matthewwight wrote:
I am in a debate and the other individual claims, because operation teapot MET and India's Shakti V used U-233 that it proves it's potential to be weaponized.
How can I best rebuke this?
The US operation Teapot MET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_TeapotUsed a hybrid core of Pu-239 and U-233.
The expected yield was 33kt and the actual yield was 22kt.
India's Shakti V supposedly was a very low yield 0.2kt U-233 weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokhran-III am not able to find much if anything on Shakti V, I am unsure if it was a hybrid Pu-239 U-233 core like MET, or not.
0.2 kt = 200 tons of TNT equivalent. All operational nuclear weapons have at least 1000 times more yield to be conservative (200kt). Doesn't matter if it was a pure U233 or hybrid, all operational Indian nukes don't use U233.
The basic issue here is that there are no known operational nuclear weapons in anybody's arsenal using U233.
That should be the core point that drives the discussion. Th232/U233 is great for thermal spectrum nuclear (power generation), but a nuclear weapon is fast spectrum only, and that's where Plutonium works better (3+ neutrons per fission fast, vs 1.9 neutrons per fission thermal).