au> Какова же ваша оценка (цифра)
Газодиффузионный завод K-25 в нынешних деньгах стоил бы 8 ярдов, электромагнитный Y-12 — 7.5.
Такие расходы скрыть невозможно. Покупку соответствующего оборудования — тоже. Прилетят волшебники в голубых вертолетах и бесплатно покажут кино.
au> И договориться с местными африканскими властями тоже просто
У вас все просто. Кроме ваяния бомбы из готового реакторного плутония, это конечно же так тяжело что мама не горюй.
au> Но похоже вы просто не в курсе дела откуда и как эти вещи берутся
Дык. У меня ни газодиффузионного завода в подвале, ни урановой руды в амбаре. Куда мне до вас.
au> Если уж за это дело взялись, то "стащить" (купить, сохранив лицо продавцу имитацией кражи) лучше сразу оружейный
А трахать лучше королеву. Но иногда не получается, с королевой-то.
В общем хорош флудить, то что вы в курсе на каком африканском базаре надо покупать урановую руду я уже понял. Конкретно по этому возражения будут?
Designing and building an effective nuclear weapon using reactor-grade plutonium is less convenient than using weapon-grade plutonium, for several reasons.
Some nuclear weapons are typically designed so that a pulse of neutrons will start the nuclear chain reaction at the optimum moment for maximum yield; background neutrons from plutonium-240 can set off the reaction prematurely, and with reactor-grade plutonium the probability of such "pre-initiation" is large. Pre-initiation can substantially reduce the explosive yield, since the weapon may blow itself apart and thereby cut short the chain reaction that releases the energy.
Nevertheless, even if pre-initiation occurs at the worst possible moment (when the material first becomes compressed enough to sustain a chain reaction) the explosive yield of even a relatively simple first-generation nuclear device would be of the order of one or a few kilotons. While this yield is referred to as the "fizzle yield," a one-kiloton bomb would still have a radius of destruction roughly one-third that of the Hiroshima weapon, making it a potentially fearsome explosive. Regardless of how high the concentration of troublesome isotopes is, the yield would not be less.
Dealing with the second problem with reactor-grade plutonium, the heat generated by plutonium-238 and plutonium-240, requires careful management of the heat in the device. There are well developed means for addressing these problems and they are not considered a significant hurdle to the production of nuclear weapons, even for developing states or sub-national groups.
The radiation from americium-241 means that more shielding and greater precautions to protect personnel might be necessary when building and handling nuclear explosives made from reactor-grade plutonium. But these difficulties are not prohibitive.
While reactor-grade plutonium has a slightly larger critical mass than weapon-grade plutonium (meaning that somewhat more material would be needed for a bomb), this would not be a major impediment for design of either crude or sophisticated nuclear weapons.
The degree to which these obstacles can be overcome depends on the sophistication of the state or group attempting to produce a nuclear weapon.
At the lowest level of sophistication, a potential proliferating state or subnational group using designs and technologies no more sophisticated than those used in first-generation nuclear weapons could build a nuclear weapon from reactor-grade plutonium that would have an assured, reliable yield of one or a few kilotons (and a probable yield significantly higher than that).
Это из отчета департамента энергии США.
Или можете фасовские выкладки покритиковать.