cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/48838029
Today, in things I'd read on a fading screen in a half destroyed building in a Fallout game...
Trump Administration Providing Weapons Grade Plutonium to Sam Altman
https://futurism.com/science-energy/trump-altman-plutonium-oklo
44 Comments
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 57 pts · 284d
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.
kinsnik@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 284d
you can't build Skynet without a nuclear arsenal, after all
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 284d
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
peoplebeproblems@midwest.social · 11 pts · 284d
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.
crusa187@lemmy.ml · 48 pts · 284d
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.
Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works · 29 pts · 284d
I also posted this here a few days ago and it got deleted. Hurrah if it remains, it's worth a post here!
Chainweasel@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 284d
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.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 284d
You don’t need weapons-grade material for power.
shalafi@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 284d
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.
scathliath@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 284d
It might require a great deal of rejiggering because the fission output of the materials are not one to one. Kinda the whole point of weapons grade, you can't achieve a neutron cascade for efficiency in a weapon if you don't already have a kinda unstable "rock". Granted some reactors are designed to work better with a doped mix already.
ameancow@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 284d
viking@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 283d
It's actually quite well written and not as clickbaity as one might think.
ameancow@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 284d
obinice@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 284d
Gaius Baltar needs WHAT?!
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 284d
Moar cylons?
hsr@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 283d
Altman does seem like a guy who would turn his head away mid-conversation and talk to invisible entities.
ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 284d
Other nations should be responding to this as an attack. It's endangering the whole world.
MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 284d
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 · 0 pts · 284d
MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 284d
Indeed, and trusting the US to protect allies from invasion was a bad call. The leap from "perhaps US allies should up their defense spending to what it should have been all along, plus a temporary bonus to catch-up/modernize" to "pre-emptive attack and iron-domes for everyone should be on the table" is both eroneous and wasteful.
Don't encourage countries to bankrupt themselves buying solutions that are sold mostly by the US - thats exacly what my government would love best to enrich defense contractors and justify continued record spending, plus more meddling, I promise.
"Treat x as an attack that requires immediate action, you can't afford to make rational long-term decisions today" is the hook-line-and-sinker CIA/fascist narrative, always has been.
zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 17 pts · 284d
And the title could not be further away from reality.
To save you a click: Sam Altman was in the board of directors of a startup, which is working with uranium. Sam Altman left that position weeks ago. Sam Altman is not getting his hands on plutonium, nor is OpenAI.
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 283d
Source?
zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 283d
Your mom
stefenauris@pawb.social · 15 pts · 284d
Oh we're all gonna die
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 284d
True, but how and when and why matter.
Sunschein@piefed.social · 8 pts · 284d
peoplebeproblems@midwest.social · 4 pts · 284d
Why is easy, they like killing people. That's literally why the Nazis did it.
When is a ????
How will largely be famine and disease, but large numbers from the blast and radiation itself.
Mechaguana@programming.dev · 14 pts · 284d
Thanks americans who sold the rest of the world to your masters
meco03211@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 284d
Is there a functional difference between "weapons grade" plutonium and the plutonium that would be used in a nuclear reactor?
Kirp123@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 284d
Yes.
From Wikipedia:
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 · 9 pts · 284d
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 · 3 pts · 284d
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.
eerongal@ttrpg.network · 2 pts · 284d
Quite possible. I'm not an expert and working from memory, so I could very well get something wrong
minnow@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 284d
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.
FishFace@piefed.social · 9 pts · 284d
Article talks about energy but not why they're using weapons grade plutonium for that purpose. Anyone got an informed reason?
fullsquare@awful.systems · 8 pts · 284d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium_Management_and_Disposition_Agreement
ThePantser@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 284d
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?
AtariDump@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 284d
ninjabard@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 284d
Does he need it for his DeLorean?
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 284d
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.
crispy_caesus@feddit.org · 2 pts · 283d
Why is the author sharing concern for the US' defensive capabilities "to threaten nuclear obliteration" (or something along these lines)?
I mean first of all they have a quantity of hundreds these, of which only a few of will essentially destroy our world as we know it.
But then also how is this even something to be seen negatively, in what way are capabilities of nuclear war something to be seen this desireable.
MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 284d
"Weapons grade" is actually more stable and less prone to blowing up without constant management, who knew?
Nothing-burger.
cley_faye@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 284d
Isn't it also more prone to violently explode under appropriate management?
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 283d
It's okay, they are using ChatGPT.
...okay, we're definitely in danger of a dirty bomb.
MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 284d
Apparently, the opposite is the case. Funny story, when making a bomb, blowing up during construction, storage, or delivery to the target is an un-desirable trait.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 284d
I think they meant "isn't it also much better at blowing up when you want it to?"
MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 284d
... but its not? Literally, the "harder" part about making a bomb with reactor-grade material is keeping it from blowing-up prematurely, while still getting maximum yeild at boom-boom time.
A less-advanced nation might get a lesser explosion out of a "safer"(doesn't explode until its supposed to) bomb with reactor-grade material, but its still going to be a massive, nuclear explosion, and the unspent fuel creates additional radio-active fallout.
Apparently, civilized-countries' worst nightmare regarding weapons-grade plutonium is that those that "shouldn't" have "the bomb" could build them and then be able to shelve them for a later, legitimate threat. Oh, and not being able to cry "they built a dirty bomb!!" if such were ever used.