Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Politics Technology

How About a Megatons To Megawatts Program For US Nuclear Weapons? 146

Posted by timothy
from the hot-water-on-tap dept.
Lasrick writes "Dawn Stover looks at the incredibly successful Megatons to Megawatts program, which turned dismantled Russian nuclear warheads into lower-grade uranium fuel that can be used to produce electricity. The 1993 agreement between the U.S. and Russia not only eliminated 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium, but generated nearly 10% of U.S. electricity consumption. The Megatons to Megawatts program ended in December, but Stover points out that the U.S. has plenty of surplus nuclear weapons that could keep the program going, without the added risk of shipping it over such huge distances. A domestic Megatons to Megawatts, if you will. This would be very cost effective and have the added benefit of keeping USEC, the only American company in the uranium enrichment field, in business."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How About a Megatons To Megawatts Program For US Nuclear Weapons?

Comments Filter:
  • by fruviad (5032) on Saturday February 22, 2014 @12:21PM (#46311253)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

    Should've done it years ago.

    • by gatkinso (15975)

      Unfortunately, the promise of Thorium fuel cycle based nuclear power grid comes with an proliferation risk of atomic bombs based on U-233 (the US already tested n in the Teapot-MET shot, and it is thought that at least part of India's arsenal is uses U-233).

      So... not very safe.

      • by MtViewGuy (197597)

        Except for one thing though: you need much more uranium-233 to build a fission-style nuclear weapon than uranium-235. Needing more fissile material means a much heavier nuclear bomb, and makes it not very practical for ballistic missiles and you don't want a heavier bomb on today's jet combat planes.

        • by careysub (976506)

          Except for one thing though: you need much more uranium-233 to build a fission-style nuclear weapon than uranium-235. Needing more fissile material means a much heavier nuclear bomb, and makes it not very practical for ballistic missiles and you don't want a heavier bomb on today's jet combat planes.

          This is false. The critical mass of U-233 is substantially less than U-235, it is about the same as plutonium which is the preferred material for modern light implosion bombs.

      • U-233 is essentially worthless for bombs.
        It's almost impossible to produce U-233 without U-232.
        U-232 is a hard gamma emitter.
        Hard gamma rays are a health hazard (will kill people manipulating it using normal manipulation methods), degrade explosives inside the bomb, and can be easily detected even from low earth orbit (300 Km away).
        Operation Tea Pot was the only nuclear bomb made with U-233 to be tested (even then it was a mix of U-233 and Pu-239).
        There are zero operational nukes with U-233.
        This whole non p

        • by gatkinso (15975)

          U-232 is a contaminant, not the fissile material itself. Teapot-MET utilized a plutonium spark plug simply because it was an implosion device (and it is thought that it would have worked without it - something the Indians proved at Pokhran). A gun type device needs no such trigger and is known to work with U-233... no testing needed (same as Little Boy - they knew it would work and it did).

          >> There are zero operational nukes with U-233.

          True according to unclassified literature which I happen to beli

          • Nuclear is the ONLY power source that is practical to solve climate change. TODAY.
            Solar and wind have already shown they need significant breakthrough on energy storage before they can get beyond 10% of grid power without extensive energy storage.
            People that hate nuclear will find anything they can criticize and say, see, this is bad, forget nuclear.
            But nuclear is the safest energy source in many countries, safer even then hydro, solar or wind.
            There's essentially zero point in this non proliferation paranoi

  • Because 'Murica! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kelarius (947816)
    We couldn't possibly give up our strategic advantage in an area that has almost no usefulness in this period of time!
    • We couldn't possibly give up our strategic advantage in an area that has almost no usefulness in this period of time!

      Tell it to the Chinese [washingtontimes.com] and Russians [thenewamerican.com].

      • Nuclear weapons are only useful as a deterrent, and given that China doesn't have all that many, and Russia slashed its stockpiles significantly (which was the whole point of MtM), US has supplies way in excess of what it actually needs.

    • by bonehead (6382) on Saturday February 22, 2014 @12:55PM (#46311443)

      We couldn't possibly give up our strategic advantage in an area that has almost no usefulness in this period of time!

      We could give up our strategic advantage, but it would be exceedingly stupid.

      Weapons should be thought of as a form of insurance. In a perfect world, you'd never have to use it, but in the world we live in, it's foolish not to have it.

      • But, as the missiles get more accurate, the bombs don't need as large a destruction radius, so there can be plenty of surplus Uranium burned without losing strategic advantage.
        • by bonehead (6382)

          You misunderstand the true value of weapons.

          If you have to use a weapon, that means you didn't have a big enough one.

          Much better to have a weapon that is big enough, and scary enough that you don't ever have to actually use it.

          • by DexterIsADog (2954149) on Saturday February 22, 2014 @04:30PM (#46312441)

            You misunderstand the true value of weapons.

            If you have to use a weapon, that means you didn't have a big enough one.

            Um, no. It's more likely that if you "have" to use a weapon, you already failed at something else that would have precluded the use, or threat, of force in the first place.

            • by Lord Kano (13027)

              It's more likely that if you "have" to use a weapon, you already failed at something else that would have precluded the use, or threat, of force in the first place.

              Quite true. However, sometimes the thing that was failed was the attempt to convince someone else that you are sincere about being left alone.

              LK

              • by bonehead (6382)

                Quite true. However, sometimes the thing that was failed was the attempt to convince someone else that you are sincere about being left alone.

                Even more often, the "failure" was a hesitation to meet the unreasonable demands of an aggressor who wants you to relinquish possession of something valuable.

                Violence is a two party game, you can't simply "choose" to never be involved in it.

                What you can choose is whether or not you want to be the loser every time you are forced to participate.

                • Quite true. However, sometimes the thing that was failed was the attempt to convince someone else that you are sincere about being left alone.

                  Even more often, the "failure" was a hesitation to meet the unreasonable demands of an aggressor who wants you to relinquish possession of something valuable.

                  Violence is a two party game, you can't simply "choose" to never be involved in it.

                  What you can choose is whether or not you want to be the loser every time you are forced to participate.

                  I do recognize the validity of your point. However, the difference between us is that I see the use of violence as more likely a missed opportunity to have prevented violence in the first place, while your point of view is to always, as a priority, prepare for violence first and foremost.

                  Given recent history - the Iraq war, and those assholes who murdered people in Florida, and Florida, and Florida again because they carried a gun and seemed eager for a chance to use it - I believe pursuing my point of vi

            • by mcgrew (92797) *

              IOW, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- Salvor Hardin [wikipedia.org]

          • If you can kill the same 10 million people with a smaller bomb and a more accurate missile that you used to be able to kill with a larger bomb and a less accurate missile, your weapon isn't less scary. It's just easier to hide.
            • by bonehead (6382)

              If you can kill the same 10 million people with a smaller bomb and a more accurate missile

              Making your weapon smaller and more accurate DOES make it less scary.

              Violence is scary. Random, indiscriminate violence is more scary.

              I would counter your argument with the suggestion that a ridiculously large, but clumsily inaccurate weapon is far more scary than a weapon that only hits its intended targets.

              If all I have are precision weapons, then all you need to do to be safe is make sure not to piss me off. If I have extremely powerful weapons with "unreliable" targeting, then it might be in your best

            • No nuclear weapon is a precise weapon. Even the least accurate ICBM in the world will make little difference compared to the blast radius of any nuke.
              Even a low yield nuke will produce fallout that the winds will blow, are you pretending to control the winds too ?
              Current USA and Russian nukes are so compact there is very little (if anything) that can be done to reduce their size significantly.
              This looks like the missile gap argument in the JFK times. There was no missile gap. It was a policy of trying to cr

              • I wasn't talking about reducing the size of current nukes, but rather saying that there's no longer need for the uranium of the nukes made obsolete by the current nukes. I spent some time in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. I'm aware that fear of Russian missiles was a domestic sales job. When you say that USAF and USN are moving, sometimes I think it's rather that they're being moved. I think congress more than once has told them that they're getting anyways stuff that they've said they don't need, and if con
          • Because all your adversaries are completely logical and reasonable robots. Also, infallible. Just like you!
            Nobody will EVER use such a weapon in anger, madness of through accident and lack of oversight.
            I for one have never ever dropped a hammer on my foot, I'm sure that bureaucracies of the world are perfectly capable of not doing the same only with nukes.

            After all... weapons of war and killing are actually tools of peace and love.
            Every year people gather in Hiroshima in "thank god for nukes or many people

            • by bonehead (6382)

              Your thinking is shallow.

              At the end of the day, there is no such thing as a weapon of war. There are just weapons. There is no such thing as a tool of peace. There are just tools.

              They are all just objects. Like pebbles or fallen branches. The don't *do* anything. They just exist. That's all. They don't endorse causes or have a political agenda. They just sit there and exist, perfectly content to do absolutely nothing and be perfectly harmless for the rest of eternity.

              What matters is *who* has posse

              • by denzacar (181829)

                Your thinking is beyond delusional.

                Other than waging war what is the everyday use of tanks, artillery shells, nuclear submarines, grenades, bombs, high caliber bullets, biological and chemical weapons, flame throwers and Gatling guns? Just to name a few.

                They are all just objects. Like pebbles or fallen branches.

                Here... try this fun mental exercise.
                Someone sends you flowers. No card or anything.
                Next day someone sends you a spent 9 mm casing.

                Did those flowers suddenly become a possible sinister threat or has that spent casing become romantic?
                Feel free to switch the o

        • by rossdee (243626)

          Nuclear weapons don't work that way, You can't take some of the Uranium or Plutonium out and make a smaller yeild weapon.

          In fact the warheads in the US strategic arsenal have Thermonuclear warheads (hydrogen bombs) with a small nuclear fission trigger. If you take out some of the fissile material in the trigger its not going to go boom at all.

      • by prefec2 (875483)

        The problem with people who have nuclear weapons is that they tend to bully around in other areas. The US would act much more to its actual proportions if it were not backed by nuclear weapons. The same goes for all the other jerks with nuclear weapons.

        Beside that. The US could easily dismantle have of their arsenal without jeopardizing their present strategic
        "advantage".

  • Given all the governmental fuck-ups lately, I'm surprised we haven't seen any missiles being launched inadvertently.

    • They probably continue to apply lessons learned long ago [yarchive.net]. Unfortunately technology screw-ups are often easier to fix than policy screw-ups, or "you have to pass the bill to see what's in it," and we can only guess what will happen.

    • by denzacar (181829)

      Well... we're really not supposed to look. Nothing to see here, move along. [wikipedia.org]

      All is fine. After all... almost no one dies in those accidents even when they do happen.

      September 18, 1980 â" At about 6:30 p.m., an airman conducting maintenance on a USAF Titan-II missile at Little Rock Air Force Base's Launch Complex 374-7 in Southside (Van Buren County), just north of Damascus, Arkansas, dropped a socket from a socket wrench, which fell about 80 feet (24 m) before hitting and piercing the skin on the rocket's first-stage fuel tank, causing it to leak. The area was evacuated. At about 3:00 a.m., on September 19, 1980, the hypergolic fuel exploded. The W53 warhead landed about 100 feet (30 m) from the launch complex's entry gate; its safety features operated correctly and prevented any loss of radioactive material. An Air Force airman was killed and the launch complex was destroyed.

      And then... there are things like this, [latimes.com] which is not on the list above because it was not a nuclear accident.
      Only a regular accident and a malfunction that still required the military to try to stop a nuclear launch by parking an armored car on top of the silo.

      And these were just misplaced. [washingtonpost.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...the nation doesn’t need much more than 1,000 deployed strategic nuclear weapons to maintain a “strong and credible” deterrent against the possibility of a nuclear attack.

    A THOUSAND warheads are needed as a deterrent? I would think a few dozen at most in case China gets a bit bold. But there's a few more decades of wealth transfer from the US Middle Class to China, so it's not going to happen.

    A couple is more than enough for N. Korea. France and England won't use theirs ever - let alone on us. And Israel, well, bombing the US would be like bombing themselves.

    And Russia? Please. They're having too great of a time now NOT being a World power which is a lesson we in the US sh

    • A THOUSAND warheads are needed as a deterrent? I would think a few dozen at most in case China gets a bit bold.

      Its not about the number of missiles that you start the day with, its about the number of missiles that are left after you have been hit in a first strike.

      The reason for such a large number of warheads is survivability. No weapon is 100% effective. However lets assume a hypothetical weapon that destroys its target 99% of the time. If this weapon is used to attack 1,000 warheads then 10 warheads will survive and be available for a counterattack. This is the mathematics of MAD. No matter how badly you are

      • by Alioth (221270)

        The thing is an aggressor who launches a first strike is committing suicide even if you don't retaliate. The nuclear winter will kill them.

        Recent studies have shown that the original 1980s nuclear winter theory was in actual fact optimistic, in reality had the USSR and NATO exchanged, "nuclear winter" would have been a misnomer, really "nuclear six month long night followed by 10 year nuclear winter" would be more accurate with daylight levels not even reaching that of a moonlit night. A simulation was also

      • This argument only makes sense without the boomers. With the boomers there's just no justification of a huge stockpile of nukes. The boomers alone can level every major military base and major city in Russia and are still left with 2/3rds of their capacity. In reality they would be tasked with striking targets in doubles, such that even if a number of them were destroyed prior to launching it would still be doom for Russia. And would in the end still be left with a lots of extra nukes to finish the job if r

  • Sadly, the military will strongly object, claiming they must retain the ability to annihilate civilization 50 or 60 times over. "To protect us."
    • by nurb432 (527695)

      And they are correct. Pansy ass.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The thing about nukes and MAD is that it is counterintuitive. To have peace in a world with nukes you actually need more than 1x the amount required to have a robust counterstrike. When nuclear disarmament reaches so called reasonable levels say UK,France, China levels the danger is actually greater since you slip below the megadeath that has kept chemical weapons and nukes deeply inside national pockets for almost 100 years. As long as there is a superpower who is not worried about a decapitation strike

  • Do you have any idea how much it takes to create weapons grade uranium? Umm no.

  • by HornWumpus (783565) on Saturday February 22, 2014 @12:44PM (#46311393)

    Russians got stiffed.

    I know a lady who worked for the company at the time.

    She also got stiffed to the tune of 10K un-reimbursed travel expenses.

    But nothing like the Ruskys. Who learned the hard way about western bankruptcy laws.

    BTW the company owner is still wanted in Russia, but what he did is not illegal in the USA, so no extradition.

    • Any sources for this? I don't see any mention of MTs to MWs in the various articles about the bankruptcy or any mention of the Russians as creditors.

      • The dude now owns a big chunk on the Colorado Rockies. I should be posting anon...but I like to live dangerously.

        My source was a former employee, she stated the scam ran to a cool billion. I don't think there are any American journalists who dug into this. Perhaps a Rusky source. I understand they are still butt hurt.

  • Massively wasteful (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22, 2014 @12:52PM (#46311431)

    To take highly enriched U235 or Plutonium, that has cost 100k's per kg to produce, and convert it to a lower grade fuel. Even if you don't like nuclear weapons there are myriad potential future non-military uses that may crop up that will need highly enriched fuels, like:

    Nuclear interplanetary rockets, Space nuclear power reactors, nuclear aircraft, trains,trucks, tractors, earthmovers, and (less likely) nuclear ships, where weight is critical or small size for shielding or safe containment in event of a crash is critical. We are going to run out of fossil fuel eventually and will still need high density power sources for transportation and primary production.

    In the case of aircraft, nuclear power may offer the only long term solution for transporting billions of wealthy future-humans around the world at the high speeds they will demand without fucking up the stratosphere like any combustion based propulsion does.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by ColdWetDog (752185)

      Wow. A post from the 1950's. I didn't think we even had computers then.

    • by blindseer (891256)

      Are you serious? Nuclear powered aircraft? I can see nuclear powered ships, even trains, but not anything that flies. Nuclear power gets more efficient the bigger it is. That makes it perfect for things like ships at sea. The bigger the ship the less material it takes for the cargo carried. The bigger the ship the less crew needed for the cargo carried. The bigger the ship the smoother the ride. That is why we already have nuclear powered ships at sea.

      Things that need to be fast need to be light. R

  • by tlambert (566799) on Saturday February 22, 2014 @12:58PM (#46311455)

    They already were, as part of the first program. US HEU was also converted, mostly from stocks, since the U.S. primarily uses Plutonium bombs, both as fission warheads, and as triggers for fusion warheads.

    Addressing the suggestion itself:

    The HEU supply available from weapons is now too low to deal with demands of the power industry, which is why the program came to the negotiated close that it did in the first place.

    The U.S. generally could deal with both the fuel availability problem and the Plutonium weapons "problem" by:

    (1) fuel reprocessing, which was disallowed by executive order of then-president Jimmy Carter, This would solve the "nuclear waste" problem at the same time, as it's not actually "waste", it's actually "unreprocessed nuclear fuel".

    (2) use of Plutonium reactors which could utilize said Plutonium in the first place (which would imply breeder/fast breeder reactors, which the U.S. doesn't build due to it's non-proliferation stance, which appears to be successful, since North Korea... er... wait...

    (3) another START treaty involving both Russia and China, so that the warhead reductions would be mutual. The current number of warheads is approximately those needed to implement the Brookings Institute's M.A.D. policy in the first place, since you pretty much have to drop a warhead within 100m of a hardened target to ensure the destruction of the target, and there are that many hardened targets. Nuclear weapons aren't magical in their ability to destroy -- in fact, the cluster bombs and fuel-air explosives we've been using in Iraq and Afghanistan have considerably more explosive power than tactical nuclear weapons.

    So in all, the proposal is unworkable until you reverse a U.S. fuel reprocessing policy set by executive order, reverse a U.S. reactor technology policy set by executive order, and then engage in arms reductions talks with people who are currently not on very good speaking terms with us due to recent foreign policy decisions.

    • by nojayuk (567177)

      President Carter's reprocessing ban was in fact overturned by President Reagan. It costs money, lots of it, to reprocess spent fuel and the money to build commercial reprocessing plants wasn't forthcoming until about fifteen years ago when DoE funding was advanced to build a MOX fuel fabrication plant in South Carolina. The pricetag is now $5 billion, the plant is still unfinished and there are no confirmed customers for its MOX fuel in the US despite, it is claimed, generous subsidies. As far as I know the

      • As for the START process it can take a decade or more to get something both countries can agree to -- President Obama signed off on the latest START agreement but it was begun by President Bush after the groundwork had been laid in President Clinton's term. The US (and Russia too) have to consider there are other unfriendly nuclear powers in existence today such as China with limited stocks of weapons but with intercontinental range. America's ready-for-use stockpile of about 2,000 deliverable warheads has to be able to deter more than Russia.

        This is a crucial thing to remember......any nuclear weapons strategy that ignores China is ignoring the reality of the modern world. It's not just Russia and the US anymore.

      • by tlambert (566799)

        The French Super-Phenix breeder was intended to produce 1.2GW of electricity but it suffered problems and delays and was eventually shut down in part due to economic factors. Other breeders have had similar problems over the decades.

        We should come right out and say that the economic factors leading to the shutdown were largely driven by Greenpeace, and that the economic factors in most use of nuclear energy projects are driven by political, rather than engineering issues.

        • by nojayuk (567177) on Saturday February 22, 2014 @02:26PM (#46311823)

          Ummm, no. The economic factor for Super-Phenix shutting down was that it was an engineering prototype that pushed the envelope a bit too far in various directions. It broke in interesting ways, some due to the liquid sodium coolant, some because of the very intense neutron flux in a very small volume. The fact that the Greens fired a few RPG-7s at it in its early days had little to do with its eventual shutdown. This is La Belle France, remember -- see what they did to the Rainbow Warrior for what they think of Greenpeace.

          The folks pushing next-generation breeders such as the assorted LFTRs, travelling-wave and other IFRs and the like have learned from the failures of the early breeder designs but it's likely they will run into other whoopsies themselves as they try to run productively for decades on end at 5 cents/kWh.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            While I don't think Super-Phenix was a ever going to be a success in making money by generating power. It was never given a chance to succeeded and prove it self, most of its months of inactivity where due to political opposition and administrative problems created by that opposition. Am guessing things like it took five months to get the okay to order the parts we needed six months ago and the manufacture has since gone bankrupt and we need to find and approve a new source who will also face political pres

    • by amorsen (7485)

      in fact, the cluster bombs and fuel-air explosives we've been using in Iraq and Afghanistan have considerably more explosive power than tactical nuclear weapons.

      There is no sensible need to have tactical nuclear weapons. They do nothing for MAD, since they are not all that destructive, and they just encourage proliferation.

      • by tlambert (566799)

        in fact, the cluster bombs and fuel-air explosives we've been using in Iraq and Afghanistan have considerably more explosive power than tactical nuclear weapons.

        There is no sensible need to have tactical nuclear weapons. They do nothing for MAD, since they are not all that destructive, and they just encourage proliferation.

        Your position differs with that of some of the best games theorists and strategic thinkers on the planet:

        http://www.brookings.edu/~/med... [brookings.edu]
        http://www.brookings.edu/~/med... [brookings.edu]
        http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/fi... [nrdc.org]

        I'll trust them, until I see your equivalent credentials.

        • by amorsen (7485)

          The US has pretty much given up on tactical nukes.

          Even from the first of your links: "Most allies today see U.S. tactical nuclear weapons as being of political rather than military significance".

          Russia wants tactical nuclear weapons to handle the fact that their conventional forces are inferior to both NATO and (probably) Chinese forces. They are hoping that they would be able to use those weapons in a conflict without triggering the use of strategic nuclear weapons. This is the very opposite of MAD.

  • by Karmashock (2415832) on Saturday February 22, 2014 @01:35PM (#46311633)

    The megatons to megawatts program was put in place because the USSR had fallen apart and the existing nuclear stockpiles of the old Soviet Union were in the hands of increasingly suspect generals in an increasingly corrupt and desperate situation.

    It was in that context that the US offered to buy the nuclear fuel and give Russia money.

    Compared to today... The US for all its troubles is not on the brink of civil war. Our nuclear weapons are not in danger of falling into the hands of terrorists.

    So the program has no point.

    • by DarkOx (621550)

      The Practice was never about economical source of nuclear feel as you say. It was to avoid a security nightmare where there would be large quantities of un accounted for nuclear weapons, and ideally to prop up the Russian Federation at the same time, least it become a failed state. Failure certainly did look possible in the early 90s.

      • It was economical for the Russians. It was security for the US.

        We paid them for the uranium. If it were security on both sides they would have not wanted the money.

        We paid them. It was economical for them.

    • The USA was probably the richest in uranium on earth. Now we have none, it's all gone except for a negligible amount in the grand canyon and the public is opposed to destroying grand canyon to get at it. The USA imports the stuff today.

      Yes, we do process it for others; apparently, just a single corporation does, so it's not all ending up used in our own nation. We've sold it for power and weapons for other nations. I'm sure somebody is making a billion being the middleman between India and Pakistan in a nu

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Easily dis proven:
        "Uranium mining in the United States produced 4.8 million pounds of uranium concentrate in 2013, the largest amount since 1997"
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_the_United_States

        With mines in 21 states, it is hard to imagine the scenario that you state

  • Don't they have surplus nuclear warheads? Or do you think they're going to use them all?

  • There's no shortage of reactor-grade uranium in the US. U.S. Enrichment is planning a bankruptcy due to lack of demand. URENCO's centrifuge plant in New Mexico is in full operation. New centrifuge plants are orders of magnitude cheaper to run than the old gaseous-diffusion plants like K-25 at Oak Ridge. They're also much smaller; K-25 had several mile-long buildings, while URENCO's plant is about the size of two Walmarts.

  • We still have many tons of spent fuel to recycle. About enough to power the nation for 500 years.
  • It is tempting to put that nasty stuff to a civilian use, but such a program could also be an pretext to keep up the production of weapons-grade fissile material. When conservative politicians in the 1970ies were pushing to arm West Germany with its own nuclear weapons, one of the things they did was having a breeder reactor built (thankfully it never was completed). Such a thing should definitely be avoided.
  • U.S. HEU Disposition Program [energy.gov] has been up and running for several years now.

    There are even plans for down blending weapons grade Plutonium [nytimes.com] and burning the resulting MOX fuel in various reactors.

    .

  • talking about devaluation...
  • by astar (203020)

    Being a little unhappy here. These people are in bankrupcy. Their tech is 70 years old and they cannot figure out the tech to do better. Their senators just got done raping me and everyone in the Northwest in order to try to keep them afloat.

    reactor fuel is easy and cheap to come by. And I am sure if we need some the iranians can supply us.

    But we are not even getting close here to the real deal. Damn.

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)

Working...