Weapons and war
“Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientist and “father of the bomb”
On the morning of 6 August 1945, the first atomic bomb, code-named “Little Boy” was dropped by the United States on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later the United States dropped a plutonium bomb code-named “Fat Man” on the city of Nagasaki. 140,000 people (almost all civilians) died in Hiroshima either immediately or within a few days. Deaths in Nagasaki were about 74,000. The survivors lived on, some with horrifying burns scars, some to die of radiation-induced illnesses
Following the war, many scientists involved in the atomic bomb project, turned to the “atoms for peace” program – nuclear power. They did this partly out of guilt, partly to continue to be employed. (Where would a nuclear physicist get a job, otherwise? Well, some were happy to continue with nuclear weapons development)
Nuclear weapons are an inevitable by-product of the nuclear power industry
Information below – from Nuclear Energy Information Service, Illinois’ Nuclear Power Watchdog for 25 Years www.neis.org
“There is no technical demarcation between the military and civilian reactor and there never was one. What has persisted over the decades is just the misconception that such a linkage does not exist.” From the Los Alamos National Laboratory dated August, 1981
In order to get plutonium for weapons, one needs a reactor, whether it is a “research” reactor……. or a commercial reactor
FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium — enough to build between 25 – 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs.
….…..It takes about 15 pounds of plutonium-239 or uranium-235 to fashion a crude nuclear device. The technology to enrich the isotopes is available for about one million dollars….
….even the most technically advanced nations cannot keep track of their materials and technology. In an inventory taken between October, 1980, and March, 1981, the U.S. government could not account for about 55 pounds of plutonium and 159 pounds of uranium from its weapons facilities. The explanation given for this Missing material was “accounting error” and that the materials were “stuck in the piping.”
No comments yet.
Leave a comment
This Month
The true FINANCIAL COSTS of nuclear power – our theme for March 2010
THE VERY SECRET COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER
Well it is impossible for anyone to estimate the real costs of nuclear power, as only a narrow range of costs are discussed, even where the nuclear industry is supposedly privately owned.
1. The nuclear weapons industry is so connected with nuclear power, and the costs on the nuclear weapons industry are huge.
2. Where the nuclear industry is state owned - e.g. in France, Russia, China, South Korea, taxation, and the costs of electricity are manipulated, and figures given out for nuclear costs are not really reliable.
Secrecy about the nuclear industry is essential anyway, for security reasons. But it is also convenient, as no-one really knows how much it costs for state-owned nuclear facilities to manage nuclear waste. Well, there are ‘cheap’ options used, as we learn from time, with nuclear waste dumping occurring secretly, and without regard for the environment or the people, (usually poor communities, indigenous and rural people.) Eventually someone has to pay for the long-term costs.
Russia: “….The central problem is that the political and heavily militarized economic system of the USSR provided “no way to accurately measure these costs,” even throughout Soviet history, the issue of defense spending was at the heart of civilian-military relations:….much of the data relating to defense industry were not even collected, and when they were, they were not shared with civilian planners and policy makers……..“What is notable is how little substantial new information has been obtained about the defense-industrial complex, even after the collapse of the Soviet government..”….”
.…the near total lack of environmental concerns (as can be seen in the widespread practice of injecting high-level radioactive wastes directly into the ground or dumping fully fueled naval propulsion reactors at sea) would have reduced the cost of production but resulted in a potentially grave environmental legacy, which continues to have serious repercussions for the peoples of the former Soviet Union and, in the case of sea-based disposal, Norway….”..http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/appendixd.aspx
China: “…....Southwest China Disposal SiteA temporary storage site for nuclear waste that is capable of handling 1,000 barrels of nuclear waste annually was established in spring 2000 in [earthquake zone] Sichuan Province...” .Spent Fuel Waste Storage/Management
“…..Disposing of the 1000 tonnes per year of radioactive waste produced by the expanding industry is rather a headache but there are plans to expand a small facility in western Gansu province to deal with much of the spent fuel, although there are fears that in fact it will be the poorest areas that are forced to accommodate the waste in some form or another…”.
Energy Balance: Bargain Nuclear Waste Disposal and China Nuclear Power.
South Korea: ” …..Russian and Chinese firms hope to follow the Koreans’ lead. Suddenly the incumbents are confronted by emerging-market “national champions” with the full backing of their governments—an invaluable asset in a high-liability business like nuclear power….” http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15457220
UK, .Little is known about the cost of the British program as well, although the unit cost of some weapons systems is available.7 The continuing restrictions under the Official Secrets Act make it difficult to ascertain costs in truly comprehensive way….
France: The historical costs associated with the French nuclear arsenal are likewise murky…
Too little is known about the arsenals of Israel, India and Pakistan to include them here…http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/appendixd.aspx
-
Archives
- March 2010 (139)
- February 2010 (168)
- January 2010 (211)
- December 2009 (211)
- November 2009 (152)
- October 2009 (149)
- September 2009 (140)
- August 2009 (93)
- July 2009 (97)
- June 2009 (131)
- May 2009 (149)
- April 2009 (156)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
