• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Russian Invasion of the Ukraine.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it depends how quickly they can manufacture a nuke. Fuel grade material isn't weapon grade material. I'd say that to be a nuclear power, you'd need to be ready with warhead designs, ready with some subsystems or components already manufactured, ready to process fuel into weapons, and ready with the industrial plant to finish manufacturing and assembly on a turnkey basis.

"We don't have any bombs right now, but we can easily build one in less than a month, and six a month thereafter" - you're a nuclear power.

"We could, in theory, build out a nuclear weapons manufacturing plant, start processing fuel into weapons-grade material, and get to the point of building a weapon within a year" - you're not a nuclear power. But you could in theory become one if you wanted to.

Well I looked into it and turns out there is a term for exactly what I was thinking about. It's called a "Nuclear Latent State or Latent Nuclear State" amd is loosely defined as a state that is able to quickly build nuclear weapons if it so choose to, with Japan being the most Latent Nuclear State, along with Germany and, oddly, Australia. Basically it's a country that doesn't have any technological roadblocks between it and making a nuclear weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency

Japan is so close as to sometimes be called a paranuclear state. To use my earlier metaphor Japan is almost to the point it's comparable to someone who's put the clip into the gun but not yet chambered a round.
 
Last edited:
Well I looked into it and turns out there is a term for exactly what I was thinking about. It's called a "Nuclear Latent State" is loosely defined as a state that is able to quickly build nuclear weapons if it so choose to, with Japan being the most Latent Nuclear State, along with Germany and, oddly, Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency

Japan is so close as to sometimes be called a paranuclear state. To use my earlier metaphor Japan is almost to the point it's comparable to someone who's put the clip into the gun but not yet chambered a round.

Make sense! I'm tickled there's already a cromulent term for it. Japan's purported paranuclear status has been conventional wisdom for a long time. I'm a little surprised that Australia is so close to the endgame, though.

ETA: Looks like Australia's status is due to its large-scale production of uranium:
From the 1950s to 1971 Australia produced uranium, primarily for the U.S. and UK weapons programs. When the deposits being mined were exhausted, production and exports ceased.
Large new deposits were opened for production in the late 1970s, this time only for civilian use under international safeguards. However since uranium is being exported to France, which does not separate its civilian and military nuclear programs, the exports are still supporting at least one nuclear weapons program.

Actual production began in 1981 and during the last decade Australia has become one of the world's largest producers of uranium. From mid-1985 to mid-1995 it exported 43,000 tonnes of U3O8 (uranium content 36,000 tonnes) worth almost A$3 billion, an average of 10% of world production (currently 7%). Australia has the world's largest low cost uranium reserves, about 27% of the world's estimated reserves, with 928,000 tonnes of U3O8 at a production cost of U.S. less than $80/kg U (May 1995).

Curiously for an industrialized nation that is also a major uranium supplier, Australia has no nuclear power plants. It has one 10 MW (thermal) research reactor.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7-5.html​

I wouldn't consider them latent just for that. They'd still have to whack together centrifuges, manufacturing and assembly facilities, waste disposal facilities, computer simulations, etc. "Dormant", maybe? But then any industrialized nation with a decent economy and reserves of uranium is a dormant nuclear power. To me, that stretches the meaning of the term "nuclear [armed] power" far beyond usefulness.
 
Last edited:
Are there even enough tankers for LNG shipping on that scale?

https://www.statista.com/statistics...ural gas,and 2020, figures steadily increased.

642 of them as of 2020... I saw these weird looking ships years ago when I was in Galveston TX and doing some research they were LNG ships and heading to China. Which I believe is by far the biggest market that we send LNG. But if they are repurposed to go to Germany then that means not enough to go to China and since they aren't US flagged vessels its not like we can just force them to go where we want.
 
Make sense! I'm tickled there's already a cromulent term for it. Japan's purported paranuclear status has been conventional wisdom for a long time. I'm a little surprised that Australia is so close to the endgame, though.

All of the sources are VERY clear that this definition is speaking only of pure technological resources and isn't meant to be a gauge of pro-nuclear desire or sentiment.
 
The whole "We used to own" argument is nonsense. The world would be half Russia half UK if that was even a minor factor.
 
All of the sources are VERY clear that this definition is speaking only of pure technological resources and isn't meant to be a gauge of pro-nuclear desire or sentiment.

I'm not even talking about desire or sentiment. It's pretty clear that Australia's sentiments are fairly anti-nuke. I'm just talking about technical ability and length of lead time if their attitude changes.
 
The whole "We used to own" argument is nonsense. The world would be half Russia half UK if that was even a minor factor.
Most of the western hemisphere would be Spain.

**** got real for the Russians, I've heard that Pornhub is blocking Russian ISPs and only showing them a Ukrainian flag.

Also, I'm no longer calling it Vodka, its now freedom water!
 
The whole "We used to own" argument is nonsense. The world would be half Russia half UK if that was even a minor factor.

Couldn't agree more. I just couldn't pass by that post in the early thread without comment. I'd like to see a Palin vs Putin debate on the issue.
 
Are there even enough tankers for LNG shipping on that scale?

Germany has yet to build its first liquid natural gas terminal, I understand. Three sites were proposed, and at each, there were local environmental concerns strong enough to delay decision indefinitely.
 
Action on the diplomatic front:
US just expelled 11 Russian UN delegates for espoinage activities.
And US has "suspended" it's embassy in Minsk, captial of Belerus, which is pretty much the same as breaking Diplomatic relations. Belerus is going to become a Pariah right along with Russia.
 
Action on the diplomatic front:
US just expelled 11 Russian UN delegates for espoinage activities.
And US has "suspended" it's embassy in Minsk, captial of Belerus, which is pretty much the same as breaking Diplomatic relations. Belerus is going to become a Pariah right along with Russia.

Better late than never. That should've been done when a certain airline incident occurred.
 
Germany has yet to build its first liquid natural gas terminal, I understand. Three sites were proposed, and at each, there were local environmental concerns strong enough to delay decision indefinitely.

Kind of silly, really. Germany could just turn it's nuclear power back on, assuming they haven't dismantled the plants already. Admittedly, that doesn't help with gas heating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom