Pentagon awards contracts to design mobile nuclear reactor

serf

 Now we are going to have forward bases in the danger zones  with baby nuclear reactors. Now having CIA burning pits in Iraq after the invasion during that war ,what could possibly go wrong?

Placing nuclear fuel rods in a war zone is not prudent. It may be a war winning in logistics but in the worst case scenario it's very toxic stuff to blow up and be in the area.

                                                        serf

              https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2020/03/09/pentagon-to-award-mobile-nuclear-reactor-contracts-this-week/

 “The Pele Program’s uniqueness lies in the reactor’s mobility and safety,” said Jeff Waksman, Project Pele program manager, in a department statement. “We will leverage our industry partners to develop a system that can be safely and rapidly moved by road, rail, sea or air and for quick set up and shut down, with a design which is inherently safe.”

 Now an  Antonym  for inherently is  artificially, &  unnaturally  so they are saying enriched radioactive material are

  not these meanings,its neither artificially, or  unnaturally. What a joke.

Don McManus

The NB-36 flew with a reactor in the 1MW range in the 1950s.  The intention was to create a bomber with unlimited range and endurance.  Not sure how they planned to propel the plane, but the reactor was brought online on a large number of these flights apparently fairly successfully, though it did not propel the plane itself.

A fully contained 5 MW nuclear generating station that could be transported in a C-17 seems like something worth considering.  As with the US Carrier fleet, it would greatly reduce dependence on logistical support.

nmyers

Quote from the movie "Broken Arrow" ---- - "Giles Prentice: I don't know what's scarier, losing nuclear weapons, or that it happens so often there's actually a term for it.”