Replies

"And we already discussed oxidation (although your so-called worthless rust can be refined pretty easily)." - calenel

On the contrary, the well-funded, well-staffed Nazis found that process to be a bit more tricky. QED.

My point is that all nukes, regardless of size, require professional maintenance.

Nuclear triggers can't, due to atomic decay, last very long. That's just a fact of life.

As for nuclear cores/pits...they decay much more slowly (e.g. the Soviets were on a 7 year replacement cycle), but the isotopes that they decay into, though small in quantity early on, greatly inhibit chain reactions.

Furthermore, radioactive decay impacts electronics and even wiring (e.g. resistance, heat, capacitance, inductance). That decay also affects the conventional explosives (this is why the Soviets had to steal Britain's RDX). Even RDX has to be periodically replaced.

Contrary to urban myths, none of the above are easy to remedy in the field. Cutting and shaping fissionable metals is beyond the ability of your corner-store machine shop.

Obtaining trigger material itself (e.g. Po-210) requires full access to a nuclear reactor.

Larger atomic devices *can*, if desired, be built with slightly longer shelf-lives (e.g. using more shielding material), but the desired neutron radiation (which is, by definition, tied to short a half-life) to initiate even the large devices mandates rather constant maintenance cycles.

In short, you need State resources to build new or maintain old nukes (e.g. nuclear reactor for trigger replenishment, clean room labs for machining pits/cores, special conventional explosives, etc.).

Slight errors in shaping the replacement conventional explosives, or in the resistance or capacitance of the wiring, or in a mismatch in the electronics, or in the purity of the fissionable material, or in the decay rate of the chosen trigger materials...will all void a nuke's ability to go "boom."

Still be a "dirty nuke?" Sure. Re-visit Hiroshima? No.

"On the contrary, the well-funded, well-staffed Nazis found that process to be a bit more tricky. QED."

Lucky for us we have 60 years of technological advancements on them, isn't it? But that is a straw man argument, anyway. Don't let your plutonium rust in the first place.

"My point is that all nukes, regardless of size, require professional maintenance."

Well, since we are building one from "spare parts", the maintenance cycle can be put off a bit, can't it?

"Nuclear triggers can't, due to atomic decay, last very long. That's just a fact of life."

"Obtaining trigger material itself (e.g. Po-210) requires full access to a nuclear reactor."

Pu239 will go critical all by itself if you put too much of it in one spot. Doesn't need a trigger.

"Furthermore, radioactive decay impacts electronics and even wiring (e.g. resistance, heat, capacitance, inductance). That decay also affects the conventional explosives (this is why the Soviets had to steal Britain's RDX). Even RDX has to be periodically replaced."

In the scenario I am presenting, all that stuff has been junked and the minimum requirements will be replaced/assembled shortly before detonation, which, if you had read the thread, you would know.

"As for nuclear cores/pits...they decay much more slowly (e.g. the Soviets were on a 7 year replacement cycle), but the isotopes that they decay into, though small in quantity early on, greatly inhibit chain reactions."

Pu239 has a half-life of 24,000 years. The amount of decay in 50 or even 100 years is trivial. Please cite a source for your assertion that such a slight contamination would disrupt the fission process (after 100 years there would still be over 99.7% of the original Pu239 left).

"Larger atomic devices *can*, if desired, be built with slightly longer shelf-lives (e.g. using more shielding material), but the desired neutron radiation (which is, by definition, tied to short a half-life) to initiate even the large devices mandates rather constant maintenance cycles."

When you are using highly sophisticated technology for fission-boosting, ballistic targeting, pressure sensors, yada-yada, then, of course, you need regular maintenance. But don't confuse the maintenance of the delivery and enhancement systems with the bang - which is in the plutonium.

"In short, you need State resources to build new or maintain old nukes (e.g. nuclear reactor for trigger replenishment, clean room labs for machining pits/cores, special conventional explosives, etc.). "

You probably need State resources to get the plutonium. I hope so, anyway.

"Slight errors in shaping the replacement conventional explosives, or in the resistance or capacitance of the wiring, or in a mismatch in the electronics, or in the purity of the fissionable material, or in the decay rate of the chosen trigger materials...will all void a nuke's ability to go 'boom.'"

Plutonium will go critical if you put too much of it in one place - it doesn't even require compression. Delivering a charge to a set of points in space-time is basic physics and you could test your harness ahead of time with some other simple electronics to insure that it would meet the requirements. And the shaped charge only has to hold the plutonium together for a short time.