis works only against a relatively weak opponent, and how it works against a real enemy is shown by the recent attack on Syria and its brilliant failure.

Moreover, inflating the effectiveness and significance of the WTO (one cannot fail to notice that the WTO is really a good and necessary weapon, but solving strategic problems with it against a real strong enemy is possible either in combination with nuclear weapons, or on a limited scale), as in PR campaigns, as well as in evaluating the results of real military campaigns, went against both reality and those developments that took place both in the nuclear and non-nuclear fields in Russia, as well as China and other potential opponents. As for the gap between the real effectiveness and the desired - in "Desert Storm" the effectiveness of American actions aviation amounted to exactly four times less than the minimum required for the concepts of "Airborne Ground Operations (Battles) and" Fighting Second Echelons (Reserves), developed in attempts to come up with an antidote to the Soviet military machine in Europe. This is under almost greenhouse conditions of application and opposition. Instead, the Americans began to develop new concepts, such as "network-centric warfare" and others, based on no less unstable assumptions. However, we cannot say that these concepts do not make sense - not at all, a panacea, which they represent, they just are not.

The Americans, in addition, made foolish unrealistic predictions about the future of the strategic nuclear forces and the Russian nuclear weapons complex in general. According to these forecasts, written at the beginning of 2000-x, to 2015g. the RF could have about 150 charges placed on SNF carriers (charges, not carriers)! Some analysts have graciously allotted us one and a half charges, along with tactical ones. In general, the Americans willingly believed their own analysts and “killed” the financing of a previously sacred cow’s nuclear, and almost condemned it. Hence, the stubborn desire to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and hide behind a weak ABM system from even weaker Russian strategic nuclear forces - but what has this led now? In addition, there is no, in fact, no workable missile defense, but Russia will have missile defense, and there are systems that break through any unrealistic missile defense, and we also outdid the enemy too, although the United States started the race again. An inadequate assessment of the reality and capabilities of rivals and opponents is what it is.

In addition, in the 1990-e years and in the 2000-e Americans behave in the world as "forest nurses" (wolves), and we know that wolves usually attack only weak sick animals, the benefit of which is almost always enough. So why do they need the development of nuclear tools that are necessary for those who are not among the weak and the sick? Moreover, they seem to sit quietly and do not protrude?

In addition, we really were sick and weak for a long time, and it seemed to them that we did not get out. And then, when they were already recovering, they rather successfully concealed their progress in recovery and their real intentions and developments. And the "intelligence community" of the United States, in general, decently degraded over this quarter of a century, along with all the power structures, and so it could not recognize the real picture. The data probably was, but to collect the puzzle itself out of the pieces was correct, apparently, to no one. About the degradation of power structures - you remember the rhetoric, and the personalities who led the US in 80, at least for years, and compare with those that were recently or are sitting on the same posts now - ambassadors, permanent representatives, state secretaries, generals and other public. And compare the speeches and arguments of those and these - sometimes with the current feeling that this is not broadcast from Washington, but from Kiev, the level of “shizy” is already very similar.

Well, another aspect - a very limited number of corporations, as well as associated politicians, Pentagon generals, lobbyists and other riffraff, could “cut the budgets” on nuclear weapons and everything connected with them. This is a very narrow circle in comparison with the rest of the US military complex, and, besides, the nuclear piece of the total budget cake was relatively small at the best of times. For the rest of the cake, “mastering the funds” is much more profitable, more pleasant and more convenient. Especially, if you start, relying on the thesis of multiply increased combat effectiveness (overestimating it godlessly), begin to inflate prices for any military products.

Moreover, the whole of this "American massacre" of the nuclear weapons complex and everything connected with it occurred at a very difficult moment for America’s nuclear arsenal. It was just the change of generations of nuclear weapons, as well as the carriers. And it was postponed - and for a long time. And if it was possible to get out with the carriers more or less, where due to a really high modernization potential and excellent product performance characteristics (as in the Trident 2 SLBM), and where due to the outdated solutions that made it relatively easy to replace steps and some other components then with the focus trick failed. Savings on matches and candles led to an avalanche-like process of degradation and the decommissioning and disposal of charges. It is possible to modernize the charges, but not in all aspects, but much that was needed later - we have already forgotten how to do. You can learn anew - but this is time and money, and much more time and money than it used to be for the first time, because modern technologies are expensive and complex. The second "Manhattan project" with the current price tags and "budget masters" will come out extremely expensive, difficult and long. Therefore, the plans for the restoration of the ability to produce is only through 12-14 years, and there, maybe more will work. And it is unlikely that it will turn out faster than plans, although this should not reassure our military-political leadership — we must rearm ourselves at the same pace in all aspects!

Americans can also say a separate “thank you” to their designers, when developing a number of systems that made annoying miscalculations, which led to their rapid decommissioning as a number of carriers - the air-conditioned submarines of the AGM-129 were removed from service and disposed of with the charges, and the older AGM -86 serves and will continue to serve, the ICBM MX has also been removed from service much earlier than it could, and not only in the START-1 Treaty, and so on. A similar story happened with a number of charges - including problems with a number of very important alloys and materials, problems identified with the reliability of a number of types of warheads. Well, there’s also such a moment that the servicing capacities were limited, and the types of ammunition that already needed to get to the corresponding lines and to the corresponding workshops often turned out to be much more than places. What led to the cancellation of a number of types that I wanted to leave. In general, the same avalanche-like process of increasing problems.

This is how this somewhat paradoxical, at first glance, but logical situation arose, when the “only” and “exceptional” superpower lost the opportunity to reproduce one of the primary sexual signs of this very superpower. Even temporarily, but long enough.

Could this have happened to Russia in the 90s? Yes, it could. And even should have happened. But, fortunately, the safety margin turned out to be higher, and at first a number of needs kept the nuclear complex afloat, and then even in the then top of the government began to show an understanding that first of all the nuclear sword and nuclear shield are the factor that did not allow the RF years turn into a post-Ukraine, where Biden was sitting on the site of the head of state and handed out instructions to slaves. Or even in some Libya. And after the aggression against Yugoslavia, the country slowly but surely began to wake up and realize the full depth of our depths, and that from there we must somehow get out. Just about that time, the nuclear weapons complex of Russia did not stand idle.

Well, and, perhaps, God also helped us, but he helps only those who are able to help themselves. We - could. And what can the Americans - time will tell.
Author:
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Evdokim
    Evdokim April 18 2018 05: 36
    +3
    This is how this somewhat paradoxical, at first glance, but logical situation arose, when the “only” and “exceptional” superpower lost the opportunity to reproduce one of the primary sexual signs of this very superpower. Even temporarily, but long enough.

    Could this happen to Russia in the 90s? Yes it could. And even should
    to happen. But, fortunately, the margin of safety was higher
    Well, maybe God also helped us,

    I read, scratched my turnips, and the question arose, are the nuclear weapons of the United States in good hands? With growing schizophrenia among Western politicians. hi
    1. Serge Gorely
      Serge Gorely April 18 2018 11: 14
      +1
      Quote: Evdokim
      The nuclear arsenal and the nuclear weapons complex are like potatoes.


      The specialist is similar to flux: its completeness is one-sided.
      Kozma Rods.
  2. bald
    bald April 18 2018 05: 52
    +3
    An explanatory article covering the near history of development and the relationship (technical and financial) to nuclear weapons. Well, the United States - considering itself exceptional, is simply degrading, and this is clearly seen in the course of recent events. About those crushed by themselves (by the states) - there are even no words. May God grant good luck to Russia, but it’s not a bad idea.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 18 2018 09: 07
      +3
      Quote: bald
      Explanatory article

      Oh well.
      As I understand it, the VO administration decided to abandon the work of shibkochnyh authors, like Bongo, and to attract experts such as Mr. Vyatkin.
      Of course, a reasonable solution. I am sure that Mr. Vyatkin will occupy a worthy place among the regular authors of VO: Skomorokhov, Damantsev and others.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 18 2018 12: 30
      0
      They will quietly upgrade 400 Minutes without making noisy statements, replacing all co-components in turn and conducting two tests a year regularly.
      But in general, the US technological gap not only from Russia, but even from Western Europe is increasing every decade. This is especially noticeable in aviation. Therefore, Russia is nervous, showing cartoons about the "6 prodigy".
      1. bald
        bald April 18 2018 16: 10
        +5
        I will not enter into polemics, since you and I cannot own sensitive information about what is connected with nuclear weapons. And at the expense of technological separation - I do not agree with you, even in aviation, even in armored vehicles, and of the submarine fleet. And the states are definitely pouring in, pulling Europe under themselves (it has forgotten how to think). Everyone has their own opinion - I proceed from realities.
  3. andrewkor
    andrewkor April 18 2018 06: 17
    +1
    I can’t wait for America to pay its bills — for Alaska, for Texas. Wherever you throw, there’s a wedge everywhere. But not in this life, mine!
  4. ICT
    ICT April 18 2018 07: 08
    0
    Well, it's so simple for aesthetics, chtoli ..

    1. thinker
      thinker April 18 2018 08: 18
      +1
      Aesthetically, the "good" physicist Harold Agnew noted in 1970 that the Hamrong bridge in Vietnam, which required more than 800 sorties to be destroyed with conventional weapons, could be destroyed with just one nuclear bomb.
  5. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 18 2018 07: 26
    +4
    The song, performed by the author, sounds beautiful ..... but it also happens: the music didn’t play for a long time, the fraer didn’t dance for long ...... What prevents the USA from hurrying to “cooperate” .... with France? Unlikely for such and such a reason? French "vigor" is insufficient? Well, if in the USA it was decided that “plutonium is yesterday,” is it obsolete and you have to go the other way to the “nuclear future”? And this way, in principle, is ... These are the so-called “pure thermonuclear charges " Why are they “clean?” Yes, because without a plutonium “fuse”. To “unmask” a thermonuclear bonbu, you need an awesomely hot “soldering iron.” So far there is only plutonium (nuclear), but there are options ... potential. This is the creation of EMR generators, supercapacitors, microlasers ... while this is all experimental research, but they are being conducted ...
    .... Compact powerful generators of pulsed electromagnetic radiation (FC-generators) have already been constructed, capable of generating electric current by compressing the magnetic flux by the explosion of ordinary explosives, which is 10-1000 times the current in a typical lightning discharge.
    It is also possible that in connection with the rapid development of nanotechnology, the third direction for the development of compact energy sources sufficient to initiate an explosive thermonuclear reaction may also be promising. Currently, there is evidence that there are already capacitors with a specific capacity of 30 kilowatts of electric energy per kilogram of weight. Such capacitors can be used to pump lasers located in a warhead, and thereby initiate an explosive synthesis reaction. According to available information, the well-known American company Intel is developing silicon microlasers for use in creating a fundamentally new generation of microprocessors for computers. These silicon microlasers are capable of amplifying the radiation energy output by three orders of magnitude compared with the energy spent on pumping them. It is likely that similar effects can be obtained on the corresponding macrolasers.
    In general, billions of dollars spent by the most technologically advanced country on the activities of nuclear weapons laboratories are not ruled out, sooner or later they will lead to the appearance of the fourth generation of nuclear weapons - pure thermonuclear munitions (TNB4). It can be expected that the main damaging factors of the new nuclear weapons (TNB4 ) there will be instantaneous gamma-neutron radiation, a shock wave, and also light radiation. At the same time, penetrating radiation resulting from the radioactive decay of fission fragments will be relatively insignificant.

    Some experts believe that, first of all, new thermonuclear weapons will be used to equip high-precision guided missiles and bombs. Moreover, its capacity can be varied from units to hundreds or more tons of TNT equivalent.

    This will allow the use of "clean" thermonuclear weapons to selectively destroy enemy targets located both in open areas (including mobile ballistic missile systems) and airborne defense centers without fear of long-term radioactive contamination of the ground.

    Due to the lack of radioactive fallout, ground units will be able to operate in the territory affected by nuclear weapons, it is estimated that after 48 hours. Such a weapon also attracts the military in that it is “ideal” for creating a “strategic” anti-ballistic missile (explosion of a “clean” thermonuclear weapon over its territory will not lead to radioactive contamination ...). Many experts believe that there is a certain degree of probability of occurrence purely thermonuclear weapons before the commercial use of thermonuclear energy at an economically acceptable level is mastered. The story can be repeated, as it was with atomic weapons - first a bomb, and then energy.
    1. Operator
      Operator April 18 2018 07: 49
      +6
      A two-stage thermonuclear charge (fission + fusion) is clean anyway - the neutron flux from fusion burns up all the long-lived first-stage radioactive elements and their decay products.

      Another thing is that for a clean explosion, a thermonuclear nuclear charge must be blown up in air no lower than 1500 meters above the surface of the earth or water, so that the neutron flux can be completely extinguished when interacting with nitrogen and oxygen atoms without inducing radiation in the soil or water.

      The half-life of short-lived radioactive isotopes is several years, in contrast to the half-life of weapons-grade plutonium (224000 years), for uranium-235 the half-life is even longer.

      In a single-stage nuclear charge, the coefficient of "burning" of plutonium does not exceed 5%, the remaining 95% of unreacted plutonium is sprayed in the atmosphere as a result of the explosion, falls onto the surface of the soil / water and has been a factor in the radioactive contamination of the area for the indicated hundreds of thousands of years.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 18 2018 10: 58
        +2
        Quote: Operator
        Two-stage thermonuclear charge

        Quote: Operator
        In a single-stage nuclear charge

        Yes, it’s smart to be smart, if you can ... wink
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I April 18 2018 11: 24
          +2
          Yes, it’s easy to be smart, if it’s easier .... "That's it, they’re robbed ... If a thermonuclear bomb with a nuclear (plutonium) fuse crashes, then you will be guaranteed" radioactive contamination of the area ", like with a" normal "nuclear bomb (maybe. a little less ...). And if yo ... a thermonuclear bomb without a plutonium fuse will blow, then there will be "only induced radiation" ... Choose "horseradish" and "radish"!
    2. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn April 18 2018 09: 40
      +4
      "Pure nuclear weapons" is an aggressive whim. For us, its main purpose and constraining factor is an unacceptable level of damage and "cleanliness" here frankly is useless. I would still pack all the warheads in the cadmium shell, so that I would frankly hint that after the attack on us there would be nowhere to return with victory. A "clean nuclear weapon" is a purely offensive weapon, this is the Convention to ban such developments, and it is necessary to build, and not listen to all kinds of Greenpeace in the service of the State Department.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 18 2018 10: 46
        +2
        Quote: g1washntwn
        I would still pack all the warheads in the cadmium shell, so as to frankly hint that after the attack on

        Maybe you wanted to say: "into a cobalt bomb ..."? wink
        1. g1washntwn
          g1washntwn April 18 2018 11: 45
          +1
          Yes, cobalt. T9
      2. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 18 2018 10: 56
        +4
        Quote: g1washntwn
        A "clean nuclear weapon" is a purely offensive weapon. Such a convention on the prohibition of such developments should be built, not listened to.

        I agree with you ... "pure thermonuclear weapons" .... and even "small and ultra-small" power and with the "promise" of the absence of "awesome" radiation, it seems to remove the "brakes". It creates the temptation to include the U4 in the category of high-precision weapons (WTO) and thereby increases the risk of a nuclear war.
      3. Operator
        Operator April 18 2018 11: 01
        +2
        Jora Washington

        Accept soothing - pure Russian thermonuclear weapons steers.

        The use of cobalt as part of nuclear charges will lead to pollution of the entire surface of the Earth (through the wind dispersal of radioactive dust), and not just the North American continent.
        1. g1washntwn
          g1washntwn April 18 2018 11: 54
          0
          Where it steers what is officially not there;) If the wind could, the Earth would be covered with a thin even layer of sand from the Sahara. In addition, it is not necessary to create a megaton class stuffed with cobalt. Sufficiently strong neutron irradiation and the metropolis itself turns into a cobalt bomb, because cobalt-60 (the same radioactive horror) is also obtained as a result of neutron activation of iron, and what is the main material in megacities? Reinforced concrete and steel structures.
          1. Operator
            Operator April 18 2018 12: 01
            +2
            Something pulls you all the time in radioactivity - but what is the reason for the light emission and the shock wave from the explosion of the 1 mtn BB ICBM / SLBM, the 10 mtn warhead of the KR "Burevestnik" or the 100-mtn warhead of the Poseidon?

            And the radioactive infection of the area is zero (after 3 years) - you can populate free territories.
            1. CAT BAIYUN
              CAT BAIYUN April 22 2018 23: 38
              +2
              Russia was given free territories .... Its not all surveys. yes Yes, and who to populate? Although .... you can sow potatoes here ... A bulb with dill .. zucchini there all sorts of ... laughing
  6. tchoni
    tchoni April 18 2018 08: 52
    +2
    ooh-ooh-ooh ... Poor-unlucky USA ... backward country ... where blacks lynched 70 years ago ..... and now they have taken and started to make "vigorous heads" ... ay-ay-ay. ...
    Those are you guys. Available charges, as well as carriers, will be enough to cut EVERY n.p. in the next 30 years Mother Russia is larger than 10000 inhabitants. And it will remain in China ...
    Please do not consider the Americans stupid (it’s good, they just laugh a lot, but don’t think so all the time), because the stupid people simply would not have built the most powerful country in the world.
    1. Operator
      Operator April 18 2018 11: 13
      +3
      Quote: tchoni
      don't consider Americans dumb

      They are not stupid - they are losers (900 tons of Russian weapons-grade plutonium versus 0 tons of American in bins of the Russian Federation and the USA, respectively).

      Plus the line knows what Russian capacities for additional production of weapons-grade plutonium.

      Western countries, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, together and individually in this matter, lagged behind Russia forever.
    2. Uryukc
      Uryukc April 20 2018 00: 06
      +1
      Quote: tchoni
      for the stupid simply would not have built the most powerful country in the world.

      So other people built, at other times.
  7. Old26
    Old26 April 18 2018 10: 21
    +7
    Quote: bald
    An explanatory article covering the near history of development and the relationship (technical and financial) to nuclear weapons. Well, the United States - considering itself exceptional, is simply degrading, and this is clearly seen in the course of recent events. About those crushed by themselves (by the states) - there are even no words. May God grant good luck to Russia, but it’s not a bad idea.

    Not just sensible, but VERY SUSTAINABLE Such analytical articles are extremely rare in steel. And the author shoveled a lot of material. It is written very intelligibly. Although it would be possible to add a number of tables showing the degradation of the US NEL, but without them the article is quite informative.
    I will supplement what the author wrote with a couple of numbers. According to forecasts, the Americans can restore their weapons-nuclear complex only by 2025 for uranium and by 2030 for plutonium. Only from now on will they be able to produce New BG total number up to 50-80 per year.

    Having once relied on a simpler gas diffusion method for uranium enrichment, the Americans have now turned out to be what is called a broken trough. They cannot produce new uranium for civilian purposes, because these gas diffusion plants are already closed, and can only use French uranium, which is produced at French plants in the United States. But it cannot be used in the military field.
    As for modernization, the author has already written. Volumes are limited to about 300 per year (disposal and modernization). Therefore, in particular, the first deliveries of BG for the new American KR - W80-4 warheads are planned only for the fiscal year 2025. Modernization of the W88 BG to the level of W88 Alt.370 - not earlier than 2020. and there is something updating components and conventional explosives ... In short, the article A PLUS

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    As I understand it, the VO administration decided to abandon the work of shibkochnyh authors, like Bongo, and to attract experts such as Mr. Vyatkin.

    I was amazed too. after reading the author’s surname, but I must say, comrade, that the article "falls out" of the articles of the same author. In this case, a very balanced and sensible article. It is possible, as I said above, to supplement it with graphs, descriptions of what enterprises exist and work (or do not work), but even in this form it is quite balanced and sensible ...

    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    What prevents the US from hastily "cooperating" .... with the same France? .

    And they are already cooperating. Thanks to this, Americans get uranium for the civilian sector of the economy.

    Quote: tchoni
    ooh-ooh-ooh ... Poor-unlucky USA ... backward country ... where blacks lynched 70 years ago ..... and now they have taken and started to make "vigorous heads" ... ay-ay-ay. ...
    Those are you guys. Available charges, as well as carriers, will be enough to cut EVERY n.p. in the next 30 years Mother Russia is larger than 10000 inhabitants. And it will remain in China ...
    Please do not consider the Americans stupid (it’s good, they just laugh a lot, but don’t think so all the time), because the stupid people simply would not have built the most powerful country in the world.

    No one says the US is backward. Or that they are "Dumb." But the euphoria of the 90s, when they considered that their most powerful competitor was defeated and not capable of anything, played a cruel joke with them.
    They have everything now. There is money, there are factories that, although they have been mothballed, but not destroyed - there is no main resource - time. Now they are just PHYSICALLY they cannot do what they did 30 years ago .. And they will need not so much money that they will allocate as time (about 10-12 years) to restart it all. Well, they failed to build a sufficiently powerful centrifuge uranium enrichment plant. There is only an experienced cascade. They didn’t rely on exactly those decisions that were needed and got what they got. As a result, the civilian industry was addicted. Pre-sat on the "needle" called HEU-KNOW
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 18 2018 11: 52
      +2
      Colleague, I expected a more balanced position from you.
      1. On a peaceful atom. HEU-LEU seriously knocked down uranium prices and, in fact, knocked down mining and processing. The author submits this as a “needle insertion”. In reality, this is a problem only if the nuclear power plant has a future. There are serious doubts about this, both in Europe and in the USA. It is not necessary to expect that a fundamental decision will be made at the state level to increase the share of nuclear generation, as 50 years ago. In fact, the only country that is seriously addicted to nuclear power plants is France. Fuel shortage for submarines, as far as I know, is not expected.
      2. By warhead. Reducing the US nuclear arsenal is a long trend. Both strategic offensive arms and strategic warheads coincided, and the rejection of nuclear weapons in favor of the WTO at the theater of operations level. For many years this seemed like the right decision. And now, leaving the number of warheads below START levels is not a tragedy, from the point of view of sane people. Obama was so for legalize world peace. Naturally, the nuclear shield of the homeland was funded on a residual basis.
      Respectively. The situation described by the author is monstrous and everything is gone. But not from the point of view of the Americans. For Americans, strategic nuclear forces are not the only viable combat arms. The only thing that the situation with nuclear weapons limits is the ability for Americans to quickly turn around in 1981, meaning the whole world is in ruins. This is sad, but not too much.
      1. Winnie76
        Winnie76 April 18 2018 13: 47
        +2
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        The author submits this as a “needle insertion”. In reality, this is a problem only if the nuclear power plant has a future. There are serious doubts about this, both in Europe and in the USA.

        Eva how. And the men in Rosatom do not know. What is the real alternative for nuclear power plants ...
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 18 2018 15: 43
          +1
          Quote: Winnie76
          men in Rosatom do not know

          They know very well. This is a state sponsor, the economy is not particularly interesting to them.
          Quote: Winnie76
          What is the real alternative for nuclear power plants ...

          IN USA? There nuclear plants are less than 20% of the generation and new ones have actually been banned for about 30 years. In construction 2, it seems.
          So in real life the question "is there an alternative to nuclear power plants" is not worth it. They just gradually leave the market, it is a fact.
          1. Pauladin
            Pauladin April 19 2018 10: 01
            +1
            And why the US nuclear power plant? Production, the main consumer of energy, for the most part was transferred to China and other countries. France is a compact and densely populated country - and name some other power plants comparable in power, compactness and stability of electricity generation.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine April 19 2018 10: 48
              +2
              Quote: Pauladin
              Production, the main consumer of energy, was transferred to China and other countries for the most part.

              Have you tried to understand the topic? The USA is the second-largest producer of electric energy in the world, and the first country in the world in nuclear generation. Generation of American nuclear power plants is slightly less than the entire Russian. And three times higher than the generation of Chinese nuclear power plants.
              Another thing is that China is the only large country that massively builds nuclear power plants. If all plans are realized, then in 15 years the share of nuclear power plants in China's generation will be as it is now in the USA. But China has its own agenda, it needs to close its monstrous coal power plants anyway.
              Quote: Pauladin
              comparable in power, compactness and stability of electricity generation

              In modern conditions, power and stability are cons, not pluses. NPPs are practically incapable of promptly regulating power. As a result, they are combined with renewable energy sources much worse than thermal power plants, because unable to carry out counter-regulation.
              The only thing that played in favor of the nuclear power plant was the restrictions on CO emissions. But among the environmentally concerned NPPs, there is such a nasty reputation that it cannot be sold in such a wrapper. And then Fukushima also made friends.
    2. geniy
      geniy April 18 2018 20: 46
      +2
      Old26 (Vladimir)
      You have a great post! But nevertheless I agree with you only 99%, and there is a small nuance: you forget that the United States now has not only time for nuclear rearmament, but the most important thing - the US has virtually no money! As you know they have now giant debt of 20 trillion dollars (and this is only state). And in the coming years, its value will increase even more, and probably soon the US will default! And then they will dance. There is nothing for them to upgrade nuclear weapons.
  8. tchoni
    tchoni April 18 2018 11: 42
    0
    Quote: Operator
    They are not stupid - they are losers

    Even they don’t look like losers ... They impose sanctions on who they want, who they want - they bomb ... Losers don’t behave like that.
    1. Operator
      Operator April 18 2018 11: 48
      0
      We will not be bombed - otherwise we will bomb a bomb in response to 900 tons of plutonium / 150 000 megaton warheads in a wide assortment using the square-nested method bully

      And sanctions can be imposed even until the blue of the West.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni April 18 2018 14: 22
        0
        Quote: Operator
        We will not be bombed - otherwise we will bomb a bomb in response to 900 tons of plutonium / 150 000 megaton warheads in a wide assortment using the square-nested method

        Yes you sho !? truth!? out Turkey calmly knocked down our drying .... the width of the Bosphorus has not changed ...
        And sanctions - sanctions will not go anywhere ... so get ready to turn blue at 200 bucks a month.
        1. Operator
          Operator April 18 2018 14: 36
          +1
          It’s not necessary to fly in - they will not shoot down.

          And actually the West only has enough courage to bomb its “Voronezh” - Salisbury.

          Sanctions are for our good - the agricultural sector has been lifted to heaven, the military-industrial complex is being re-equipped, Middle East oil and gas is being squeezed from the United States.
          1. Shahno
            Shahno April 18 2018 14: 40
            0
            What did tomatoes start exporting?
            1. Operator
              Operator April 18 2018 15: 20
              +2
              Offend, the Russian Federation exports purely commodity - grain.
              1. Shahno
                Shahno April 18 2018 15: 22
                0
                And I did not think to offend. About the grain in the know ... I do not think that sanctions are for the good.
                1. Operator
                  Operator April 18 2018 15: 28
                  +1
                  To whom it is: for a technological appendage of the West (China or Israel), sanctions are death, for a raw materials appendage of the West (Russia) sanctions are a blessing.
  9. Fedor egoist
    Fedor egoist April 18 2018 13: 22
    +2
    A great continuation of a great article. Thanks to the author.
    Quote: tchoni
    Those are you guys. Available charges, as well as carriers, will be enough to cut EVERY n.p. in the next 30 years Mother Russia is larger than 10000 inhabitants. And it will remain in China ...

    Thank you for your comment, joke on, you are doing great :))
  10. Curious
    Curious April 18 2018 15: 42
    +2
    Vyatkin continues with his powerful index finger to smash the United States specifically on the pages of military review. If something unexpected doesn’t stop him, in five to six articles he will wipe the United States off the face of the earth.
  11. Old26
    Old26 April 18 2018 19: 39
    +4
    Quote: Operator
    They are not stupid - they are losers (900 tons of Russian weapons-grade plutonium versus 0 tons of American in bins of the Russian Federation and the USA, respectively).

    No need to come up with non-existent figures. We have about 120-130 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, and about 70 for Americans. Not 900 and 0, as you say

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Colleague, I expected a more balanced position from you.

    And they, my assessment of the article is just balanced.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    1. On a peaceful atom. HEU-LEU seriously knocked down uranium prices and, in fact, knocked down mining and processing. The author submits this as a “needle insertion”. In reality, this is a problem only if the nuclear power plant has a future. There are serious doubts about this, both in Europe and in the USA. It is not necessary to expect that a fundamental decision will be made at the state level to increase the share of nuclear generation, as 50 years ago. In fact, the only country that is seriously addicted to nuclear power plants is France. Fuel shortage for submarines, as far as I know, is not expected ..

    It is possible that comrade will not increase the share of energy received at nuclear power plants at the same rate as in the 60s, but nevertheless, the problem of uranium for American nuclear power plants has not yet been resolved. Of course, I can provide data on how much and who is gaining now if there is a desire, but the HEU-LEU program just worked against the United States in terms of the fact that no intensive work was done in this area. Almost now, the percentage of uranium production at US gas diffusion plants is zero. French company uranium is used. Having relied on ultra-large centrifuges (sometimes up to 10 meters high), the Americans could not bring them to a state where they can be used en masse. As a result - one working cascade, actually experimental. . So that to some extent the phrase "hooked on a needle" has a place to be, at least as a literary expression

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    1. On a peaceful atom. HEU-LEU seriously knocked down uranium prices and, in fact, knocked down mining and processing. The author submits this as a “needle insertion”. In reality, this is a problem only if the nuclear power plant has a future. There are serious doubts about this, both in Europe and in the USA. It is not necessary to expect that a fundamental decision will be made at the state level to increase the share of nuclear generation, as 50 years ago. In fact, the only country that is seriously addicted to nuclear power plants is France. Fuel shortage for submarines, as far as I know, is not expected.
    2. By warhead. Reducing the US nuclear arsenal is a long trend. Both strategic offensive arms and strategic warheads coincided, and the rejection of nuclear weapons in favor of the WTO at the theater of operations level. For many years, this seemed like the right decision. And now, leaving the number of warheads below START levels is not a tragedy, from the point of view of sane people. Obama was so generally for the legalized world peace. Naturally, the nuclear shield of the homeland was funded on a residual basis.
    Respectively. The situation described by the author is monstrous and everything is gone. But not from the point of view of the Americans. For Americans, strategic nuclear forces are not the only viable combat arms. The only thing that the situation with nuclear weapons limits is the ability for Americans to quickly turn around in 1981, meaning the whole world is in ruins. This is sad, but not too much.

    But I do not consider this a tragedy. In Russia, old charges are disposed of in the same way. The HEU-LEU agreement is proof of this. But the fact that the United States in the early 90s were in a state of euphoria in relation to Russia, when they believed that the colossus was defeated and could not rise, that was. And accordingly, work in this sector was either not conducted at all or was carried out after the sleeves. The quantitative number of disposed of - does not play a special role. Yes, they recycle on average about 300 a year. There will be increased funding - the number of disposed will increase. But for now, the fait accompli is that the Americans lost time and now fully restore the work of the weapons and nuclear complex - this is not only and not so much money, but the main thing TIME. I sat down honestly did not find in the article that you write that he considers the situation monstrous and "everything was lost" ...
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 18 2018 20: 47
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      I did not find in the article that you are writing, that he considers the situation monstrous and "everything was lost" ...

      You see. Sunsets like
      And so this somewhat paradoxical, at first glance, but logical situation has developed, when the "only" and "exceptional" superpower has lost the possibility of reproducing one of the primary sexual characteristics of this very superpower.

      like any hints of superiority over the United States in the field of nuclear weapons, I take it very clearly - as the most criminal and insane of possible forms of propaganda. In a caricatured form, this propaganda is broadcast by the Operator with its Pu train. The USSR, one must give it its due, did not allow such a thing.
      By the way, about the level of analysis. The author, who loves to screw about sexual characteristics, and does not distinguish between primary and secondary signs, designates his level very clearly.
      Quote: Old26
      the colossus is defeated and cannot rise - it was

      Colleague, you use such metaphors in vain, they prevent you from making quantitative assessments. The Americans assumed that they would not need nuclear weapons, and that the START process would continue. And today, not without reason.
      What, in fact, is the author trying to convey? That the number of American nuclear weapons will not increase? And what is the problem, were you going to increase it? Will it decrease? Until which date? Who considers this a problem? Trump from the toilet again wound up something?
      Quote: Old26
      to restore fully the operation of the weapons-nuclear complex is not only and not so much money, but the main thing is TIME

      You see, you, after the author, are replacing concepts. The Americans plan start a particular production in 15 years. You equating this with the statement that they can do this only in 15 years. This is, to put it mildly, an exaggeration. You, following the author, seriously suggest discussing the question "can Americans solve the technical problem in 10 years, which they solved 70 years ago in 6 years."
      Quote: Old26
      Uranium problem for American NPPs remains unresolved

      Really a problem? Do you know about the shutdown of power reactors in the USA due to fuel problems?
      Quote: Old26
      French company uranium is used.

      So what? Will France announce sanctions? French uranium is not enough?
  12. Old26
    Old26 April 19 2018 10: 04
    +1
    Quote: geniy
    Old26 (Vladimir)
    You have a great post! But nevertheless I agree with you only 99%, and there is a small nuance: you forget that the United States now has not only time for nuclear rearmament, but the most important thing - the US has virtually no money! As you know they have now giant debt of 20 trillion dollars (and this is only state). And in the coming years, its value will increase even more, and probably soon the US will default! And then they will dance. There is nothing for them to upgrade nuclear weapons.

    That's the whole point, despite the existence of such a huge debt, they are going to allocate about $ 12 trillion for the next 1 years to modernize their weapons and nuclear complex (NLA)

    Quote: Cherry Nine

    And so this somewhat paradoxical, at first glance, but logical situation has developed, when the "only" and "exceptional" superpower has lost the possibility of reproducing one of the primary sexual characteristics of this very superpower.

    like any hints of superiority over the United States in the field of nuclear weapons, I take it very clearly - as the most criminal and insane of possible forms of propaganda. In a caricatured form, this propaganda is broadcast by the Operator with its Pu train. The USSR, one must give it its due, did not allow such a thing.
    By the way, about the level of analysis. The author, who loves to screw about sexual characteristics, and does not distinguish between primary and secondary signs, designates his level very clearly.

    Well, maybe in this sense I’m not “catching up” a bit, I’m sometimes interested in the actual presentation of the materials (and this article is one of the few facts that really sufficiently illuminates. Others are even worse). The "literary" tinsel in the design of the article interests me much less.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Colleague, you use such metaphors in vain, they prevent you from making quantitative assessments. The Americans assumed that they would not need nuclear weapons, and that the START process would continue. And today, not without reason.
    What, in fact, is the author trying to convey? That the number of American nuclear weapons will not increase? And what is the problem, were you going to increase it? Will it decrease? Until which date? Who considers this a problem? Trump from the toilet again wound up something?

    The metaphor of the colossus is primarily concerned not with tactical nuclear weapons, but with the USSR itself, its nuclear weapons complex. The massive reduction (sometimes forced) of the same strategic nuclear carriers gave rise to such thoughts.

    Yes, US successes in the WTO area have made tactical nuclear weapons not a priority for the US Armed Forces.

    What did the author want to convey? Most likely, not everything is good in the US NJC. An increase in nuclear weapons quantitatively? It is unlikely that the START-3 treaty is still in force. Tactical - yes, it is quite possible to increase, although I don’t see the need yet. And here are the replacement processes. and not only modernizations sometimes rise to their full height.
    This does not say that nuclear weapons of the United States are degrading, but there are problems. If you want, in the evening I can briefly "dilute" this article with more practical examples.

    Quote: Cherry Nine

    Quote: Old26
    to restore fully the operation of the weapons-nuclear complex is not only and not so much money, but the main thing is TIME

    You see, you, after the author, are replacing concepts. The Americans plan to launch this or that production in 15 years. You equating this with the statement that they can do it only after 15 years. This is, to put it mildly, an exaggeration. You, following the author, seriously suggest discussing the question "can Americans solve the technical problem in 10 years, which they solved 70 years ago in 6 years."

    Here I do not quite agree with you. I don’t know if the author read the report of your Ministry of Energy, but I made just such a judgment from it. NOT POSSIBLE the restoration of nuclear facilities at this point in time is not due to the fact that they plan to launch only after 15 years, but that they simply could not physically.
    And this is the point of view of your Department of Energy. The production of new pits for new samples of nuclear weapons can be started commercially in 2030 with a capacity of 50-80 per year. That time, production can be started in 2025-2026 in an amount of up to 10 per year. Agree, this is not a series.

    Yes, you are not in a hurry with the modernization, but this is your decision and I think that it is balanced. Something will be completed to upgrade in 2019FY, something 2 2025 ... This is not critical, as in principle the number of YABGs that are deactivated and disassembled.

    Quote: Cherry Nine

    Quote: Old26
    Uranium problem for American NPPs remains unresolved

    Really a problem? Do you know about the shutdown of power reactors in the USA due to fuel problems?


    And what, the problem is solved? Is the United States capable of supplying the civilian nuclear industry with uranium for reactors on its own without the involvement of a French firm? As far as I know from the same figures from the report, the problem has not yet been resolved.

    Quote: Cherry Nine

    Quote: Old26
    French company uranium is used.

    So what? Will France announce sanctions? French uranium was missed

    In no case. I focused on this only because I showed that the United States has a problem with enriching uranium with its own resources.
    French can only be used in the civilian industry. Gas diffusion plants in the USA do not work, centrifugal enrichment has not reached those values ​​that would allow dispensing with the participation of the same French
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 19 2018 11: 21
      0
      Quote: Old26
      it concerns not tactical nuclear weapons, but the USSR itself, its nuclear weapons complex

      I quite understand that. But the geopolitical theme may be mentioned in relation to political decisions. The state of the US nuclear complex is not about decisions, but about their implementation.
      Quote: Old26
      "dilute" this article with more practical examples

      Yeah, the specifics would not hurt. Only it was the specifics, and not as in the first part of this article - the sailors, they say, wanted to screw the special warhead to something, but then, well, no.
      Quote: Old26
      I don’t know if the author read the report of your Ministry of Energy, but I made just such a judgment from it.

      Firstly, I have nothing to do with good, bad or bad, the US Department of Energy.
      Secondly, from the report of the Ministry of Energy it follows, in my opinion, that the Ministry of Energy is not going to start this production earlier. And since, as far as I am informed, neither Congress nor the administration require introducing the methods of military communism in the aforementioned ministry, this position of the ME absolutely suits everyone.
      Quote: Old26
      Agree, this is not a series.

      I agree. And what, need a series?
      Quote: Old26
      This is not critical, as, in principle, is the amount of UBG that is deactivated and disassembled.

      As far as I understand what is happening, there is an opinion that the number of charges should be about 2000. That is, about 2000 are still superfluous, which will be sawn in the coming years. Unless, of course, there is a U-turn to kill all people 3 times, as in the good old days.
      Quote: Old26
      As far as I know from the same figures from the report, the problem has not yet been resolved.

      And who said that this is a problem? Why does the United States suddenly need to fully provide itself with this only type of raw material? Who set this task and to whom?
      Quote: Old26
      French can only be used in the civilian industry

      You mentioned above 70 tons of weapons-grade plutonium. How much is enough if, say, 50 a year?
  13. Old26
    Old26 April 19 2018 19: 40
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Yeah, the specifics would not hurt. Only it was the specifics, and not as in the first part of this article - the sailors, they say, wanted to screw the special warhead to something, but then, well, no.

    If I manage to process the material, it is not compiled into a separate file yet - I will do it today, if not, tomorrow after work.

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Firstly, I have nothing to do with good, bad or bad, the US Department of Energy.
    Secondly, from the report of the Ministry of Energy it follows, in my opinion, that the Ministry of Energy is not going to start this production earlier. And since, as far as I am informed, neither Congress nor the administration require introducing the methods of military communism in the aforementioned ministry, this position of the ME absolutely suits everyone.

    I will try to re-read the report again in order to clarify this detail for myself. I had exactly the opposite opinion, that the main factor is the time factor, that I just won’t succeed earlier, but I won’t insist, I re-read it - then I’ll say

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Old26
    Agree, this is not a series.

    I agree. And what, need a series?

    It is hardly possible to carry out LEP programs for warheads indefinitely, including and from a financial point of view. In addition, closer to the end of the next decade, the United States Department of Defense plans to replace the existing W-xx warhead range with new 3 standard sizes - with the BG type Iw-1type Iw-2 and type Iw-3 for new ICBMs and SLBMs, we will call conditionally Minuteman-4 and Trident E-6. Most likely, their energy release level will be different and it will be expensive to remodel existing ones, kmk

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Old26
    This is not critical, as, in principle, is the amount of UBG that is deactivated and disassembled.

    As far as I understand what is happening, there is an opinion that the number of charges should be about 2000. That is, about 2000 are still superfluous, which will be sawn in the coming years. Unless, of course, there is a U-turn to kill all people 3 times, as in the good old days.

    Well, both you and we now have approximately the same number of BGs, which are deployed, that are not deployed. I met EMNIP figure of the order of 4000-4500 units. Expanded - they are covered by the START-3 treaty and their number should not exceed 1550. Undeployed - they can be in operational storage, but they can already be completely understaffed. Here is the operational storage gradually and is transferred to the category of "spare parts". This is done by both you and us. "Sawing" will continue, and "spare parts" will be stored. Unfortunately, there is no mutual understanding between our countries on how to eliminate the released weapons-grade plutonium. But this is a separate conversation ...

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Old26
    As far as I know from the same figures from the report, the problem has not yet been resolved.

    And who said that this is a problem? Why does the United States suddenly need to fully provide itself with this only type of raw material? Who set this task and to whom?

    Well, actually this task is set by the state - to ensure this strategic resource. After all, today they sold you (us), and tomorrow - alas, they may not sell it. As I already wrote, your gas diffusion production is closed, and centrifuge production has not yet reached the level to provide yourself with this resource (for the civilian sector of the economy)

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Old26
    French can only be used in the civilian industry

    You mentioned above 70 tons of weapons-grade plutonium. How much is enough if, say, 50 a year?

    What is enough for? For the civilian sector? I dont know. Something did not work for you with the conversion of weapons-grade plutonium to MOX fuel. Therefore, I can’t say anything ...
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 19 2018 21: 58
      0
      Quote: Old26
      If I have time to process the material

      Are you planning to post a separate article? Serious approach.
      Quote: Old26
      I will try to re-read the report again in order to clarify this detail for myself.

      Apparently, I put myself too polemically.
      Of course, the report of the ME can be read as you understood it. But I perceive such a document differently. The ME has the opportunity to prescribe a time that is comfortable for itself and amounts that are comfortable for itself. Nobody presses on them. There is no need to tear pants, let's call it that. Therefore, you read how "ME cannot start production", and I as "ME is not going to start production."
      As a distant analogy, one can cite the story of manned space exploration. The phrases “Americans could not launch people before 4Q 2018” and “Americans could launch people of extreme CRS” are both correct.
      Quote: Old26
      It’s hardly possible to endlessly run LEP programs for warheads

      So no one is going to endlessly. It's about the 30s, which term suits everyone.
      Quote: Old26
      This is done by both you and us.

      Colleague, you make a solid impression when you talk about "us", referring to my IP in this session.
      Quote: Old26
      Undeveloped - they can be in operational storage, and can be already fully understaffed

      These nuances are important if you keep in mind that START-3 will collapse. The article quite convincingly, in my opinion, proves that the Americans are not preparing such a scenario for the next decade at least.
      If it does not collapse, then the strategic charges in storage - just a radioactive secondary color.
      Quote: Old26
      Well, actually this task is set by the state

      Has the state set the task of providing nuclear fuel commercial stations? Set before whom? ME? What kind of state is this? Congress? Administration? Who made the political decision? (in the United States it would be a political suicide, IMHO. Not the 70s in the yard).
      Quote: Old26
      tomorrow - alas, they may not sell

      1. This "you" may not be sold. And do not sell the United States, seriously? And so that absolutely no one?
      2. Once again I will remind that reactors there for 30-50 years basically. How many fuel reloads were left to worry?
      Quote: Old26
      What is enough for? For the civilian sector?

      The civilian sector will figure it out, not small ones. For charges.
  14. Old26
    Old26 April 20 2018 09: 42
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Are you planning to post a separate article? Serious approach.

    No. Just comments on this one. With a separate article, I do not "get a stone flower." I tried to write one article, it was said that the problem was punctuation and they did not miss it. I think that enough comments

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    The ME has the opportunity to prescribe a time that is comfortable for itself and amounts that are comfortable for itself. Nobody presses on them. There is no need to tear pants, let's call it that. Therefore, you read how "ME cannot start production", and I as "ME is not going to start production."

    Maybe. I will not argue. You most likely know best. Since the amount of information we have is not comparable. I can read what is in individual publications - you, you have these opportunities much wider

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Colleague, you make a solid impression when you talk about "us", referring to my IP in this session.

    That's even how? But EMNIP you have a checkbox corresponding to IP has always been this? And for some reason I was sure that this is your location. Correct if I made a mistake

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    These nuances are important if you keep in mind that START-3 will collapse. The article quite convincingly, in my opinion, proves that the Americans are not preparing such a scenario for the next decade at least.

    Meaning in the context of START-3

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Has the state set the task of providing nuclear fuel commercial stations? Set before whom? ME? What kind of state is this? Congress? Administration? Who made the political decision? (in the United States it would be a political suicide, IMHO. Not the 70s in the yard).

    Well, probably the first thing is not just about commercial or non-commercial stations, but about the energy security of the state. Nevertheless, in this case, the state, even when it comes to “commercial” stations, should take some protectionist measures. Or not? But after all, the consumer of energy from these stations is incl. and the state?

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    1. This "you" may not be sold. And do not sell the United States, seriously? And so that absolutely no one?
    2. Once again I will remind that reactors there for 30-50 years basically. How many fuel reloads were left to worry?

    1. Well, "do not sell" can be understood in completely different ways. For example, you can "not sell" due to the fact that the release of material is insufficient even for yourself. Agree, nevertheless, not so many countries and firms do this.
    2. Well, the number of reactors in the United States is quite large. And not everyone has that age. Very old ones have already been decommissioned. Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that the cycle of loading into civilian reactors is not so long. This in military reactors, a reboot can take place only a couple of times during the life cycle of 40 years, in civilian reactors it is somewhat different. Reboot occurs more often. Therefore, it should be thought and “worried” so that it does not turn out that there is not enough fuel for the reactors

    Quote: Cherry Nine
    The civilian sector will figure it out, not small ones. For charges.

    Enough for the charges. And the civil sector - you still need to think about it too
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 20 2018 11: 29
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      You most likely know best.

      Are you ironic? I am an ordinary couch expert. Therefore, I am attentive to the statements of people who, unlike the Operator, understand, it seems, in this matter. Especially carefully - if they say things that do not fit into my picture of the world.
      Quote: Old26
      Correct if I made a mistake

      In my comments, a dozen flags. This usually means that a person writes from Russia, China or other places with increased freedom of speech.
      Quote: Old26
      in the context of strategic offensive arms

      I meant that storage from dismantling differs, first of all, in terms of return to service. If there is no return, then it makes no sense to store one costs.
      Quote: Old26
      stations must take some protectionist measures.

      Colleague, I sincerely do not understand you. Are you talking about an ideal Platonic state? Or about the real USA, where there is not even a national standard for a household outlet, type, markets, AC or DS?
      Quote: Old26
      Agree, nevertheless, not so many countries and firms do this.

      I agree. I wrote above that China went seriously to nuclear power plants. I cannot imagine a situation in which the Chinese have enough fuel and the Americans do not have enough.
      Quote: Old26
      And not everyone has that age

      They write that the massive construction of nuclear power plants was carried out in the 70s and 80s under the influence of the oil crisis. They write, not a single working reactor is younger than the 90th year. Am I being deceived?
      Quote: Old26
      Therefore, it should be thought and “worried” so that it does not turn out that there is not enough fuel for the reactors

      Suppose tomorrow all the new nuclear weapons disappeared, completely aliens. At the same time, nuclear power plants will be extinguished not immediately, but according to a relatively long schedule. In the Hollywood scenario itself, the Americans will face the challenge of replacing 20% ​​of the generation in a relatively short time. No more.
      Quote: Old26
      And the civil sector - you still need to think about it too

      You start from the rather strange hypothesis that the technological capabilities of the recently bankrupt Westinghouse, for example, are significantly inferior, say, to Iran. Indeed, the American civilian sector is not the most helpless people in the world.
  15. pafegosoff
    pafegosoff April 29 2018 18: 34
    0
    2-3 years ago I watched an article about how nuclear scientists retired, and there were sorely lacking new ones. In addition, Rosatom controls half of the produced uranium (recently, by the way, the latest centrifuges have been launched). And they, in the States, still have the gas diffusion method (production is several times more expensive).