The head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog on Sunday described a "shifting of gears" in the controversy over Iran's nuclear program, and said inspectors would visit the country's new uranium processing site Oct. 25.
Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke in Tehran following talks with Iranian officials over the recently-revealed facility that has caused consternation around to world over the extent and purpose of Iran's nuclear program.
"I see that we are at a critical moment, I see that we are shifting gears from confrontation into transparency and cooperation," said ElBaradei as he announced the new inspection date.
"I hope and trust Iran will be helpful with our inspectors so it is possible for us to be able to assess our verification of the facility as early as possible," he added, while sitting next to Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's nuclear program.
The news came shortly after The New York Times reported on its Web site Saturday night that, according to a confidential analysis by the U.N.'s nuclear regulatory agency, Iran has obtained "sufficient information" required to design and manufacture an atomic bomb.
While IAEA staff members declare their findings are tentative and require further investigation and confirmation, their conclusions, said the Times, go further than the public statements of the United States and other governments.
The leaked IAEA report, on top of ElBaradei's arrival in Tehran to arrange inspections of recently-revealed nuclear facility in Qom, "is sure to put pressure on the Obama administration to require Iran to disclose the bigger picture of all its uranium enrichment facilities and allow for inspection," said CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk, based at the U.N., "and that runs counter to the denials of secrecy coming from Tehran."
The revelation that Iran has been building a new nuclear plant near the holy city of Qom has heightened the concern of the U.S. and many of its allies, which suspect Tehran is using a civilian nuclear program as a cover for developing a weapons-making capability.
Iran denies such an aim, saying it only wants to generate energy.
Suspicion that Iran's newly-revealed nuclear site is meant for military purposes was heightened by its location - at least partly inside a mountain and next to a military base.
President Obama and the leaders of France and Britain accused Iran of keeping the construction hidden from the world for years. The U.S. president said last month that Iran's actions "raised grave doubts" about its promise to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only.
"Mr. Obama made a great mistake," said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "a historic mistake."
Iran agreed to allow U.N. inspectors into the facility at a landmark meeting with six world powers near Geneva on Thursday that put nuclear talks back on track and included the highest-level bilateral contact with the U.S. in three decades.
"The major breakthrough from the first diplomatic talks between Iran and the U.S. in decades, is that the Iranian government will allow international inspectors into the newly-discovered nuclear facility in Qom, in Iran," Falk said.
"Perhaps buying time, or perhaps heading into a better period of U.S.-Iran relations, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters here at the U.N. that the talks in Geneva were constructive, that they would continue, and that Iran would like a summit level meeting with world powers," said Falk.
Iranian officials argue that under IAEA safeguard rules, a member nation is required to inform the U.N. agency about the existence of a nuclear facility six months before introducing nuclear material into the machines. Iran said the new facility won't be operational for 18 months, and so it has not violated any IAEA requirements.
"Mr. Obama made a great mistake, a historic mistake," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday, claiming that instead of trying to keep the site secret, Iran willfully revealed its existence one year before it was legally required to, "out of respect for law."
"Later it became clear that (Obama's) information was wrong and that we had no secrecy," Ahmadinejad said. White House spokesman Tom Vietor said the administration had no comment on Ahmadinejad's remarks.
On Sunday ElBaradei (left) admitted that the IAEA has "concerns about Iran's future intentions," but added that "the agency has no concrete proof of an ongoing weapons program in Iran.
"We need transparency on the part of Iran and we need cooperation on the part of the international community," he said.
But in Geneva earlier this week, there appeared to be historic progress in talks between the Iranians and 6 world powers.
The Iranians not only said IAEA inspectors could visit the secret plant within 2 weeks, they also agreed in principle to cooperate with Russia and France on a sensitive uranium enrichment project, and announced they'd be back to negotiate further.
The deal that was struck in Geneva on Thursday represents progress of sorts, said CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer. At least it shows the Iranians are willing to talk about their secretive nuclear program, but there's no doubt the really hard bargaining is about to begin.
Some analysts think the regime is counting on nuclear negotiations with the West to shore up support at home for a government whose legitimacy is not recognized by millions of its own citizens, after weeks of extreme violence following Iran's June elections.
"The message that the regime wanted to send back to Iran [is] that, no matter what you think or how we are treating you, at the end of the day the international community will speak to us and not support you," said Nazenin Ansari, Diplomatic Editor of Kayhan Newspaper.
Palmer said Western diplomats know the nuclear talks - due to start again before the end of the month - might send this signal to a discouraged reform movement.
But at the moment, they say, the priority is to make sure Iran does not develop a nuclear bomb.
Also on Sunday, ElBaradei discussed a plan to allow Russia to take some of Iran's processed uranium and enrich it to higher levels to fuel a research reactor in Tehran.
He said that there would be a meeting Oct. 19 in Vienna with Iran, the U.S., France and Russia to discuss the details of that agreement.
The Obama administration, together with the U.S. Congress, is drawing up plans for tough new sanctions if the talks with Iran show signs of faltering. Obama said the new penalties could target Iran's energy, financial and telecommunications sectors.
A congressional committee will hold a hearing Tuesday on the possibility of expanding sanctions to cover a wider range of financial transactions, including a new ban on exporting refined petroleum to Iran.
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Ling Ao Simulator, Up and running...
The full-scope simulator (FSS) at Phase II of the Ling Ao nuclear power plant in China has entered into service and is now being used to train operators, the simulator's supplier L-3 MAPPS has reported.
 |
The Ling Ao Phase II simulator (Image: L-3 MAPPS) |
L-3 MAPPS was awarded the contract to supply the simulator at Phase II (units 3 and 4) of the Ling Ao plant in December 2005. The company, in cooperation with Areva and Siemens, successfully delivered and installed the FSS in August 2009, following closely behind the full scope classroom simulator (CRS) for Ling Ao Phase II that was put into service in May 2009. Both simulators are located at the Daya Bay Training Centre, which also houses the Ling Ao Phase I and Daya Bay simulators.
Integrated with Areva- and Siemens-supplied DCSs, replica control room panels and stimulated human-machine interface, the Ling Ao Phase II full-scope simulator features L-3 MAPPS' advanced instructor station capabilities and Windows-based graphical simulation environment providing advanced thermal-hydraulic, reactor, balance of plant, electrical, and instrumentation and control (I&C) models for the turbine control and other miscellaneous systems not controlled by the Areva/Siemens DCSs. L-3 MAPPS said that this is its first FSS for a new nuclear power plant which is completely controlled by distributed control systems (DCSs).
The Ling Ao Phase II plant, owned by Ling Dong Nuclear Power Co, comprises the first two CPR1000 reactors that will be put into service. They are scheduled to start up in 2010. The CPR1000 is a Chinese standard design featuring a 1080 MWe three-loop pressurized water reactor (PWR), whose design is coordinated by China Nuclear Power Engineering Co (CNPEC).
Zhang Ruiqiong, vice chief engineer at CNPEC, commented: "We are very pleased with the new simulators which allow us to extend our operator training capabilities during the commissioning of the plant." He added, "The advanced simulation and DCS technology will also benefit us for overall plant and DCS design considerations going forward."
L-3 MAPPS has also won contracts to supply two simulators for four CPR1000 units planned at the Hongyanhe nuclear power plant in China's Liaoning province. L-3 MAPPS is providing the process simulation and virtual back-up panels for the new Hongyanhe simulators with Mitsubishi Electric supplying safety-related digital control systems. China Techergy is to provide non-safety digital control systems and a Beijing staging facility for testing.
Somerset prepares for new nuclear
The south western English county of Somerset is engaging with new nuclear build through a consultation and a new training centre, all related to the forthcoming Hinkley Point C.
 |
| A new neighbour is planned for Hinkley Point A and B (Image: Richard Baker) |
EDF Energy launched its local consultation on plans to build two Areva EPR units alongside four existing reactors at Hinkley Point.
Hinkley Point A was a Magnox nuclear power plant built in the mid 1960s and is now shut down; Hinkley Point B was based on Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors which are to shut down in 2016. Hinkley Point C could begin construction in 2012 and supply 6% of the UK's power supply before 2020. UK energy minister Lord Hunt said: "As we head towards a global agreement to tackle climate change, the UK needs to transform its energy sector, replacing old infrastructure with high-tech, low carbon energy sources."
EDF Energy's 'initial proposals and options' cover the immediate effects of the new power plant on the local area as well as the those of an influx of workers to local towns and villages. Up to 4800 people could be required at the peak of construction and this is bound to have both positive and negative effects within local communities. Certain rights of way would be affected and there would be extra heavy traffic and noise, although sea deliveries to a temporary jetty will avoid some disruption.
EDF's proposals to mitigate these effects are summarised in the consultation document and local people can comment until 11 January 2010. The company will then prepare an application to build and submit it to the new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), which will also consider the recent National Policy Statement on the need for nuclear power. EDF plans to begin preparing the site before the end of 2010, subject to separate local permission.
The IPC is meant to reach a decision within one year, and subject to a favourable outcome from the Health and Safety Executive's assessment of the EPR design in June 2011, construction could start in early 2012. The plan is for the first reactor to operate before the end of 2017 with the second following about 18 months later. They are meant to operate for at least 60 years, with about 25 years for decommissioning. EDF Energy is also seeking local views on the landscaping of the site once the reactors are completely removed.
Skills centre
Nearby Bridgewater College is preparing for an increase in nuclear work in the area. It already offers courses in nuclear decommissioning, but has recently been awarded £4 million ($6.7 million) to launch the South West Energy Skills Centre.
Part of the money will come from the South West Regional Development Agency, with the aim of providing "high quality specialist training facilities in science, engineering and specialist construction to meet industry standards for a skilled competent and safe nuclear workforce."
Another major contribution is from the Learning and Skills Council, with more still from the college itself. Magnox South Ltd has donated £200,000 ($335,000) of simulator equipment, while EDF Energy and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority also support the project.
Modern Air Combat Weapon
Many modern weapon systems are included: 18 types of air-to-air missiles (AIM-120C AMRAAM, AIM-54C Phoenix, AIM-7M Sparrow, AIM-9M Sidewinder, R-500 MAGIC, R-23R, R-23T, R-27EM, R-27ER, R-27ET, R-27R, R-27T, R-33, R-40R, R-40T, R-60, R-73, R-77);
27 air-to-ground missiles: (AGM-45 Shrike, AGM-65B Maverick, AGM-65D Maverick, AGM-65E Maverick, AGM-84A Harpoon, AGM-84E Slam, AGM-86, AGM-88 HARM, R-530, Kh-15, Kh-22, Kh-23, Kh-23L, Kh-25ML, Kh-25MP, Kh-25MR, Kh-28, Kh-29L, Kh-29T, Kh-31, Kh-35, Kh-41, Kh-55, Kh-58, Kh-59M, Kh-65);
11 types of air-to-ground rockets" (LAU-10, LAU-61, B-20, S-13, S-24, S-25, S-5, S-8, UB-13, UB-32, Hydra-70);
17 surface-to-air missiles: (AGM-78 STANDARD, MIM-104, I-Hawk, Roland, 9M38M1, 48H6E2, 5B55, 9M82, 9M83, 3M9M, Igla, 9M31, 9M333, 9M330, 9M331, 5B27, V-611);
10 surface-to-surface missiles (AGM-84S Harpoon, P-500 Bazalt, Tomahawk, P-700 Granit, Konkurs, Malutka, 9M53, 9M27, 9M55, Penquin, 9M114);
35 types of air bombs (AGM-123 Skipper, AGM-54 JSOW, CBU-97, GBU-10, GBU-12, GBU-15, GBU-16, GBU-22, GBU-24, GBU-27, GBU-28, M-117, Mk82, Mk84, Rockeye, DURANDAL, BETAB-250, BETAB-500, BETAB-500SP, FAB-100, FAB-250, FAB-500, FAB-5000, GL-BOMBA, KAB-1500, KAB-500, KAB-500 T, KMGU-2, ODAB, PB-250, RBK-250, RBK-250ShOAB, RBK-500AO, RBK-500ShOAB, ZAB, ZAB-500);
12 types of electronic counter measures (ALQ-131, LANTIRN, Pavetack, Sorbcija, SPS-141, Tangazh, SHPIL, KINGAL, FANTASMAGORIA, ETHER, SKY SHADOW, BOZ-100).
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq
WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.
“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”
In 92 pages posted online Monday evening, Duelfer provides a final look at an investigation that occupied over 1,000 military and civilian translators, weapons specialists and other experts at its peak. His latest addenda conclude a roughly 1,500-page report released last fall.
On Monday, Duelfer said there is no purpose in keeping many of the detainees who are in custody because of their knowledge on Iraq’s weapons, although he did not provide any details about the current number. A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the ultimate decision on their release will be made by the Iraqi authorities.
Warnings about Saddam’s experts
The survey group also provided warnings.
The addenda conclude that Saddam’s programs created a pool of experts now available to develop and produce weapons and many will be seeking work. While most will probably turn to the “benign civil sector,” the danger remains that “hostile foreign governments, terrorists or insurgents may seek Iraqi expertise.”
“Because a single individual can advance certain WMD activities, it remains an important concern,” one addendum said.
Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. In an insurgent’s hands, “the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives,” another addendum said.
And still another said the survey group found some potential nuclear-related equipment was “missing from heavily damaged and looted sites.” Yet, because of the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the survey group was unable to determine what happened to the equipment, which also had alternate civilian uses.
“Some of it probably has been sold for its scrap value. Other pieces might have been disassembled” and converted into motors or condensers, an addendum said. “Still others could have been taken intact to preserve their function.”
Small team still in place
Leaving the door to the investigation open just a crack, the U.S. official said a small team still operates under the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq, although the survey group officially disbanded earlier this month. Those staying on continue to examine documents and follow up on any reports of weapons of mass destruction.
In a statement accompanying the final installment, Duelfer said a surprise discovery would most likely be in the biological weapons area because clues, such as the size of the facilities used to develop them, would be comparatively small.
Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn’t able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation limited and later halted their work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to Syria.
No information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes “it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.”
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.
“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”
In 92 pages posted online Monday evening, Duelfer provides a final look at an investigation that occupied over 1,000 military and civilian translators, weapons specialists and other experts at its peak. His latest addenda conclude a roughly 1,500-page report released last fall.
On Monday, Duelfer said there is no purpose in keeping many of the detainees who are in custody because of their knowledge on Iraq’s weapons, although he did not provide any details about the current number. A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the ultimate decision on their release will be made by the Iraqi authorities.
Warnings about Saddam’s experts
The survey group also provided warnings.
The addenda conclude that Saddam’s programs created a pool of experts now available to develop and produce weapons and many will be seeking work. While most will probably turn to the “benign civil sector,” the danger remains that “hostile foreign governments, terrorists or insurgents may seek Iraqi expertise.”
“Because a single individual can advance certain WMD activities, it remains an important concern,” one addendum said.
Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. In an insurgent’s hands, “the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives,” another addendum said.
And still another said the survey group found some potential nuclear-related equipment was “missing from heavily damaged and looted sites.” Yet, because of the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the survey group was unable to determine what happened to the equipment, which also had alternate civilian uses.
“Some of it probably has been sold for its scrap value. Other pieces might have been disassembled” and converted into motors or condensers, an addendum said. “Still others could have been taken intact to preserve their function.”
Small team still in place
Leaving the door to the investigation open just a crack, the U.S. official said a small team still operates under the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq, although the survey group officially disbanded earlier this month. Those staying on continue to examine documents and follow up on any reports of weapons of mass destruction.
In a statement accompanying the final installment, Duelfer said a surprise discovery would most likely be in the biological weapons area because clues, such as the size of the facilities used to develop them, would be comparatively small.
Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn’t able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation limited and later halted their work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to Syria.
No information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes “it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.”
U.S. Nuclear Weapon Enduring Stockpile
The U.S. nuclear arsenal is divided into three levels of stockpile readiness. These are:
* Operationally Deployed: These are active stockpile (fully operational) weapons and mated with delivery systems such that they are ready to be used in combat. All warheads counted under arms limitation agreements belong to this category.
* Active Stockpile: Fully operational weapons, available for immediate use, whether or not they are operationally deployed. Reasons for an active stockpile weapon to not be operationally deployed include:
o Its assigned to a delivery system is not currently operational (in particular ballistic missile submarines spend one-third of their time not on patrol),
o It is a spare for deployed warheads (should a deployed warhead require maintenance, for example), and
o It is part of the responsive force -- an inventory of warheads that are kept in operational condition (tritium reservoirs installed, etc.) to permit immediate deployment (for example to upload the number of wartheads on a ballistic missile, or reloads for bomber aircraft).
* Inactive Reserve: Weapons that are kept intact, but are not maintained in operational condition. This means that limited life components are removed from the weapons and may not be available to immediately return them to service. "Limited life components" principally mean tritium-containing components such as tritium reservoirs and neutron generator tubes. Some weapons currently in this category (e.g. the W84) will be dismantled.
At the beginning of 2007 the U.S. nuclear arsenal was composed of eight types of nuclear warheads (in thirteen variant mods) that are operationally deployed, with an estiamted count of 5,736 active stockpile warheads. For the first time the 2007 Annual Report on Implementation of the Moscow Treaty listed the aggregate number of U.S. operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads which as of 31 December 2006 stood at 3,696. No official breakdown of this number is available, however if one assumes that ICBMs have 95% availability, 66% of SLBMs are on patrol, and 90% of bombers are on-duty with their full combat load, then this tally exactly matches the offical operational count.
One of the active warheads (the W87) is currently being redeployed (replacing the W62) after having been taken off of operational duty in the 1990s.
There are also 589 warheads of two types that are inactive, these are not kept in operational condition and one of these warheads (the W84) is slated to be completely dismantled.
The total number of warheads of all levels of readiness stands at 9,962 warheads. It should be pointed out that although precise numbers are cited here to keep tallies consistent and avoid cumulative rounding errors, they are in fact approximations. Even if exact numbers were available for one specific moment in time, continuing stockpile changes as a result of deployment shifts and inspection and maintenance actions causes actual numbers to fluctuate.
The total megatonnage of the deployed nuclear arsenal is about 1,430 Mt (but this is influenced by the choice of deployed weapons for bombers); for the entire active arsenal it is 2,330 Mt. The all-time high point in explosive yield was in 1960 when the U.S. held 20,491 Mt in its stockpile. The size of nuclear arsenals are often evaluated using "equivalent megatonnage" a scaling procedure that compensates for the fact that smaller explosions cause relatively more blast destructive for the amount of explosive energy released. An EMt value of one indicates the destructive effect of one 1 megaton bomb. Since most warheads in the U.S. arsenal are much less than one megaton this measure results in a larger value than the raw megatonnage. Using this measure the destructiveness of the deployed arsenal becomes 2,090 EMt, and the total active arsenal 3,405 EMt.
The United States has produced about 70,000 nuclear weapons of 72 major types since their invention. At the end of the Cold War in 1991 the United States had an active arsenal of some 23,000 weapons of 26 major types. Since that time actual nuclear warhead production has been completely shut down in the U.S., although warhead modification, retrofit, and maintenance activities continue. Much of the original nuclear weapons manufacturing infrastructure has been dismantled, and the focus of the remaining nuclear infrastructure has shifted to maintaining and extending the life of the remaining weapons, as well as dismantling surplus weapons.
The details information please go to this
* Operationally Deployed: These are active stockpile (fully operational) weapons and mated with delivery systems such that they are ready to be used in combat. All warheads counted under arms limitation agreements belong to this category.
* Active Stockpile: Fully operational weapons, available for immediate use, whether or not they are operationally deployed. Reasons for an active stockpile weapon to not be operationally deployed include:
o Its assigned to a delivery system is not currently operational (in particular ballistic missile submarines spend one-third of their time not on patrol),
o It is a spare for deployed warheads (should a deployed warhead require maintenance, for example), and
o It is part of the responsive force -- an inventory of warheads that are kept in operational condition (tritium reservoirs installed, etc.) to permit immediate deployment (for example to upload the number of wartheads on a ballistic missile, or reloads for bomber aircraft).
* Inactive Reserve: Weapons that are kept intact, but are not maintained in operational condition. This means that limited life components are removed from the weapons and may not be available to immediately return them to service. "Limited life components" principally mean tritium-containing components such as tritium reservoirs and neutron generator tubes. Some weapons currently in this category (e.g. the W84) will be dismantled.
At the beginning of 2007 the U.S. nuclear arsenal was composed of eight types of nuclear warheads (in thirteen variant mods) that are operationally deployed, with an estiamted count of 5,736 active stockpile warheads. For the first time the 2007 Annual Report on Implementation of the Moscow Treaty listed the aggregate number of U.S. operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads which as of 31 December 2006 stood at 3,696. No official breakdown of this number is available, however if one assumes that ICBMs have 95% availability, 66% of SLBMs are on patrol, and 90% of bombers are on-duty with their full combat load, then this tally exactly matches the offical operational count.
One of the active warheads (the W87) is currently being redeployed (replacing the W62) after having been taken off of operational duty in the 1990s.
There are also 589 warheads of two types that are inactive, these are not kept in operational condition and one of these warheads (the W84) is slated to be completely dismantled.
The total number of warheads of all levels of readiness stands at 9,962 warheads. It should be pointed out that although precise numbers are cited here to keep tallies consistent and avoid cumulative rounding errors, they are in fact approximations. Even if exact numbers were available for one specific moment in time, continuing stockpile changes as a result of deployment shifts and inspection and maintenance actions causes actual numbers to fluctuate.
The total megatonnage of the deployed nuclear arsenal is about 1,430 Mt (but this is influenced by the choice of deployed weapons for bombers); for the entire active arsenal it is 2,330 Mt. The all-time high point in explosive yield was in 1960 when the U.S. held 20,491 Mt in its stockpile. The size of nuclear arsenals are often evaluated using "equivalent megatonnage" a scaling procedure that compensates for the fact that smaller explosions cause relatively more blast destructive for the amount of explosive energy released. An EMt value of one indicates the destructive effect of one 1 megaton bomb. Since most warheads in the U.S. arsenal are much less than one megaton this measure results in a larger value than the raw megatonnage. Using this measure the destructiveness of the deployed arsenal becomes 2,090 EMt, and the total active arsenal 3,405 EMt.
The United States has produced about 70,000 nuclear weapons of 72 major types since their invention. At the end of the Cold War in 1991 the United States had an active arsenal of some 23,000 weapons of 26 major types. Since that time actual nuclear warhead production has been completely shut down in the U.S., although warhead modification, retrofit, and maintenance activities continue. Much of the original nuclear weapons manufacturing infrastructure has been dismantled, and the focus of the remaining nuclear infrastructure has shifted to maintaining and extending the life of the remaining weapons, as well as dismantling surplus weapons.
The details information please go to this
From direct TV, nuclear information
By using Direct TV, I know that at this time Russia was planning to build nuclear-powered spacecraft for manned missions to Mars.
According RiaNovosti news agency, Anatoly Perminov, Russian Federal Space Agency, the government stated that the Commission consider that the plan is very crucial. Yet there it is if you want to maintain a competitive advantage in the race.
Basic design will be ready in the next 2012 years. A final version will take another nine years, and will cost around 580 million USD or about 5.8 trillion rupiah for the construction, Perminov said. This will be based around a nuclear reactor megawatt capacity, which is much more powerful than a small nuclear reactor to be generating some Russian military satellites.
In other channels of DirectTV, the similar news informed that
"This project aims to implement large-scale space exploration program, including manned missions to Mars, the trip between the planets, the creation and operation of the planetary outposts," Perminov said. But he has stopped the filing of a permanent base on Mars.
President Dmitry Medvedev to support the project, and urged the government to seek funding. If the project later, it will be a huge boost for the Russian space program. Russia is currently using the Soyuz booster rockets that have been aged 40 years, and his plans to replace with better.
This is one of the benefits using Directv, I can know the latest information from around the world quickly and accurately.
According RiaNovosti news agency, Anatoly Perminov, Russian Federal Space Agency, the government stated that the Commission consider that the plan is very crucial. Yet there it is if you want to maintain a competitive advantage in the race.
Basic design will be ready in the next 2012 years. A final version will take another nine years, and will cost around 580 million USD or about 5.8 trillion rupiah for the construction, Perminov said. This will be based around a nuclear reactor megawatt capacity, which is much more powerful than a small nuclear reactor to be generating some Russian military satellites.
In other channels of DirectTV, the similar news informed that
"This project aims to implement large-scale space exploration program, including manned missions to Mars, the trip between the planets, the creation and operation of the planetary outposts," Perminov said. But he has stopped the filing of a permanent base on Mars.
President Dmitry Medvedev to support the project, and urged the government to seek funding. If the project later, it will be a huge boost for the Russian space program. Russia is currently using the Soyuz booster rockets that have been aged 40 years, and his plans to replace with better.
This is one of the benefits using Directv, I can know the latest information from around the world quickly and accurately.
Sunday, 15 November 2009
The penguin shines across the loving hydrogen.
The penguin shines across the loving hydrogen. this is true...do you know that???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
