4e generation nuclear reactor

[Cuicui]

For plutonium alone, some speak of ten tonnes (JPP mentions 60 tonnes?)
La Hague produces around 8/9 tonnes of Plutonium per year ...
For that of armament quality we are indeed in its orders there (-100kg). In fact, you did not answer my questions?

In time for me, you're right, it's 70 tonnes of plutonium and not 70 kg! My memory is playing tricks on me and I don't always take the trouble to check, shame!
Can you remind me of the questions I didn't answer?

[Cuicui]

One has to wonder if they are really human. They will only change their behavior if they are forced to.

who would oblige them? The past shows us that like hydras if you cut a head it repels 2 and that wolves do not devour each other and sheep have never devoured wolves.

Perhaps with the advancement of information (especially the internet) humans will end up getting tired of being sheep. The bankers fled Iceland, they were afraid of being torn up. Strongly that this is the case for our "elites".

[sen-no-sen]

In time for me, you're right, it's 70 tonnes of plutonium and not 70 kg! My memory is playing tricks on me and I don't always take the trouble to check, shame!
?

I too would have preferred it to be kilograms!

Can you remind me of the questions I didn't answer?

Little ethological question: why want to have nuclear warheads?
Another question: At what period in history its arsenals were developed, and in what economic context?

[Cuicui]

Little ethological question: why want to have nuclear warheads?
Another question: At what period in history its arsenals were developed, and in what economic context?

Nuclear warheads are proof that the military are always late for a war. After Hiroshima, the Russians wanted to also have their A Bomb, then other countries equipped themselves with it, thus thinking they were safe from attack (balance of terror). Since then, conditions have changed, there is no longer a cold war, France no longer really has an enemy, but routinely we have kept these weapons which have cost so much.
As for knowing which period in history dates the arsenals, I have no idea and do not want to know. What interests me is the disappearance of weapons, the balance of power being a sign of fear, weakness and moral defeat. That these credits be used to raise the standard of living of the poorest.
Definition of war: people who do not know each other are forced to kill each other for people who know each other well.
NB: In one of my previous posts, the bankers of Iceland were put in jail, and not in sheet metal, unless the Icelandic prisons were built of scrap ...

[sen-no-sen]

Little ethological question: why want to have nuclear warheads?
Another question: At what period in history its arsenals were developed, and in what economic context?

Nuclear warheads are proof that the military are always late for a war.

It's not quite where I was coming from ...

For a nation, possessing nuclear weapons is proof of "technological maturity" (I did mention technological!), Inscribed in an expansionist logic (in the broad sense, this can be cultural for example)
It is a powerful means to show the rest of the world its strength.

From the point of view of ethology, we remain in the field of domination ritual: assured dominance over other groups, and territory ritual: ensure the sustainability of its territory, whether geographic or cultural.
From this point of view there, no significant evolution between Homo sapiens and a Chimpanzee, the man, an evolved animal?

Historically France entered the "club" following a Gaullist will, which aimed to make our nation, a strong country, which would not be in the pay of the USA, the United Kingdom or the USSR ... The idea is therefore to avoid the submission ritual.

Quite naturally, the "Bomb" also makes it possible to influence global geopolitical decisions, thus, all members of the UN Security Council have atomic weapons ...

With regard to the economic context, it appears that the atomic weapon has always been developed in a period of economic growth *. (Regarding the nuclear powers worthy of the name)
Moreover, France launched its nuclear program in the midst of the "glorious thirties".


From the point of view of ethology, it therefore appears that nuclear power, under the guise of technological progress, responds to the animal instinct.

The pursuit of growth, if it was aimed at securing dominance (through material possession), has ended up becoming an alienation which has as its final goal only its limitless "self-fulfillment".

The great danger now lies in the intermingling of his two ideas: to want to ensure its constant increase, our insatiable, and the physical limits of the world being soon reached, risks of pushing us towards a use of the means of destruction to continue to ensure the sustainability of this search for growth.

* The case of North Korea needs to be qualified, due to a very specific historical context.

[Cuicui]

From the point of view of ethology, we remain in the field of domination ritual: assured dominance over other groups, and territory ritual: ensure the sustainability of its territory, whether geographic or cultural.
From this point of view there, no significant evolution between Homo sapiens and a Chimpanzee, the man, an evolved animal?

I agree with all of this.
I would add that behind the domineering and territorial ritual, there is the fear to be subject and lose their territory.