[Bones75]

So the expected lifetime was 15 years, and most of them are older than 20 years. Should I be more worried than I am? I was under the assumption they are indeed quite old, but will still do the job if asked.

Question: This expected 15 year lifespan, is this in reference to the wear and aging of the overall mechanicl and electronic components of the weapon, or the nuclear decay of the isotopes cores themselves? (i.e. the Pu-241 pits, etc?)

Is there a chance our weapons may fizzle if used due to the fact that the core metals have decayed into other elements, or will we just get a much lower yield?

Any experts out there?

Bones

[Bones75]

Oops. grammar error. that's "...isotopes IN THE cores themselves..."

Bones

[spinestein]

[NUCLEAR weapons are complex systems made of many different materials and interconnecting components. The materials may interact with air, moisture, and environmental hazards during manufacture, shipping, storage, and assembly as well as with each other once they have been enclosed in the weapon. They may weaken, harden, corrode, or even fail. These changes in properties, whether chemical, physical, or mechanical, are often lumped together under the label "aging."]

The entire article can be found here:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Lemay.html

[Boot Hill]

"This expected 15 year lifespan, is this in reference to the...nuclear decay of the isotopes in the cores themselves? (i.e. the Pu-241 pits, etc?)"

"plutonium-241, although fissile, is impractical both as a nuclear fuel and a material for nuclear warheads."   (source)

--Boot Hill