US INF withdraw and possible new land-based missiles deployed in Asia.

A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
ZeEa5KPul said:
Plutonium enrichment by centrifugation is generally considered infeasible because of the mass difference between isotopes - 1 for Pu 240/239 vs. 3 for U 238/235 - but there's an interesting laser enrichment technology that utilizes the difference in magnetic properties of the nuclei, not the mass difference, to preferentially ionize one isotope which can then be captured by an electric field. All the work I've seen on it uses uranium enrichment as an example, but it might be feasible to use it to enrich an existing commercial grade Pu stockpile.

The 2.9+- 0.6 figure I've seen for China's plutonium stockpile is the weapons grade stuff, I wonder how much commercial grade plutonium it has.
Click to expand...
Easy to calculate, the breeding ratio of light water pressurised reactors is around 0.6-0.8, so each TWyear electrical output will make around 600-800kg Pu.

Of course later on the reactor will burn that as well, but this can give a magnitude estimate about the amount of available commercial grade Pu stockpile.
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Most countries will say no to the US because they don't want to become a legitimate target for nukes for someone like loose cannon Trump who is happily an antagonist to allies. They're smaller than China therefore it won't take many nukes to knock them out for hundreds of years. It's not just China. Do they want Russian nukes targeted on them as well? They always think China will be starting the war and they believe China's no first nuke use is a lie. That only means China will knock them all out in the first round having little warning before it... and the US suffers the least.
 
SamuraiBlue

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Dolcevita said:
Sorry but you fail to address the substance of my post. Intentional slyness or otherwise? History tells us the government has willingly justified known violations by turning a blind eye and denial.
Click to expand...
No just not worth the band width to debate how ridiculous and meaningless your post is.
 
D

Dolcevita

Major
SamuraiBlue said:
No just not worth the band width to debate how meaningless your post is.
Click to expand...

Whatever. You did spend the time to deflect and distract. but whatever.

Nonetheless, a constitutional amendment may not necessary depending on how the government wish to conveniently interpret the IRBM deployment. Will just have to wait and see when time comes how subservient you are to US.
 
Last edited:
Broccoli

Broccoli

Senior Member
Anlsvrthng said:
Easy to calculate, the breeding ratio of light water pressurised reactors is around 0.6-0.8, so each TWyear electrical output will make around 600-800kg Pu.

Of course later on the reactor will burn that as well, but this can give a magnitude estimate about the amount of available commercial grade Pu stockpile.
Click to expand...

I doubt they have need to manufacture plutonium any time soon, and if they did it would a foreign policy statement not an practial move.

Jeffrey Lewis calculated years ago that China has currently enough for roughly 900 warheads, so at least 500 new warheads in practical terms, but how much of that goes to land based missiles vs SLBMs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top