• crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    46 minutes ago

    We started the forever war with Iraq because of claims they were making this stuff, unequivocally proven false. Now we’re just giving it away to one of the most sociopathic psychopaths on the planet. This won’t end well.

  • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 minutes ago

    “Weapons grade” is actually more stable and less prone to blowing up without constant management, who knew?

    Nothing-burger.

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 hours ago

    ChatGPT is going to nuke my house for repeatedly asking it if there’s a seahorse emoji.

    In all seriousness though, I assume it’s for nuclear power to satisfy the exponentially growing need for electricity, but if we’re going to be building reactors they should be powering the grid and reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, not privately owned reactors for corporations.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Now I’m wondering if plants that are designed to run enriched uranium will have to be totally rejiggered or it’s a relatively simple change.

    • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 minutes ago

      That’s what we’ve been trying to tell the world about Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and even Cuba. That last one’s strategically debatable, but for the rest “we should treat it as an attack” was a lie then.

      Its no more or less of a lie now. Encouraging other countries to embrace reactionary foreign policy is no more of a good idea than following the US’ lead on the matter.

      • verdigris@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 minutes ago

        Um, you have drawn the wrong conclusion from your mostly correct observations. The US has been the threat to real world peace (as opposed to coercing consensus from the Western world through defense compacts) the entire time.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    On Tuesday, the US Department of Energy (DOE) launched an application for interested parties to apply for access to a maximum of 19 metric tonnes — a little under 42,000 pounds — of weapons-grade plutonium, which has long been a key resource undergirding the US nuclear arsenal.

    42,000 pounds of weapons grade plutonium…

    Fat man was around 15lbs…

    So this would be enough to make ~2,800 nuclear bombs of similar strength to put into context how much this is.

    • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 minutes ago

      Ah. Well. Now I know how they’re funding themselves.

      They’re illegally selling weapons grade plutonium to sanctioned countries, PMCs, rebel groups, and if I had to guess other companies in general to start the next step of a cyber punk dystopia: armed corporate conflict.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        3 hours ago

        The whole thing is insane…

        Like, “we” don’t even let some countries have nuclear reactors, because it can (over decades) result in a couple ounces of this shit.

        And we’re giving double digit metric tons to some crazy chatbot brain rotted billionaire.

        The amount of fucked this is can not be understated. This is something worse than we’ve started 20 year wars over

  • FishFace@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Article talks about energy but not why they’re using weapons grade plutonium for that purpose. Anyone got an informed reason?

  • Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I also posted this here a few days ago and it got deleted. Hurrah if it remains, it’s worth a post here!

  • meco03211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Is there a functional difference between “weapons grade” plutonium and the plutonium that would be used in a nuclear reactor?

    • Kirp123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Yes.

      From Wikipedia:

      Plutonium is identified as either weapons-grade, fuel-grade, or reactor-grade based on the percentage of 240Pu that it contains. Weapons-grade plutonium contains less than 7% 240Pu. Fuel-grade plutonium contains 7%–19%, and power reactor-grade contains 19% or more 240Pu. Supergrade plutonium, with less than 4% of 240Pu, is used in United States Navy weapons stored near ship and submarine crews, due to its lower radioactivity.

      Weapon Grade Plutonium has lower concentration because Plutonium has a high rate of spontaneous decay which means it leads to issues with detonations in bombs.

    • eerongal@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Yes, actually. They’re both different mixes of plutonium isotopes. Iirc reactor grade plutonium is far more stable than weapons grade (because blowing up is less desirable for reactors than bombs), and has some different properties when used.

      • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 minutes ago

        You’ve got it backwards. Weapons-grade is more stable. Less stability is fine for reactors, because they are designed to manage the reaction on an on-going basis and not, in general, blow up.

    • minnow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Yes, “weapons grade” has a higher purity being almost entirely made of fissile isotope Pu-239

      “Reactor grade” has a greater variety of isotopes.

      The functional difference is that the higher purity is required to make nuclear bombs, hence “weapons grade.” Purity was a significant hurdle in nuclear arms development and one if the reasons the US got the bomb before Germany or the USSR which both struggled to get sufficient purity.

  • ThePantser@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I’ve been saying all along, a name like Sam Altman is obviously an android here from the future to ensure the rise of Skynet. Why else would an AI need nuclear weapons?

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    GPT will know what to do with it, and keep track of how much ot has.

    … actually maybe GPT will be sent to the nearest habitable planet as an tool for preparing aliens for human contact, or just a peaceful info exchange.