Australia gets/develops the bomb

[Scott Kenny]

As a further digression, RBMK reactors also had plutonium production capability early on, but it was abandoned in them too - while also keeping on-load refuelling. RBMK and Magnox reactors have a lot of conceptual similarities, and as bad as the Sellafield fire was, the UK dodged a bullet in not going the water-cooled, graphite-moderated route.

Yeah, the UK using CO2 as their coolant in the graphite-moderated reactors helped a lot in preventing the worst possible reactor fires.

We shouldn't get ahead of ourselves, Australia's nuclear sector was tiny in the 60s. Even if it was expanded prior to the historical abandonment in 1972 there would only be 3 or 4 reactors in the country. This isn't a lot to build a nuclear weapons stockpile upon, Australia would struggle to amass enough fissile material for a stockpile.

3-4 reactors was enough to fuel the Manhattan Project and the late 1940s-early 1950s US weapons production.

This might not be a crippling issue, Australia was able to get HEU and Heavy Water for HiFAR and Moata and might be able to accumulate some for weapons prior to the NPT. However this cannot be relied upon, Australia's reactors were gradually reduced from HEU to LEU, presumably due to the global proliferation risk.

Agreed that Oz reactors were shifted to LEU because of the proliferation issues. Nobody needs HEU if they're not planning on making bombs.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I suspect now that there is going to be a run on HEU in the near future. [Mind briefly boggles a bit at the prospect of a nuclear armed New Zealand...]

 

[Scott Kenny]

I suspect now that there is going to be a run on HEU in the near future. [Mind briefly boggles a bit at the prospect of a nuclear armed New Zealand...]

I've been expecting such since 2022.

 

[Rule of cool]

3-4 reactors was enough to fuel the Manhattan Project and the late 1940s-early 1950s US weapons production.

How do those reactors compare to a 15MW British research reactor, a 100kW (my car has 195kW) US training reactor and a power reactor or two? I know the first 2 British Windscale Pile reactors were 180MW each, much bigger than HiFAR and Moata, and presumably the earliest US reactors were also much bigger.

In addition the US used 3 methods of uranium enrichment, IIC they used all 3 in Little Boy but found one wasn't as good as the other 2 and abandoned that method. Australia had a tiny enrichment capability up to the 80s, nothing like the scale of even the UK let alone the US.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How do those reactors compare to a 15MW British research reactor, a 100kW (my car has 195kW) US training reactor and a power reactor or two? I know the first 2 British Windscale Pile reactors were 180MW each, much bigger than HiFAR and Moata, and presumably the earliest US reactors were also much bigger.

Well, MOATA was 100kw, but HIFAR was 10MWth. HIFAR would be an option to be a small breeder reactor due to the high neutron flux.

In addition the US used 3 methods of uranium enrichment, IIC they used all 3 in Little Boy but found one wasn't as good as the other 2 and abandoned that method. Australia had a tiny enrichment capability up to the 80s, nothing like the scale of even the UK let alone the US.

But again, if you have a breeder reactor that runs on natural uranium you don't need much enrichment capability.

 

[Rule of cool]

Well, MOATA was 100kw, but HIFAR was 10MWth. HIFAR would be an option to be a small breeder reactor due to the high neutron flux.

Sure, but the main purpose of HiFAR was for nuclear medicine, and I doubt the Government would want to reduce medical isotope production in favour of making plutonium for weapons.

But again, if you have a breeder reactor that runs on natural uranium you don't need much enrichment capability.

What exactly do you mean by 'breeder' reactor? When I hear that term, I think of the British Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) and Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) which were specific reactors designed for the outset as breeders, rather than a more conventional reactor modified to be a breeder.

Are you suggesting that Australia, in addition to HiFAR, Moata, a 'generic power reactor' also build a reactor specifically for nuclear weapons? Possibly another research reactor tuned for the purpose.?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sure, but the main purpose of HiFAR was for nuclear medicine, and I doubt the Government would want to reduce medical isotope production in favour of making plutonium for weapons.

You're likely correct.

What exactly do you mean by 'breeder' reactor? When I hear that term, I think of the British Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) and Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) which were specific reactors designed for the outset as breeders, rather than a more conventional reactor modified to be a breeder.

Are you suggesting that Australia, in addition to HiFAR, Moata, a 'generic power reactor' also build a reactor specifically for nuclear weapons? Possibly another research reactor tuned for the purpose.?

I was actually thinking a couple of Magnox reactors as the "generic power reactor."

Or more technically, a power station that has a couple Magnox reactors at it, similar in setup to Windscale/Sellafield.

 

[Rule of cool]

I was actually thinking a couple of Magnox reactors as the "generic power reactor."

Or more technically, a power station that has a couple Magnox reactors at it, similar in setup to Windscale/Sellafield.

The only power station to make any progress was the Jervis Bay proposal that had the site cleared and level for a British SGHWR in 1971 before cancellation. However, I have a vague idea based on something I read decades ago that there was to be a nuclear power station associated with the Snowy River scheme, but this was knocked on the head in 1958 by the resumption of US-UK nuclear sharing. Given the mid-late 50s timeframe and British connection my guess is that would have been a Magnox reactor.

In any case, much like how HiFAR would be used for medical isotope production a nuclear power station would be used to generate power rather than plutonium on that cycle that @Yellow Palace described. I think fissile material would be hard to come by for Australia, even if the project was pursued with some purpose for a while.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think fissile material would be hard to come by for Australia, even if the project was pursued with some purpose for a while.

I don't think Oz would have US or even UK numbers of nukes, but I think they could make a couple hundred by the mid-60s if they started in the mid-50s.

 

[Rule of cool]

I don't think Oz would have US or even UK numbers of nukes, but I think they could make a couple hundred by the mid-60s if they started in the mid-50s.

I think that's wildly optimistic.

France got its first reactor in 1948 and started developing nuclear weapons from about 1954 and accelerated in 1956, they got the first 70Kt AN11 in 1963 and had 40 by 1968.

I can't imagine Australia beating that.

 

[Lascaris]

I think that's wildly optimistic.

France got its first reactor in 1948 and started developing nuclear weapons from about 1954 and accelerated in 1956, they got the first 70Kt AN11 in 1963 and had 40 by 1968.

I can't imagine Australia beating that.

Israel is always a better example in such scenarios...