Nuclear Powered Vehicles

because nuclear waste is more valuable than gold and throwing it away would be moronic

How many well-placed Exocet missiles would be required to sink a Nimitz class ship?

Attached: exocet_mm40.jpg (600x427, 50K)

Picking a really deep spot would be like spoiling Everest. There's no need for somewhere excessively deep, somewhere remote with 10,000ft of depth is plenty

Depleted uranium is not more valuable than gold. DU is about $5 per pound, gold is currently $15,076

Not all nuclear waste is depleted uranium. Depleted uranium will also be much more valuable once things like this
>terrapower.com/technologies/twr/
come online

DU makes the bulk pf nuclear waste from power generation, something like 80%. And much like nuclear fusion the world will be perfect once theoretical ideas come commonplace. However we live in the preset. and burying spent fuel is good enough for the moment, in a few decades we may start sinking it.

Do all of these nuclear powered ships use solid fuel?

The solution to pollution is dilution.

Depleted Uranium is nothing at all like the high level waste that comes from spent fuel.

all of them.

Attached: 1475370587509.jpg (2272x1503, 1.09M)

Ew, a solid fuel reactor.

>my paper reactor is better than your paper reactor

I believe every well regulated militia is entitled to at least ONE nuclear powered armament, it's just common sense.

>DU makes the bulk pf nuclear waste from power generation
You mean enriching right? DU is not produced by reactors.

To clarify - DU is the largest quantity of radioactive material that is generated through the pursuit of nuclear power - the bulk of which is produced when enriching uranium for fuel rods. And as a result it is the largest nuclear by-product that needs to be disposed of.

It's really not more radioactive than the uranium ore it came from, so objectively it could just be put back into the ground.

>To clarify - DU is the largest quantity of radioactive material that is generated through the pursuit of nuclear power
All good, my tism just powered up there.
>And as a result it is the largest nuclear by-product that needs to be disposed of

Attached: yUmLAZu.jpg (820x720, 193K)

Preferably in the form of a metal gear

The radiation would be *LITERALLY* watered down in middle of ocean's waters.

The heavy parts would sink to the bottom of the ocean.

It only would be a problem if it's destroyed nearby an inhabited coast line, because toxic waste would acumulate there.

Attached: Fallout 76.jpg (1280x720, 228K)

Yeah, no one ever built an MSR.
Oh wait they did more than 40 years ago
Fucktard

and where is it now?

it doesn't matter, any fissile material might as well be considered inert if they sink

oak ridge, mostly.

and it was plagued with a multitude of problems an cost overruns. SMRs are the way to go at this point.

>Nuclear power is probably very convenient but is their a somewhat underhanded tactical value as well?

A) It would be strategic, not tactical; and
B) No there isn't.

>safely
Yes
>legally
No

>It would be strategic, not tactical
You had a 50/50 chance.

That doesn't really apply to sink carriers though, since they're not enriching fuel on the carrier

I need som reading material on this. I always imagined "throwing it into a fault" would be a good way to get the shit swallowed and into the crust/mantle

Assuming it's this carrier, sitting at the bottom of 10+km of ocean will render any radiation leak pretty much moot

Why are you treating water like a solid? Any irradiated water will spread through the body of water.

Because water does not get irradiated like a solid does. You can drink water that has been in direct contact with a radioactive substance and suffer no Ill effects.

Irradiated water is not really an issue, there's vast amounts of naturally radioactive material in the sea, the water provides near infinite dilution. You only really need to worry about the solid material in the ocean floor adjacent, which can spread radiation when disturbed.

Radioactive rivers, pools etc are usually radioactive because they are carrying particles of dust from industry, not because the water itself is radioactive.

We stopped talking about carriers and stated talking about disposal of nuclear waste.

I'm afraid I don't have a specific book to recommend, this is one area where I just absorbed things from multiple places. Generally reports on the subject begin getting very scientific which is where my interest rapidly trails off

>You can drink water that has been in direct contact with a radioactive substance and suffer no Ill effects
False. This is not how it works in Fallout.

On a sub the nuke guys consider it to be a rite of passage to drink water from the primary loop.

That being said yeah, the water thats in contact with the fuel isnt radioactive unless theres a major reactor casualty.
The only expection is possibly neutron radiation from actual fission itself. Where actual matter is quite littlerly changed into radioactive isotopes including your own flesh.
But this is more of an issue with neutrons causing metal fatigue and structural issues within the reactor support itself.

This is not true. Pure water does not get irradiated, but near the rods some of it will turn into tritium with short term radioactivity. At sufficiently high temperatures, the steam will split into oxygen and hydrogen, which can get irradiated. This is what happened at Fukushima.

Seawater is not pure, nor is the surrounding of the reactor. The various salts in the water can get contaminated, as well as whatever is surrounding the reactor close by that dissolves.

Whether it poses a real threat would be impractical to model if we don't know what happens to the reactor, or how much fuel it has. The reactor might even get cracked open by a missile without sinking the ship first, and radioactive materials scattered into the air. Military planners probably just have far bigger concerns if a nuclear ship is attacked.

No it wouldn't, why does this keep getting on Jow Forums? The US explicitly is opaque about whether carrier ships are nuclear armed. From the perspective of the international community and adversaries, this is not a counter force strike because they don't know if they're nuclear. It would be like starting a nuke war because a B 2 was shot down.

Underrated post
>fuck:
>sunsets
>breathing air
>eating food
>not having cancer
Boy this guy gets it.

By the time you get it out of the loop radiation levels are down to ambient. Also generally most reactors use rodi water for that reason alone.

>false, that's not how it works in my videogames

Attached: 1540702029604.jpg (800x419, 311K)

I was talking about the power plant of the ship, not any potential nuclear armaments.
Fucking retard.

DU isn't nuclear waste, it's only barely radioactive and requires no more special treatment then other heavy metals. Nuclear waste refers mostly to fission byproducts with half life in the tens of thousands of years that are chemically reactive. Things like radioactive iodine that are useless for reactors (more or less) but can fuck up living creatures very badly.

Well, he has a point in that it is a byproduct of the nuclear industry. However, so is the rubble from mining uranium ore which is the same as any other rubble from mining.

Yeah, we don't have to bury a million tonnes of mine tailing at Yucca Mountain.

>Exocet
1 to make it through
Whether or not it will sink a Nimitz is irrelevant, it would never launch another aircraft again

thinking a nuclear reactor at the bottom of the sea will cause an "ecological disaster" is like thinking that a piece of dust in your refrigerator will cause the food in your pantry to spoil

Lots because you're essentially attacking a castle and the magazines are very well hidden in the center.

>their

Oops. Everyone made it out unscathed, I hope.

>irradiated water
It's rather frightening that there are people posting something like this who are not considered intellectually invalid in our modern society.

Attached: dam son.jpg (640x640, 65K)

Losing a carrier isnt tantamount to starting a nuclear war you fucking idiot. We lose a task force we're not firing off ICBMs. What were gonna do is brutally skull fuck the opponent and if they jave they audicity to nule us then we nuke them.

Neck yourself faggot itd be doing the world a whole lot of good.

If the scenario goes as far as destruction of nuclear powered ships in war, humanity has more, well how do I put it ...pressing matters to care about than a few radioactive chunks of metal under a couple kilometers of water.
The real question is why would anyone above the age of 10 treat nuclear fuel as if it's some liquid glowing green. Also,
>irradiated water
Idiocracy.2006.1080p.mkv

Attached: 1260728693969.jpg (562x437, 88K)

I don’t know about underhanded, but tactically a nuclear power plant responds more quickly than a conventional steam plant.

>On a sub the nuke guys consider it to be a rite of passage to drink water from the primary loop.
Why does this sound like fun?

Two didn’t sink the motherfucking USS Stark, so you’d better bring a lot.

t. nuc

Before posting, you should look up the difference between ‘irradiated’ and ‘contaminated’.

Is your Exocet nuclear tipped (no).
Flight ops might recommence in 30 minutes after.

>Losing a carrier isnt tantamount to starting a nuclear war
It is, because the only possible adversary in a war that you can lose a carrier to is not going to hesitate using nukes if the scenario has already escalated to sinking carriers, and neither would the US. That is besides the fact that like 9 out of 10 weapons aimed at supercarriers are nuclear tipped. Nuclear war doesn't exclusively mean ICBM exchange, imbecile.
>What were gonna do is brutally skull fuck the opponent
The opponent that has already proven itself to be capable of successfully performing a devastating attack against a CBG? Exactly what are you going to "brutally skull fuck" such an opponent with? The US power projection relies on supercarriers and having one destroyed indicates the necessity of cardinal strategy reconsideration.

Attached: 3m70 p-1000 vulkan launch from 1164 moskva (2).jpg (800x568, 96K)

All of them, and it probably still wouldn't be enough, since this class of missiles is not designed for it. You can get an idea of required performance by looking at Soviet missiles developed specifically for this task.
>Soviet tests revealed that when a shaped charge warhead weighing 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) was used in the missile, the resulting hole measured 5 m (16 ft) in diameter (19.63 m2 (211.3 sq ft)), and was 12 m (40 ft) deep.

Attached: kh-22m.jpg (800x583, 248K)

>From the perspective of the international community and adversaries, this is not a counter force strike because they don't know if they're nuclear.
You have to be sincerely fucking retarded to think the main tool of the US power projection is not considered to be primary target in a large scale armed conflict because of opaque enunciations.

Attached: The Sum of All Fears (2002) - Aircraft Carrier is Attacked mute.webm (640x266, 2.2M)

>the country whose main reputation is overreaction isn't going to do shit after losing an entire CBG
Naw, they'll still get skullfucked. It'll just take a few minutes longer

Russia's doctrine to any attack capable of damaging cities like nukes will be responded with nuclear weapons, even if said weapons are conventional.

So like if you fired a bunch of tomahawks into moscow (assuming they don't get shut down by the circle of SAMs and EW sites surrounding it) they'll respond with nukes

>isn't going to do shit after losing an entire CBG
This is the opposite of what I said.
>It'll just take a few minutes longer
Except it involves a country armed to the teeth with all kinds of nuclear delivery systems, as opposed to something like the providently provoked attack on Pearl Harbour by some dressed yellow island monkeys. What's more likely to happen is American taxpayer public overthrowing the retard in power that contrived the loss of a ~$10 billion worth military asset iconic to the US military.

Attached: 61 smetliviy & ddg-72 uss mahan.jpg (2362x1535, 316K)

It's not specific to "damaging cities" though, "Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened". They adopted this policy in 1993 after dropping the over a decade long "no first use" pledge seeing how the US refused to follow the example.

Why do you think a 100k ton carrier wouldn't be able to launch aircraft ever again if one 350lb warhead hits it?

Attached: the pain.png (425x460, 271K)

Good, wwii allied style firebombings (for example) deserve such a response, the historical ones targeted populations (not war/production infrastructure) and were small scale genocides.

Remember it's only a war crime if you lose the war.

Attached: bomber-harris-newspaper-article_444.jpg (444x435, 142K)

If it were that simple the nuclear powered vehicles could take a hint from the OP and each rig their power plant as a radiological dispersal device (dirty bomb). They could then conduct their operations from an ecologically sensitive area in the enemy's territory. As a final "fuck you" in a serious fight, they could detonate their power plant.

Of course, weapons and strategies like this are not tolerated by the international community.

"Working closely with the reactor vendors and with relevant offices at the U.S. departments of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE), the Nuclear Energy Institute this week published a road map laying out the actions needed to ensure the successful deployment of a first-of-a-kind micro-reactor at a domestic defense installation by the end of 2027."

nei.org/news/2018/micro-reactors-power-remote-military-bases

Attached: micro-reactors-in-copy2.jpg (975x552, 324K)