The following commentby a (probably French) Anonymous on January 12, 2022, got me to thinking.
I’ve boldedthe parts that most strike me. Anonymous commented:
“To Gessler
Sorry to come back again to the HEU/LEU perspective..so many time exposed
your views are not correct as the LEU choice in France is fundamentally an economical and N safety issue to piggyback on the civilian N industry..BTW it take a few weeks to change the fuel (2 has been documented) in the military harbours of Toulon and Brest using hatches and specialized robot. Not in Cherbourg yard.
LEU reactors as seen in the 2,500 tonne Rubis class can be very compact..
Military PWR are subject to the same safety standards as civilian (inspection of the inner part of the reactor..) and audited by the same independent people. This contributes to the political acceptance of having N reactors in the middle of large cities. The spent fuel can be treated nearly in the same processes as well. In the French view it is the HEU which is perceived as problematic...Sealed for life..?
Once the glut of bomb grade HEU due to the SALT treaties will be exhausted in the middle of the century in the US this question will be probably revisited as well in the US.
As far as the number of SLBM tubes this has nothing to do with LEU ..Each M51 carry up to 10 MIRV at above 8,000 km (everywhere on Earth if you remember loxodrome vs orthodrome including China from the North Sea)..160 X 100 KTon in each sub... 500 Hiroshima..! France successive Governments believe in "just sufficient deterrence"...Having 2 sub at sea , even partially loaded (they are in fact at least in the public domain in the UK..) is a much better deterrent.."
I plan to write a Report to Donors around this tomorrow.