Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

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_Teapot

Used 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-II




I 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).

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.

Point of order - subkiloton nuclear weapons have been widely deployed with various militaries in various roles in the past.
Also there is no technical reason you could not use 233U in a nuclear weapon - the question is, why would you want to? It has numerous technical challenges - and if you have a kilo of 233U you want to use in weapons it is probalby easier to blend it with depleted uranium and use it to manufacture weapons plutonium.

The basic problem is that you effectively have to have it to breed it. In which case, why breed it? Yes, it may be possible, but the numbers say it isn't practical.
Current weapons count:
Uranium sourced weapons: ~20,000
Thorium sourced weapons: ZERO.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)

I believe the best rebuke is in that those weapons required the use of plutonium to work. No one has tried a U-233 weapon because very few believe it would work. Those that tried to use U-233 blended with another material saw very poor results.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.