On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 7:58:10 PM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote: > > > On 10/3/2022 5:32 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 6:41:58 PM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/3/2022 4:11 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 5:02:56 AM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 12:07 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> * > Yes that's one way it could go bad. But there's also the case that >>>> they literally don't work. * >>>> >>> >>> Unfortunately I think there is little chance that Russian H-bombs won't >>> explode because it's not that difficult to maintain them; Plutonium 239 has >>> a halflife of 24,000 years, U235 has a half life of over 700 million years, >>> and lithium-6 deuteride is stable. It's true that modern H-bombs also have >>> a very small amount of the hydrogen isotope tritium and it's half life is >>> only 12 years but it will explode without tritium just with a somewhat >>> reduced yield, and the chemical explosive used to initiate the implosion >>> could become unstable after a few decades and would need to be replaced >>> with fresh explosives, but I have a hunch if there is anything in Russia >>> that is well-maintained it is their nuclear bombs. And since Ukraine is >>> right on the Russian border a delivery system for such bombs is not really >>> an issue. >>> >>> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis >>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> >>> >> >> Plutonium pits have to be cycled every few years, where after 10 years >> their effectiveness is very reduced. It is not because the nuclei of >> plutonium has decayed, but the crystalline structure of the plutonium is >> not longer the optimal allotrope. The implosive collapse of the pit is not >> as effective at starting a fission chain reaction. There is a duty cycle on >> the plutonium that has to be remelted and metallurgically reconfigured. >> >> >> And could a general skim off the money intended for this recycling and >> become very rich? >> >> Brent >> > > That is how the Afghanistan fell. Officers and administrators were > stealing the equipment, for sale often to the Taliban, and pocketing the > pay. In fact with the fall of the Roman Empire, there were legions more > than capable of repelling the Visigoths that crossed the Rhine and > ultimately sacked Rome in 410 AD. The problem is the legionnaires had not > been paid and they refused orders. > > > My point exactly. But think how it might make Putin more dangerous if he > wasn't sure he could rely on his nuclear deterrent. > > Brent >
One of Clancey's novels involved a scenario where the entire Russian nuclear system turned out to be a massive dud. The story did not involve a war with Russia, but where it was found that largely the post-Soviet nuclear armed systems were mostly crap. It is hard to know how Putin would behave. If he knew the Russian nuclear system is trash, he might be reluctant to carry out a threat to it end in a game of nuclear chicken. He might prove to the world that Russia is the latter day Ottoman "sick man of the world." This is if he is rational, which I am not sure of. If he were smart he would cut his loses and end this war. The referendums and other events illustrate he is digging his heels in deeper. LC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f21ac6c5-d246-4904-aa87-05b4a3dab697n%40googlegroups.com.
