Nukes

[stek]

Can't they?

Well the Chernobyl reactor went prompt critical, which, oddly enough, is pretty close to what happens in a nuke.

I'm not sure that any other reactor technology (other than fast) has a positive void coefficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality

Think it went so hot reaction-wise it fell melted though the bottom of the pressure vessel, and the Sovs were concerned it would end up in the water table and make things well worse contam-wise. That aside, the charge machine was blown through the reactor housing off the pile cap by some explosion, probably heat/steam related tho. We were taught this as an object lesson for safety purposes at the Nuclear plant I worked at - forgot most of it now and it was new news then, info started to come out from what was then The Former Soviet Union.

I think it was explained the nuclear material used in a commercial reactor isn't capable of exploding like a bomb, quick Google...

The Chernobyl reactor was a RBMK type. The disaster was caused by a power excursion that led to a steam explosion, meltdown and extensive offsite consequences.

I was walking past two of the reactors somewhere once, there was a massive electrical explosion, tripped both reactors, hell of bang, fire and smoke, knocked me off my feet, so they can explode in some way.

Got me re-interested now, Chernobyl night Chez Stek tonight!

[NotAllThere]

Can't they?

Well the Chernobyl reactor went prompt critical, which, oddly enough, is pretty close to what happens in a nuke....

To get a nuclear explosion through prompt criticality (runaway chain reaction) you have to contain the reactants - which is the main problem of nuclear (fission) weapon design. As soon as the reactants are dispersed by explosion, the fission reaction ceases. So yes, it's pretty close, but the difference is enormously significant.

A nuclear reactor cannot detonate. In Chernobly, they lost control of the reactor which then generated more and more heat resulting in a steam explosion.

[DaveB]

Impressive.

30GW power spike.

Oooops.

I remember seeing pictures of what remained of the core in the basement of the building around about 1990.

It looked like radioactive stalagmites.

When they went back later, a lot of it had gone.

They found a lot of freaky stuff down there. New mineral types, radioactive fungi growing on the walls. The worrying bit is that they actually have a formal name for the stuff that gets formed by the mix of molten fuel and debris. Apparently it's called Corium.

[sal]

Which is the craziest thing of all. We have at least one submarine at sea at all times in case of surprise attack by the CCCP. Like the company I work for, nobody seems to have noticed that things have moved on since the 80s.

Even if you believe there is a threat and nuclear weapons are necessary, trillions could have been saved by leaving the submarines in their dock and only sending them to sea at times of heightened tension (now probably).

The problem is that the supposed nuclear attack might come as a surprising pre-emptive strike, nukes from Russia or Iran or w/e can land in UK in 30min, Nuclear sub is not car, where you jump in, turn the ignition key and off you go it needs a lot of time to leave the docks, not to mention they are sitting ducks for sabotage while at the dock.

The whole idea behind the nuclear missile armed subs is to enforce mutual ensured destruction, so even in a case of a surprise attack on the main land and UK being wiped out, the hidden sub can retaliate.

A potential nuclear strike is not going to come as a result of an escalation but as a sneak pre-emptive attack.

[unixman]

Yes, because that won't escalate the situation at all.

The idea of fakes, or empty boats, is a nonsense. Does anyone think that all those good people who work at Faslane do not talk about what goes on in the local pub/barn dance/ceilidh. Anyway, it would cost just as much to build the infrastructure to pretend we have missiles as to build the real thing.

I'd love us to get rid of them, but while there are nutjobs like Putin around, and who knows who's to come over the next 40-50 years, I like to think they give us a tiny bit of protection that we wouldn't otherwise have.

Reluctantly agree. It would be good if nukes could be un-invented. But they can't. The consequences of even one H bomb are too awful for them ever to be used. So we have the M.A.D. system. MAD is terrible. But the other possible alternatives seem even worse. Perhaps we should take it as a lesson in allowing unbridled research into any area?

[d000hg]

So presumably then we should be encouraging other developed nations to have similar systems? Seems daft UK and France are the only EU nations... as if France would ever use them... so we're left responsible for the safety of the entire of Europe?

[Chuck]

so we're left responsible for the safety of the entire of Europe?

'twas ever thus.

[unixman]

So presumably then we should be encouraging other developed nations to have similar systems? Seems daft UK and France are the only EU nations... as if France would ever use them... so we're left responsible for the safety of the entire of Europe?

The reasons we have the H bomb and many countries don't is entirely down to history. I'm interpreting your comment as a suggestion that we should seek for all nations to have the H bomb and join the MAD. I don't think that would be a good idea, in that I think it would be even worse (less stable) than the current MAD. All alternatives in this situation are pretty insane, but there it is.

[xoggoth]

... as if France would ever use them...

French nukes are made of cheese anyway.

[d000hg]

The reasons we have the H bomb and many countries don't is entirely down to history. I'm interpreting your comment as a suggestion that we should seek for all nations to have the H bomb and join the MAD. I don't think that would be a good idea, in that I think it would be even worse (less stable) than the current MAD. All alternatives in this situation are pretty insane, but there it is.

Not all - but that we do is crazy considering we're a minnow in world standards these days. It's probably best only 2 nations have them, if we must keep them... is UK really going to jump in and nuke country A on behalf of country B or would be jut sit on the sidelines unless WE were the ones at risk?