Military Review

Washington doesn’t see a problem in that the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium in the United States means its actual storage

107
Scandal around Washington refusing to recycle is gaining momentum weapons plutonium, although a disposal agreement has been signed with Russia, and Russia is fulfilling its obligations. Recall that the US Senator from South Carolina (a plutonium recycling plant is located in this state, and this plant is not used today) was much surprised by the fact that the United States refused to fulfill its obligations.


Washington doesn’t see a problem in that the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium in the United States means its actual storage


In Washington, they stated that they are not going to dispose of plutonium by the method of actual destruction at an industrial facility, since "a cheaper option has been found." This “option” is to store weapons-grade plutonium in underground storage facilities in the form of original artificial deposits.

US Senator from South Carolina:
And this is our disposal option? In the agreement, something was said about such a possibility? .. It is strange after that to expect the Russians to agree to our conditions, because they really dispose of (“burn”) weapon-grade plutonium.


But State Department spokesman Mark Toner believes that plutonium storage is also "recycling." Mark Toner quotes RIA News:
I do not think that a change in the method of disposal necessarily requires re-negotiating this agreement. We have been communicating with 2013 of the year with Russia regarding the US revision of the disposal method and its results. This is consistent with the agreement between the US and Russia on plutonium disposal. This agreement actually allows the parties to consult and negotiate disposal methods without radiation and nuclear reactors. We are trying to fit this process.


Trying to fit and really fit is two different things.
Photos used:
bellona.org
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Stinger
    Stinger April 12 2016 07: 15
    +29
    they are not going to dispose of plutonium by the method of actual destruction at an industrial facility, since “a cheaper option has been found”

    We have even cheaper - do not destroy anything.
    1. The black
      The black April 12 2016 07: 17
      +37
      Here is another proof of the hypocrisy of the United States. And how much pathos was there, that Russia does not strive for nuclear safety. In fact, 34 tons of plutonium are still in US warehouses and at any moment ready to turn into warheads.
      1. krot
        krot April 12 2016 07: 27
        +42
        Once again, the statesmen are "keeping" their word. Doing business with this deceitful "nation" should be different! Enough to step on the same rake! As they, so we should do! They stole our fellow countrymen for the trial at home, we have to kidnap amers somewhere and try them, and put them in prison for 25 years. And then change!
        1. madjik
          madjik April 12 2016 07: 43
          +25
          the negotiability of the usa is being questioned! then is there any sense whatsoever to negotiate with them? they don’t keep their words, but they always require guarantees for themselves (which is typical for buy and sell).
          1. cniza
            cniza April 12 2016 07: 59
            +14
            It is time for us to adequately respond to the arrogant behavior of the United States, how much longer can we endure?
            1. Rostov Papa
              Rostov Papa April 12 2016 08: 26
              +7
              It is time for us to adequately respond to the arrogant behavior of the United States, how much longer can we endure?
              It's really high time. It is necessary at every opportunity to poke this contract into the mug. If Russia had done so, every iron would have squealed about it. Otherwise we are discussing "in the kitchen" - these are the deceivers they are ...
              1. Sensatus
                Sensatus April 12 2016 09: 27
                +10
                I do not think that a change in the method of disposal necessarily requires negotiations on this agreement again.


                I wonder what they will say if we come up with a way to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium by detonating ammunition (our ballistic missiles) in the United States? But what, does a change in the method of disposal require additional negotiations?
          2. alexmach
            alexmach April 12 2016 09: 25
            +6
            Someone recently said this. "we agreed to come to an agreement," but it is not possible to come to an agreement with them finally. They will simply turn any treaty inside out if they think it is at odds with their interests. You can talk to them on an equal footing only by keeping them at gunpoint. There is no other way.
          3. WKS
            WKS April 12 2016 10: 17
            +4
            The state of dodgers and cunning, deceivers and cheaters.
        2. Lukich
          Lukich April 12 2016 09: 03
          +3
          Quote: krot
          Once again, the statesmen "keep" their word

          adopted the style of cauldrons. to promise does not mean to marry. their offspring does not lag behind. we do not repay debts, signed contracts are not fulfilled
      2. vovanpain
        vovanpain April 12 2016 08: 04
        +9
        Probably it’s time for Russia to announce that since the mattress does not comply with the contract, then why should we fulfill it. And the same should be stored.
      3. anEkeName
        anEkeName April 12 2016 08: 09
        +2
        Quote: Black
        Here is another proof of the hypocrisy of the United States.


        The hypocrisy of the United States is already an axiom, for it does not need proof.
      4. GSH-18
        GSH-18 April 12 2016 08: 19
        0
        Recall that the US Senator from South Carolina (a plutonium recycling plant is located in this state, and this plant is not used today) was much surprised by the fact that the United States refused to fulfill its obligations.

        Maybe at least THIS will open the eyes of someone else in the states to the "affairs" of their federal government?
        1. Izotovp
          Izotovp April 12 2016 09: 26
          +2
          What kind of hypocrisy? This is a feeling of superiority in which no one has yet been able to dissuade them. The arguments are not enough. Neither military nor financial. The USSR could fight the United States only because it was one large corporation comparable in power to US companies. Now we are for them the power of the economy-refueling with an exchanger and for some reason with nuclear missiles.
      5. State Employee
        State Employee April 12 2016 08: 40
        +1
        "34 tons of plutonium are still in American warehouses and are ready to turn into warheads at any moment."

        The United States destroyed the plant for the production of plutonium fuses back in 1993. Called Rocky Flats, located in Colorado, under Denver. With the destruction of the plant, the US nuclear weapons program was actually destroyed. That is why Obama is such an ardent supporter of nuclear disarmament. For details, check out planetauuu.com, chapter 4.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 April 12 2016 08: 49
          +2
          Quote: State Employee
          was in Colorado, under Denver. With the destruction of the plant, the US nuclear weapons program was actually destroyed.

          The Americans continue (and have never stopped!) Improving their nuclear weapons. Because of these "agreements" signed by the traitor to the Motherland, Gorbachev, and America's best friend Yeltsin, we are now technologically lagging behind them in this important area!
          1. alexmach
            alexmach April 12 2016 09: 27
            +3
            because of these "agreements" signed by a traitor to the Motherland ..


            Yes, it’s not a matter of contracts. Any contract can always be denounced. The collapse of the country.
        2. faridg7
          faridg7 April 12 2016 14: 00
          +3
          Quote: State Employee
          The United States destroyed the plant for the production of plutonium fuses back in 1993. Called Rocky Flats, located in Colorado, under Denver. With the destruction of the plant, the US nuclear weapons program was actually destroyed. That is why Obama is such an ardent supporter of nuclear disarmament. For details, check out planetauuu.com, chapter 4
          Plutonium fuses? Carry crap. to produce a charge, the supercritical mass of plutonium and a neutron source are needed. All the sophistication with the invention of ammunition comes down to the possibility of creating high-power charges (the problem is to collect a mass exceeding the critical mass) and low-power charges (making subcritical mass share). with such a quantity of weapons-grade plutonium, you can non-turn around and make simple cannon-type ammunition - for this, high technology is unnecessary. Perhaps the average graduate of a Soviet high school will be able to collect two pieces of plutonium of 2 kg each, a little explosive and a milligram of polonium or California. it’s difficult to get it all, clean it, but then they all gave it to them on a silver platter.
    2. Viktor_24reg
      Viktor_24reg April 12 2016 07: 46
      +1
      I hope this is done. The main thing is that the liberals do not know about it wink
    3. Finches
      Finches April 12 2016 07: 56
      +3
      Perhaps we need to start warehousing ...? Yes, and in general it is better not to negotiate with the United States on issues affecting Russia's national security! The best, including nuclear security, is the availability and constant development of weapons! Only understanding of the strength makes the Yankees more less honest!
    4. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad April 12 2016 07: 56
      +16
      You have developed fast reactors in your country, in which plutonium is "utilized" to generate electricity! And the "exceptional" do not have this and is not yet expected! To give Russia pride does not allow, to create their own "exclusivity"!
      1. SRC P-15
        SRC P-15 April 12 2016 08: 07
        +1
        It seems to me that the whole point is that the Americans lagged behind us in enriching nuclear fuel. As I heard, we have gone far from them. And now, by storing weapons-grade plutonium, the United States wants to protect itself for the future, violating the agreement concluded with us. We need to do something to thereby force the United States to comply with the agreement.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 April 12 2016 08: 31
          0
          Quote: СРЦ П-15
          It seems to me that the whole point is that the Americans lagged behind us in enriching nuclear fuel.

          This is not true. At one time, there was a boom in the production of plutonium. This requires very serious industrial facilities. Just imagine the production process! At least hundreds of special plutonium-producing reactors, thousands of enrichment centrifuges. And this process is not fast! Then the factory facilities were dismantled as unnecessary. Therefore, we and the states have such a large supply of plutonium. Its destruction puts an end to the development and growth of the nuclear potentials of Russia and the United States. This is the meaning of the signed agreement.
      2. andj61
        andj61 April 12 2016 08: 11
        +3
        Quote: sharp-lad
        You have developed fast reactors in your country, in which plutonium is "utilized" to generate electricity! And the "exceptional" do not have this and is not yet expected! To give Russia pride does not allow, to create their own "exclusivity"!

        The question is that not only American, but also our weapons-grade plutonium is stored there in the states, although it was supposed to be processed under the agreement.
        This is doubly beneficial for them: we have less plutonium, and they have more. And then you can either re-fill them with bombs and warheads, or convert them into fuel for future nuclear power plants or nuclear powered ships. Putin has already made a public complaint about this.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 April 12 2016 08: 40
          +2
          Quote: andj61
          Putin has already made a public complaint about this.

          Claims here are worthless. We urgently need to stop all work on the disposal of our plutonium in the Russian Federation.
          But what if americos under the guise of concocting our plutonium (which is better than American) their warheads, which ultimately will be aimed at us ???
          These "friends" need to be totally controlled, they have no trust! I think the agreement contains the necessary control mechanisms.
          1. andj61
            andj61 April 12 2016 08: 48
            0
            Quote: GSH-18
            Claims here are worthless. We urgently need to stop all work on the disposal of our plutonium in the Russian Federation.

            The funny thing is that we did not dispose of it, but transferred it for fuel to nuclear power plants for disposal, for money, though the United States. So they can use it - that is, use our OU plutonium as for bombs - now it seems that they are no longer producing plutonium (although they say that there is only one reactor left in Japan), and they can also process it for fuel for nuclear power plants.
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 April 12 2016 08: 59
              +2
              Quote: andj61
              The funny thing is that we did not dispose of it, but transferred it for fuel to nuclear power plants for disposal, for money, though the United States. So they can use it - that is, OUR plutonium, like for bombs, can be used

              I say:
              Quote: GSH-18
              We urgently need to stop all work on the disposal of our plutonium in the Russian Federation.

              This also includes the transfer of our plutonium to anyone.
              Quote: andj61
              plutonium is already not being produced

              That's right. And to establish this production again will cost the country ten to twenty Olympiads in Sochi. But the production of plutonium itself is a slow process.
              We cannot give our plutonium to deceitful "partners". And if we are to dispose of it, then only by ourselves, and in parallel with the Americans!
      3. annodomene
        annodomene April 12 2016 08: 48
        +3
        In this type of nuclear weapons, plutonium is obtained, not disposed of.
    5. GSH-18
      GSH-18 April 12 2016 08: 11
      0
      Washington doesn’t see a problem in that the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium in the United States means its actual storage

      Well, if so, I suggest storing our plutonium into new nuclear warheads!
    6. GSH-18
      GSH-18 April 12 2016 08: 17
      0
      This “option” is the storage of weapons-grade plutonium in underground storage in the form of unique artificial deposits.

      For reference: plutonium deposits do not exist in nature - it is a 100% synthetic element obtained in special reactors from uranium. If it is mixed with soil, so to speak, then a very strong large-scale contamination of the area will occur - both radioactive and toxic! Plutonium surpasses potassium cyanide in toxicity. For a long time it is not excreted from the body and as a result kills all living things. Well, let's, Americans, bury plutonium in the ground where the thread is near the New York water intake! fool
      1. andj61
        andj61 April 12 2016 08: 28
        +2
        Quote: GSH-18
        Well, let's, Americans, bury plutonium in the ground where the thread is near the New York water intake!

        It is poisonous and radioactive, it only comes in special protective capsules, which are placed in special protective containers. And 100-200 years they can be quietly in them.
        This is not even the question - under an agreement with the United States, Russia supplied them with weapons-grade plutonium for subsequent processing into fuel for nuclear power plants. So, apparently, they not only stored their weapons-grade plutonium instead of reprocessing, but ours too!
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 April 12 2016 08: 36
          0
          Quote: andj61
          It is poisonous and radioactive, it only comes in special protective capsules, which are placed in special protective containers. And 100-200 years they can be quietly in them.

          That is yes. But they want to dispose of it.
          This “option” is the storage of weapons-grade plutonium in underground storage facilities in the form of peculiar artificial deposits.

          Quote: andj61
          So, apparently, they not only stored their weapons-grade plutonium instead of reprocessing, but ours too!

          And this is a jamb! If this is true, then we must demand the return of our plutonium back to Russia!
          1. andj61
            andj61 April 12 2016 08: 51
            0
            Quote: GSH-18
            And this is a jamb! If this is true, then we must demand the return of our plutonium back to Russia!

            The Americans paid us money for it, but pledged to convert it into fuel for nuclear power plants. It is unlikely to be returned - it belongs to them. Here it’s only possible to demand processing, as it is written in the contract.
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 April 12 2016 09: 03
              +1
              Quote: andj61
              The Americans paid us money for it, but pledged to convert it into fuel for nuclear power plants.

              It turns out that if not processed, it means violation of the contract! And here is the choice of either breaking the contract, paying us a penalty for non-compliance. And so we have the right to demand a refund.
        2. guzik007
          guzik007 April 12 2016 10: 19
          0
          This is not even the question - under an agreement with the United States, Russia supplied them with weapons-grade plutonium for subsequent processing into fuel for nuclear power plants. So, apparently, they not only stored their weapons-grade plutonium instead of reprocessing, but ours too!
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          To be more precise, exactly 400 tons of weapons-grade plutonium were transferred by the drunk to "friend Bill"
    7. vodolaz
      vodolaz April 12 2016 08: 44
      +1
      Well, what else to expect from them? Lying in the face for American politicians is the norm. Moreover, even in the agreement it is written how plutonium should be.
      1. Bath
        Bath April 12 2016 09: 14
        +1
        What a foolish person just did such an agreement signed to bring his plutonium to the United States is a direct betrayal and the contractor must be for life immediately
        1. guzik007
          guzik007 April 12 2016 10: 21
          +2
          What a foolish person just did such an agreement signed to bring his plutonium to the United States is a direct betrayal and the contractor must be for life immediately
          -------------------------------------------------- ------
          Yes, you cho! his cultural cent was bawdy on behalf of a grateful receiver.
        2. Saratoga833
          Saratoga833 April 12 2016 15: 49
          0
          A museum was opened to those who signed this agreement in Yekaterinburg with great fanfare and were extremely proud of it!
    8. sherp2015
      sherp2015 April 12 2016 09: 28
      +1
      Quote: Stinger
      they are not going to dispose of plutonium by the method of actual destruction at an industrial facility, since “a cheaper option has been found”


      "Promising is not the same as getting married"
      As I understand it, plutonium is ours, which our "effective managers" fused to the Americans?
    9. Hagakure
      Hagakure April 12 2016 09: 37
      +3
      A nation of crooks, thieves and crooks ... has been and will be.
    10. siberalt
      siberalt April 12 2016 10: 20
      0
      Yeah. Let this wise guy ask mom to give birth to him and stay in this place of birth laughing
    11. Pavel Tsybai
      Pavel Tsybai April 12 2016 12: 57
      +1
      Why say that. What Obama is that all his mongrels do not fulfill their words and carry eternal nonsense.
    12. ssergn
      ssergn April 12 2016 13: 38
      0
      So they use this "method" ..
  2. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer April 12 2016 07: 15
    +6
    The same is with them, and with carriers. Dismantling and warehousing, not destruction. Everything is subject to quick assembly.
  3. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich April 12 2016 07: 15
    +4
    we cut, they hide ... everything as always.
    1. Aleksander
      Aleksander April 12 2016 08: 04
      +2
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      we cut, they hide ... everything as always.


      So, maybe it's time for Russia to STOP being honest in a game with a sharpie? How many can you repeat the same mistakes?
      Yes, and diplomats burst, because such a cunning move of the amers was obvious, and NOT new, it was already with missiles. Unclear request (unless the eyes of the diplomats were "closed" in a known way)
    2. GSH-18
      GSH-18 April 12 2016 08: 23
      0
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      we cut, they hide ... everything as always.

      So you need to stop this practice. Destroy in parallel in batches. We have not destroyed the Americas, and we will not.
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 April 12 2016 07: 18
    +9
    If the storage where weapons-grade plutonium is stored is accidentally undermined, it will also be a kind of disposal. But the consequences of such disposal will unpleasantly surprise not only the representatives of the State Department, but also the mass of US citizens, from those who retain the ability to be surprised for a while.
  5. Portolan
    Portolan April 12 2016 07: 18
    +9
    having given their word, hold on, and not having given strength, the agreement clearly implies the destruction of plutonium, not storage, so Americans are dishonorable people. Should we comply with any agreements with such?
  6. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 April 12 2016 07: 20
    +3
    The "cunning" of the Americans knows no boundaries. "Only the grave will fix the hunchback" (Russian proverb).
  7. denssss
    denssss April 12 2016 07: 20
    +1
    I xs, I would cease to discuss or negotiate anything with them, I would not have the patience
  8. PKK
    PKK April 12 2016 07: 22
    -1
    235th plutonium, on Earth it remains k..y yes n..ya, to spoil it with madness. You can fly on the 235th in Space, therefore this metal is considered superstrategic. and 238th uranium cannot be tamed in any way, which is sad.
    1. Flinky
      Flinky April 12 2016 07: 37
      +2
      238th uranium cannot be tamed in any way

      BN-800 - heard of such a thing? Apparently not.
    2. andj61
      andj61 April 12 2016 08: 20
      0
      Quote: PKK
      235th plutonium, on Earth it remains k..y yes n..ya, to spoil it with madness. You can fly on the 235th in Space, therefore this metal is considered superstrategic. and 238th uranium cannot be tamed in any way, which is sad.

      235th plutonium generally does not exist, plutonium-238 is used - not so often, and plutonium-239 for nuclear weapons. It is also used in bombs of uranium-235 and rarely - uranium-233, but not plutonium-235. No.
      And uranium-238 is the most common, but not fissile, isotope of uranium. But he was just "tamed" - it is from him that weapons-grade plutonium-239 is obtained in breeder reactors,
      1. PKK
        PKK April 12 2016 08: 29
        0
        235 plutonium, this is of course a reservation, of course 235 uranium. On the receipt of 238 plutonium from uranium, 239 I admit I did not hear, I lagged behind in this question. A question arose, did the breeder reactors work on 238m \ uranium?
        1. andj61
          andj61 April 12 2016 08: 34
          0
          Quote: PKK
          The question arose, did breeder reactors work on uranium 238m?

          They work, of course, not on uranium-238, it is not a fissile isotope. They run on uranium 235, 233, etc. (there may be options), but rods made of uranium-238 are inserted into the reactor, from which plutonium-239 is obtained during irradiation. True, the material turns out to be "dirty", it still has to be separated from other isotopes for weapons use.
      2. annodomene
        annodomene April 12 2016 08: 50
        +3
        U-235 is divisible, but by fast n
        1. andj61
          andj61 April 12 2016 08: 55
          0
          Quote: annodomene
          U-235 is divisible, but by fast n

          Precisely, earlier graphite was used as moderators in reactors and rods, and there were other versions of neutron moderators. And now, fast reactors have already created reactors.
  9. faterdom
    faterdom April 12 2016 07: 24
    +4
    And we just noticed that almost everything! treaties with the Americans are either double-bottomed, or are not being fulfilled on their part, or are being carried out in a very peculiar way. How amazing they have provided Libya with "no-fly space"! Chikatilo would have hanged himself with envy that rape followed by being torn to pieces is "not allowing flights."
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter April 12 2016 07: 27
    0
    Here is not enough evil for them. The smart ones. You burn your plutonium, and we will "stock up". And if anything, we'll get it and use it. And you burn, burn ...
    Found the fools!
  12. cccr51
    cccr51 April 12 2016 07: 34
    +3
    Well, is it really possible to conduct any negotiations with such shitty ones!
  13. demo
    demo April 12 2016 07: 35
    +7
    In Washington, they stated that they are not going to dispose of plutonium by the method of actual destruction at an industrial facility, since "a cheaper option has been found." This “option” is to store weapons-grade plutonium in underground storage facilities in the form of original artificial deposits.

    Wow! As former Secretary of State Clinton would say.

    Sometimes it seems to me that this state is the United States, or to such an extent personifies stupidity, or absolute universal impudence.
    For just a normal person can say such a thing out loud?

    And if the question was about disarmament, i.e. I, for example, USA, declare that, for example, I don’t recycle tanks / for scrap, but simply send the engine to the factory for storage.
    Let it be like "natural-artificial deposits".
    So what?
    A tank without an engine is a pile of metal?

    Lord Take America away! At least somewhere!
  14. oxotnuk86
    oxotnuk86 April 12 2016 07: 35
    +1
    That's right, how much does weapons-grade plutonium production cost? We destroy and mattresses are not fools with minimal cost will receive B / W and we again stepped on a rake like with missiles. Most touches that we are always worried about and what will be the face of the mattresses? In the world, only Russia is annoyed by this issue no one else.
  15. TUNISIA
    TUNISIA April 12 2016 07: 36
    0
    Quote: PKK
    On the 235th you can fly in space,

    It remains only to compose engines for space vehicles on steam traction.
  16. mihasik
    mihasik April 12 2016 07: 37
    +4
    What do they do in normal life with such a "client" who does not fulfill his obligations? He is blacklisted, sued, "fines and penalties" removed and no longer cooperates. Why the Russian Federation, despite all the "partner's" violations, is stubbornly trying to impose its cooperation on the United States is not clear. A 90s habit? Or what does the United States owe?
    1. Saratoga833
      Saratoga833 April 12 2016 15: 56
      0
      Quote: mihasik
      Or what should the United States do?

      We do not have to, but in fact have "stored" our financial reserve in the US financial system, which is what our financial block is proud of!
  17. Alexandr2637
    Alexandr2637 April 12 2016 07: 52
    +2
    And we will destroy it?
    Well, how many times do you need to be deceived in order to understand: Anglo-Saxons can never be trusted !!!
  18. solovey
    solovey April 12 2016 07: 53
    +1
    Yankees hold the whole world for loshar !!! I think as it was in the 90s it will not work with us.
    True, with a correction - if the mattresses manage to change the power for the liberals, they will definitely bring to the end what was conceived in 91.
  19. cergey51046
    cergey51046 April 12 2016 07: 58
    0
    So you store. The United States cannot be trusted; they are renegades.
  20. Holsten
    Holsten April 12 2016 08: 08
    +1
    Contracts with the Americans should be concluded only on their own principles: on the basis of deception and lies. In another they simply can not understand because of their mentality, the mentality of thieves and robbers. Let it be better to constantly be in alarming expectation - whether the Russians will fulfill the promise.
  21. Polite Moose
    Polite Moose April 12 2016 08: 20
    +5
    In Washington, they said that they were not going to dispose of plutonium by the method of actual destruction at an industrial facility, since "a cheaper option was found."

    Once again, these p ... (our American partners) showed everyone that it is impossible to do business with them honestly. Not, if such a booze has already gone, then Russia also has cheaper options for the destruction of weapons-grade plutonium. Even profitable ones. For example, transfer it to Iran, Syria or North Korea. "For storage" so to speak. Now, the Americans are going to go nuts from such frugality.
  22. CONTROL
    CONTROL April 12 2016 08: 21
    0
    Script of a Hollywood thriller-horror thriller: - "artificial deposit" of plutonium seized by frostbitten North Korean terrorists! The efforts of Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America and others have led nowhere (maybe because they are not there? ... but there are terrorists!)! And now - the super-horror-thriller finale! Terrorists are blowing up an "artificial deposit"! Americans are surprised for a long time - as much as 8 - 12 seconds! ...
    -----
    A realistic scenario? Considering the dominant supermenity syndrome in the United States and the real carelessness of their special services ... when even the twin towers were normal, without questions about "imitation of a terrorist attack", they could not blow up! ...
  23. Alex_T
    Alex_T April 12 2016 08: 22
    +1
    In fast neutron reactors, plutonium is not completely destroyed, the uranium 238 used in MOX fuel for BN reactors (which is 99% of production and considered to be a waste from the production of weapons-grade 235) is converted to the same weapons-grade plutonium. Another thing is that you can’t immediately use this plutonium, it is too phonite and contaminated with nuclear fission products.
  24. aszzz888
    aszzz888 April 12 2016 08: 24
    +2
    But the official representative of the State Department, Mark Toner, believes that the storage of plutonium is also "disposal".

    Another gosdepovskaya beast without any glimmer of mind. And this is "exceptional"? “No, it's a gang of killers!”
  25. Zebus
    Zebus April 12 2016 08: 31
    -1
    Burning plutonium is the same as burning a stove with banknotes ... Already there are technologies for using it as fuel for new generation nuclear reactors. Amerikosy well done !!! Pragmatists, mother of their children!
    1. Alex_T
      Alex_T April 12 2016 09: 13
      0
      Learn the mat part. To "burn" plutonium and use it as a fuel for nuclear reactors, this is one and the same thing that the Russian Federation is doing on the BN800. And the Americans do not "burn", but dilute and store them.
    2. NordUral
      NordUral April 12 2016 11: 13
      +1
      Rogues in the first place.
  26. Berber
    Berber April 12 2016 08: 35
    -1
    This whole scandal is in our hands. Of course, the fact that the United States will have plutonium and we do not have it is depressing, but the whole world has once again seen the price of contracts with the United States.
  27. kolexxx
    kolexxx April 12 2016 08: 42
    +1
    The Americans got into the trap. If plutonium is burned in conventional reactors, they will be left without weapons grade plutonium. Russia, having mastered fast neutron technology, can both burn plutonium in them and extract it if necessary, since plutonium in these reactors is an intermediate product. So the Americans are trying to maintain the return potential of plutonium in a non-contractual way.
    1. andj61
      andj61 April 12 2016 09: 06
      +1
      Quote: kolexxx
      The Americans got into the trap. If plutonium is burned in conventional reactors, they will be left without weapons grade plutonium. R

      There is no trap. They and our weapons-grade plutonium received a whole bunch, and their after the reduction of warheads no less. And now they have so much, one hundred is enough, or the number of warheads is increased every 10 times, and another 200 years is enough to burn processed fuel in nuclear power plants
  28. Hooks
    Hooks April 12 2016 08: 54
    +1
    False, duplicitous, false, rotten, rash, hypocritical Pharisee little souls.
  29. Nikolayev
    Nikolayev April 12 2016 08: 57
    +1
    Ours also need to be stored, only in an iron shell - like a "rocket"!
  30. Kirill750
    Kirill750 April 12 2016 08: 59
    +2
    they don’t see problems in anything, just don’t look where these creatures and problems are
  31. sl3
    sl3 April 12 2016 09: 02
    +1
    This once again confirms that one cannot believe in him. T in a and two-faced.
  32. Million
    Million April 12 2016 09: 03
    +2
    It is high time for our rulers to understand that the United States is not our friend, and we have never been a friend!
  33. james
    james April 12 2016 09: 06
    0
    The answer is in the style of psaki and the like. Black is white, white is black and, and what's the difference
  34. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 April 12 2016 09: 08
    +2
    Hypocrisy is the basis of US policy ...
  35. BOB044
    BOB044 April 12 2016 09: 13
    +3
    I do not think that a change in the method of disposal necessarily requires re-negotiating this agreement. We have been communicating with 2013 of the year with Russia regarding the US revision of the disposal method and its results. This is consistent with the agreement between the US and Russia on plutonium disposal. This agreement actually allows the parties to consult and negotiate disposal methods without radiation and nuclear reactors. We are trying to fit this process.
    USA you are looking for fools among you.
  36. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs April 12 2016 09: 21
    +2
    This story is only the result of another technological failure in the United States. If we had not created a fast neutron reactor, then the Americans would have built their plant and burned plutonium in uranium reactors, however, like us. But Russia created BN-800, on the one hand we are fulfilling the agreement and will burn plutonium in the reactor, on the other hand, plutonium is an intermediate in BN-800 and can always be extracted from it. Let's face it, we have a return potential that does not contradict the contract, and the Americans have to break the contract in order not to be left with a nose. And of course we will constantly pedal this story and say that the United States is not negotiable.
  37. evil partisan
    evil partisan April 12 2016 09: 27
    +1
    I have a book by Beregovoy "Angle of attack". An incredibly interesting book! Who has not read it yet - be sure to read it.

    Here is a very interesting film about Coastal:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkTTREXMbZI
  38. Verdun
    Verdun April 12 2016 09: 35
    +2
    Thanks for everything, dear Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev! It would be good for us to store tanks, ships, planes and missiles in due time. And do not send for scrap.
  39. Atenon
    Atenon April 12 2016 09: 42
    0
    I propose a new method of disposal by undermining plutonium in the states.
  40. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec April 12 2016 09: 58
    +1
    In this case, Russia also has no difficulty in "utilizing" plutonium by changing warehouses.
    1. NordUral
      NordUral April 12 2016 11: 10
      0
      I read somewhere that our disarmament workers from Stekanovtsy have already disposed of everything precisely by agreement. I hope that this is not so and something else can be saved.
  41. CRASH
    CRASH April 12 2016 10: 12
    +1
    And we will destroy everything, cut it, and report to the Americans that the plan has been completed and overfulfilled.
  42. Belarus
    Belarus April 12 2016 10: 14
    +2
    The "original" actions of the American side regarding the destruction of plutonium, in my opinion, are aimed at the superiority of the United States in the world in nuclear weapons. Namely: thus "destroying" weapons-grade plutonium to force everyone to do it and then at any time and in a short time increase it.
    The Americans did not come up with anything new for themselves and act just as always - they hold the whole world for fools.
  43. 13elf
    13elf April 12 2016 10: 15
    -1
    With all my strength I am waiting for the supervolcano to finally wake up and bury these lying creatures. They have already tired everyone. And many were killed.
  44. iliya87
    iliya87 April 12 2016 10: 18
    +1
    The United States always interprets everything as beneficial to them. In my opinion, there is no need to be surprised at such things. I am surprised how they have not yet utilized such uranium by the method of democratic utilization "by dropping nuclear bombs on" terrorists ""
  45. Urfin
    Urfin April 12 2016 10: 27
    -1
    "Washington said that they are not going to dispose of plutonium by the method of actual destruction at an industrial facility, since" a cheaper option has been found. "This" option "is the storage of weapons-grade plutonium in underground storage in the form of a kind of artificial deposits."

    They’ll play it out so much that some in One Country also decide to optimize the disposal of nuclear warheads — for example, somewhere in the Federal District of Columbia it’s much cheaper ...
  46. pofigisst74
    pofigisst74 April 12 2016 10: 34
    0
    Well, that means we also need to stop utilizing plutonium in an expensive way. There is a way cheaper even than the American one. Stick on containers, or whatever it is, stickers "WASTE". And that's it! laughing
  47. atakan
    atakan April 12 2016 10: 49
    +2
    Quote: krot
    As they are, so must we do!

    Hmm, this is the third decade of the United States
    NOT CONTRIBUTIVE am
  48. thinker
    thinker April 12 2016 10: 54
    +1
    The scandal surrounding Washington's refusal to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium is gaining momentum ...

    The chic title of the article on this subject - South Carolina authorities sided with Putin.
    South Carolina authorities through a court demanded that the US government comply with an agreement with Russia on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium. They are seeking to implement the 2010 agreements on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium with Moscow.

    http://www.putin-today.ru/archives/23685
  49. afrikanez
    afrikanez April 12 2016 10: 56
    +1
    Here is the exact "DB", they can not even understand the expression - to destroy. Wry-handed hypocrites and rascals. Well, how in general with such, what to do? fool
  50. NordUral
    NordUral April 12 2016 11: 07
    0
    The essence of Anglo-Saxon politics and obligations is a scam.