/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>23383128
A "limited" nuclear war with only a few sub-1mt warheads thrown around at military targets would be not be a total world ender, probably comparable to the damage/cost of a major hurricane (think katrina/sandy) or earthquake.

a total nuclear war between say, the US and Russia or China would be a nasty event tho. once you get the counter-value targets being hit then you are looking at Armageddon type stuff.

t.

>>23303997
Maybe overseas demand? I think in the US we have one powerplant coming online in Utah? There is *one* enrichment plant in the US (southern New Mexico)

As for nuclear weapons, we haven't produced plutonium for weapons in 30 years. The current stockpile has more than enough Plutonium to last another century. The "pits" can be reworked after they decay and misshapen due to heat.

>>22587987
+ this plus there are fundamental limits to how small fissile material can be shrunk down before it just warms things instead of actively starts P/ fission cycles