Dossier De Presse « 50 Ans Du CEA Valduc
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Appendix a Tables of Fermat Numbers and Their Prime Factors
Appendix A Tables of Fermat Numbers and Their Prime Factors The problem of distinguishing prime numbers from composite numbers and of resolving the latter into their prime factors is known to be one of the most important and useful in arithmetic. Carl Friedrich Gauss Disquisitiones arithmeticae, Sec. 329 Fermat Numbers Fo =3, FI =5, F2 =17, F3 =257, F4 =65537, F5 =4294967297, F6 =18446744073709551617, F7 =340282366920938463463374607431768211457, Fs =115792089237316195423570985008687907853 269984665640564039457584007913129639937, Fg =134078079299425970995740249982058461274 793658205923933777235614437217640300735 469768018742981669034276900318581864860 50853753882811946569946433649006084097, FlO =179769313486231590772930519078902473361 797697894230657273430081157732675805500 963132708477322407536021120113879871393 357658789768814416622492847430639474124 377767893424865485276302219601246094119 453082952085005768838150682342462881473 913110540827237163350510684586298239947 245938479716304835356329624224137217. The only known Fermat primes are Fo, ... , F4 • 208 17 lectures on Fermat numbers Completely Factored Composite Fermat Numbers m prime factor year discoverer 5 641 1732 Euler 5 6700417 1732 Euler 6 274177 1855 Clausen 6 67280421310721* 1855 Clausen 7 59649589127497217 1970 Morrison, Brillhart 7 5704689200685129054721 1970 Morrison, Brillhart 8 1238926361552897 1980 Brent, Pollard 8 p**62 1980 Brent, Pollard 9 2424833 1903 Western 9 P49 1990 Lenstra, Lenstra, Jr., Manasse, Pollard 9 p***99 1990 Lenstra, Lenstra, Jr., Manasse, Pollard -
Analytical Crashworthiness Methods Applied to Composite Structures By
Analytical Crashworthiness Methods Applied to Composite Structures by Keith W. Lehnhardt B.S., United States Naval Academy, 1991 Submitted to the Department of Ocean Engineering and the Department of Mechanical Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Naval Engineer and Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 1999 C1999 Keith W. Lehnhardt. All rights reserved. The Author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part Sianature of Author_--- Department of Ocean Engineering 13 May, 1999 Certified by Tomasz Wierzbicki Professor of Applied Mechanics Thesis Supervisor Certified by_ James H. Williams, Jr. SEPTE Professor of Engineering -- Thesis Reader Accepted by A Art Baggeroer Ford Professor of Engineering Chairman, Departmental Comp" ate Studies Accepted by Ain A. Sonin Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Studies Department of MeR}g4gngineering Analytical Crashworthiness Methods Applied to Composite Structures by Keith W. Lehnhardt Submitted to the Department of Ocean Engineering on 13 May 1999, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degrees of Naval Engineer and Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering Abstract Several shell deformation models are developed for use in crashworthiness analysis of rotationally symmetric structures. These models use analytical techniques to predict the crushing force versus axial crush distance characteristics of both a rigid-plastic, hemispherical shell and an elastic, cylindrical shell loaded axially by a rigid flat plate. Additional methods are proposed to determine the effects of cutout sections and internal stiffening members on the crushing force capacity of the shells. -
Assemblée Nationale Constitution Du 4 Octobre 1958
N° 260 —— ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE CONSTITUTION DU 4 OCTOBRE 1958 DOUZIÈME LÉGISLATURE Enregistré à la Présidence de l'Assemblée nationale le 10 octobre 2002. AVIS PRÉSENTÉ AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES FORCES ARMÉES, SUR LE PROJET DE loi de finances pour 2003 (n° 230) TOME II DÉFENSE DISSUASION NUCLÉAIRE PAR M. ANTOINE CARRE, Député. —— Voir le numéro : 256 (annexe n° 40) Lois de finances. — 3 — S O M M A I R E _____ Pages INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5 I. — UNE DISSUASION GARDANT UNE PLACE CENTRALE DANS LES STRATEGIES DE DEFENSE, MAIS DONT LE ROLE EVOLUE........................................................................................ 7 A. LA DISSUASION NUCLEAIRE AMERICAINE : UNE VOLONTE DE FLEXIBILITE ACCRUE .................................................................................................................................... 7 B. UNE INQUIETANTE PROLIFERATION BALISTIQUE ET NUCLEAIRE ................................... 10 C. LA DISSUASION NUCLEAIRE FRANÇAISE : UNE POSTURE ADAPTEE A L’EVOLUTION DE LA MENACE .............................................................................................. 15 1. Une dissuasion nécessaire pour faire face à l’imprévisible ........................................ 15 2. Un outil d’ores et déjà adapté ......................................................................................... 16 II. — UN BUDGET 2003 PERMETTANT LA POURSUITE DE LA MODERNISATION -
Andrew S. Burrows, Robert S. Norris William M
0?1' ¥t Andrew S. Burrows, Robert S. Norris William M. Arkin, and Thomas B. Cochran GREENPKACZ Damocles 28 rue des Petites Ecuries B.P. 1027 75010 Paris 6920 1 Lyon Cedex 01 Tel. (1) 47 70 46 89 TO. 78 36 93 03 no 3 - septembre 1989 no 3809 - maWaoOt 1989 Directeur de publication, Philippe Lequenne CCP lyon 3305 96 S CPPAP no en cours Directeur de publication, Palrtee Bouveret CPPAP no6701 0 Composition/Maquette : P. Bouverei Imprime sur papier blanchi sans chlore par Atelier 26 / Tel. 75 85 51 00 Depot legal S date de parution Avant-propos a ['edition fran~aise La traduction fran~aisede cette etude sur les essais nucleaires fran~aisentre dans Ie cadre d'une carnpagne mondiale de GREENPEACEpour la denuclearisation du Pacifique. Les chercheurs americains du NRDC sont parvenus a percer Ie secret qui couvre en France tout ce qui touche au nucleaire militaire. Ainsi, la France : - a effectub 172 essais nucleaires de 1960 a 1988. soil environ 10 % du nornbre total d'essais effectues depuis 1945 ; - doit effectuer 20 essais pour la rnise au point d'une t6te d'ame nuclhaire ; - effectual! 8 essais annuels depuis quelques annees et ces essais ont permis la mise au point de la bombe a neutrons des 1985 ; - a produit, depuis 1963, environ 800 tetes nuclbaires et pres de 500 sont actusllement deployees ; - a effectue pks de 110 essais souterrains a Mururoa. Les degats causes a I'atatI sont tres importants. La rbcente decision oflicielle du regroupement des essais en une seule carnpagne de tirs annuelle n'a probablement pas ete prise uniquernent pour des imperatifs econamiques ou de conjoncture internationale. -
Beyond the United Kingdom: Trends in the Other Nuclear Armed States
Beyond the United Kingdom: Trends in the Other Nuclear Armed States Ian Kearns Discussion Paper 1 of the BASIC Trident Commission An independent, cross-party commission to examine UK nuclear weapons policy Published by British American Security Information Council (BASIC) November 2011 BASIC in London BASIC in Washington The Grayston Centre 110 Maryland Avenue NE 28 Charles Square Suite 205 London N1 6HT Washington DC 20002 Tel: +44 (0) 207 324 4680 Tel: +1 (0) 202 546 8055 Acknowledgements Author BASIC and the BASIC Trident Commission are grateful to Dr Ian Kearns is the Chief Executive of the European the Ploughshares Fund, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, Leadership Network (ELN), a member of the BASIC Trident the Polden Puckham Charitable Trust and the Nuclear Commission, and works as a consultant to the Commission Information Trust for their financial support of the work of and to RUSI on nuclear issues. Previously Ian was Acting the Commission. We would also like to thank all those who Director and Deputy Director of the Institute for Public have contributed to the work of the Commission by Policy Research (IPPR) in the United Kingdom and Deputy submitting evidence and otherwise engaging in our activities. Chair of the IPPR’s independent All-Party Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, serving under co-chairs, BASIC would also like to thank the BASIC Trident Lord George Robertson and Lord Paddy Ashdown. He also Commissioners for their unpaid involvement in this enterprise. served in 2010 as a Specialist Adviser to the Joint House of Commons/House of Lords Committee on National Security. -
Taking Stock WORLDWIDE NUCLEAR DEPLOYMENTS 1998
Taking Stock WORLDWIDE NUCLEAR DEPLOYMENTS 1998 BY William M. Arkin Robert S. Norris Joshua Handler NRDC Nuclear Program MARCH 1998 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. 1200 New York Ave., NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 202/289-6868 VOICE 802-457-3426 (Arkin) 202-289-2369 (Norris) FAX 202-289-1060 INTERNET [email protected] [email protected] Worldwide Nuclear Deployments 1998 i © Copyright, Natural Resources Defense Council, 1998 ii TAKING STOCK Table of Contents Introduction . 1 Methodology . 4 Arms Control and Nuclear Weapons Deployments . 6 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) . 6 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) . 7 The Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty . 8 Unilateral Initiatives . 8 Future Nuclear Deployments . 11 The United States . 14 Nuclear History . 16 Nuclear Organization . 19 Nuclear Weapons Deployments . 24 Russia . 26 Nuclear Organization . 29 Nuclear Weapons Deployments . 33 Britain . 39 France . 42 China . 45 Appendix A: Locations of U.S. Nuclear Weapons, by Type . 53 Appendix B: U.S. Nuclear Weapons by Location . 55 Appendix C: U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Location Profiles . 56 By State California . 56 Colorado . 57 Georgia. 58 Louisiana . 59 Missouri . 60 Montana . 61 Nebraska . 61 Nevada . 62 New Mexico. 63 North Dakota . 65 Texas . 68 Virginia . 70 Washington . 70 Wyoming . 72 Overseas by Country Belgium . 72 Germany . 73 Greece . 76 Italy . 77 The Netherlands . 78 Turkey . 78 United Kingdom . 79 Appendix D: Location of Russian Nuclear Weapons, by Type . 81 Appendix E: Russian Nuclear Weapons by Location . 84 Appendix F: British Nuclear Weapons by Type and Location . 88 Appendix G: French Nuclear Weapons by Type and Location . -
Appendix 15A. World Nuclear Forces
Appendix 15A. World nuclear forces HANS M. KRISTENSEN and SHANNON N. KILE* I. Introduction Despite the efforts over the past half-century to reduce and eliminate nuclear weap- ons, and commitments under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)1 to achieve this goal, the five states defined by the NPT as nuclear weapon states—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—continue to deploy more than 16 500 operational nuclear weapons (see table 15A.1). If all warheads are counted— deployed, spares, those in both active and inactive storage, and ‘pits’ (plutonium cores) held in reserve—the five nuclear-weapon states possess an estimated total of 36 500 warheads. This means that they possess over 98 per cent of the world nuclear weapon stockpile. The US 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and implementation of the 2002 US–Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) will move thousands of US and Russian ‘operationally deployed strategic warheads’ out of declared opera- tional status into various ‘unaccountable’ categories of reserve weapons.2 Thousands of other weapons are also held in reserve. The result is that the US and Russian nuclear weapon arsenals are becoming increasingly opaque and difficult to monitor.3 In the USA, the 2001 NPR and subsequent defence budgets revealed plans for new ballistic missiles, strategic submarines, long-range bombers, nuclear weapons, and nuclear command and control systems. Substantial modernization is under way for virtually all parts of the US nuclear infrastructure. Similarly, Russia is modernizing its strategic nuclear forces by deploying new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and additional strategic bombers and developing a new generation of nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs). -
N O T I C E This Document Has Been Reproduced From
N O T I C E THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM MICROFICHE. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE i^ G DC -A S P-80-010 CONTRACT NAS8-33527 N81-11101 (NASA-C13-101594) LOW THRUST VEHICLE CONCEPT l STUDY Final Report (General Dynamics Corp.) 291 p HC A13/MF A01 CSCL 22B f Unclas G3/18 29132 LOW THRUST VEHICLE CONCEPT STUDY GENERAL DYNAMICS Conveii Division Prepared under Contract NAS8-33527, Task 7 Prepared by Advanced Space Programs GENERAL DYNAMICS CONVAIR DIVISION San Diego, California FOREWORD This report aocunents the results of Contract NAS8-33527, Task 7 — "Loa, Thrust Vehicle Concept Study". This study was conduced over a 9-month period from September 1979 to May 1980. The NASA/MSFC Program Manager was D. R. Saxton. The General Dynamics Program Manager was W.J. Ketchum. In addition to the program managers, many General Dynamics Convair person- nel contributed to the study. The key individuals and their contributions are: P. J. Griff1th Computer/Simulation R. Ma.ffucci Propellant Acquisition S. Mald Avionics/Power F. Merion Thermodynamics C. D. Pengelley Structural Dynamics R.C. Risley Costs, Schedules E. I. Seiden Weights L. E. Siden Conceptual Designs P. Slysh Structures/Synthesis All data in this report are presented in the English System. PRECEDING PACE SI ANK NOT FILMED iii TABLE OF CONTFNTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION . .1-1 1.1 Objectives . .1-1 1.2 Study Approach . .1-1 2 MISSION/PAYLOAD DEFINITION . -
Dette Publique Et Dépenses D'armement : Il Faut Un Audit
Dette publique et dépenses d’armement : il faut un audit ! J C Bauduret 30/08/12 Dette publique et dépenses d’armement : il faut un audit ! Introduction. Nous n’avons qu’une planète. N’insistons pas sur ce que l’on appelle « l’état du monde », c'est-à-dire la situation de l’espèce humaine et l’état de la biosphère. En ce qui concerne la biosphère, le développement de l’espèce humaine et de son activité dans les pays les plus riches pose la question de la disparition des autres espèces, de l’épuisement des ressources, du réchauffement climatique et par conséquent de sa propre autodestruction, soit en laissant aller le cours des choses, soit par un cataclysme nucléaire. Pour 80% de la population mondiale les besoins fondamentaux – accès à la nourriture, à l’eau potable, à un logement qui ne soit pas un taudis, aux soins, à l’éducation, à l’énergie, à l’égalité hommes-femmes – ne sont pas entièrement ou même le plus souvent pas du tout satisfaits. Face à cette situation les gouvernements des pays occidentaux consacrent, pour la bonne conscience de leurs citoyens, une Aide Publique au Développement de l’ordre d’une centaine de milliards de $ par an. 1 Mais pour tuer, blesser, estropier, torturer, violer, affamer, provoquer des naissances d’enfants malformés, détruire les habitations, les installations agricoles ou industrielles, la nature, les gouvernements du monde entier dépensent 15 fois plus. Le montant des dépenses militaires mondiales s’est élevé en 2011 à 1738 milliards de $. Elles sont en augmentation chaque année depuis 13 ans, et si la crise a provoqué un infléchissement en 2011, elle n’a pas, pour autant, inversé la tendance comme cela avait été le cas pendant 10 ans jusqu’en 1998. -
Appendix 15A. World Nuclear Forces
Appendix 15A. World nuclear forces HANS M. KRISTENSEN and SHANNON N. KILE* I. Introduction Despite the efforts over the past half-century to reduce and eliminate nuclear weap- ons, and commitments under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)1 to achieve this goal, the five states defined by the NPT as nuclear weapon states—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—continue to deploy more than 16 500 operational nuclear weapons (see table 15A.1). If all warheads are counted— deployed, spares, those in both active and inactive storage, and ‘pits’ (plutonium cores) held in reserve—the five nuclear-weapon states possess an estimated total of 36 500 warheads. This means that they possess over 98 per cent of the world nuclear weapon stockpile. The US 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and implementation of the 2002 US–Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) will move thousands of US and Russian ‘operationally deployed strategic warheads’ out of declared opera- tional status into various ‘unaccountable’ categories of reserve weapons.2 Thousands of other weapons are also held in reserve. The result is that the US and Russian nuclear weapon arsenals are becoming increasingly opaque and difficult to monitor.3 In the USA, the 2001 NPR and subsequent defence budgets revealed plans for new ballistic missiles, strategic submarines, long-range bombers, nuclear weapons, and nuclear command and control systems. Substantial modernization is under way for virtually all parts of the US nuclear infrastructure. Similarly, Russia is modernizing its strategic nuclear forces by deploying new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and additional strategic bombers and developing a new generation of nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs). -
1. Nuclear Weapons
1. Nuclear weapons Prepared by the Nuclear Weapons Databook staff, Washington, DC' I. Introduction It is difficult to characterize 1989. It was a year during which the entire foundation of the cold war seemed to crumble and the most fundamental assumptions about East-West relations and military strategy required a complete reappraisal. Even a narrow assessment of the nuclear weapon developments of 1989 must take into account the extraordinary political changes in Eastern Europe, the overwhelming economic and political pressures to reduce military expenditure and forces, and the unprecedented level of co-operation between the USA and the USSR. It appears that these developments may permit a fundamental change in the nuclear postures and practices of the nuclear weapon states. Against this backdrop, future historians may see 1989 as the year in which the post-World War IT era ended and a new era began. Even without this new situation the defence budgets of the five nuclear weapon nations in general and the budgets for nuclear weapons in particular are becoming severely constrained. For the fifth year in a row the US military budget declined, as measured in constant dollars. The Soviet Government stated, and the US Government apparently agrees, that Soviet military spending was less in 1989 than it was in 1988. France is now feel- ing the effect of its economic constraints, especially visible in the nuclear weapon programme. Nevertheless, nuclear weapon modernization continued in all five of the acknowledged nuclear weapon states: the USA, the USSR, the UK, France and China. In the USA there was a decrease in the strategic arsenal because of bomb and submarine retirements. -
Travailler Dans Le Secteur Nucléaire Militaire. Étude Exploratoire De Parcours Dans Le Cadre Du Dispositif De Suivi Post-Profe
Université de Brest/LABERS EA 3149 Travailler dans le secteur nucléaire militaire. Étude exploratoire de parcours dans le cadre du dispositif de suivi post- professionnel – TNP post-professionnel Sous la coordination de Jorge MUÑOZ DURAND-MOREAU Quentin, University of Alberta Division of Preventive Medicine, DAUBAS-LETOURNEUX Véronique, professeur EHESP, UMR 1085 IRSET, DELAMOTTE Julien, Docteur en droit, CNRS/UMR 6297 Droit et changement social, élève avocat, GHIS MALFILATRE Marie, Maître de conférences LRU en sociologie, faculté de médecine, UBO, Labers, MARCHAND Anne, sociologue, IDHES (UMR 8533) Université d’Évry val d’Essonne, co- directrice du GISCOP93, THEBAUD-MONY Annie, sociologue, directrice de recherche honoraire INSERM, IRIS, et le Collectif des irradiés de l’Île Longue. Remerciements Les auteurs et auteures de ce rapport tiennent à remercier tous ceux et celles qui ont permis de mener à bien ce travail. En premier lieu, cette étude n’aurait pas pu voir le jour sans l’impulsion et participation du collectif des irradiés de l’Île Longue. Ils se sont mobilisés depuis plusieurs années et leur travail militant a permis d’avoir les bases nécessaires pour organiser l’enquête. Ils ont participé à l’ensemble de phases de la réalisation de l’étude (définition, contacts, analyses et restitution). Une telle enquête n’aurait pu se mettre en place sans l’appui de la Maison de Sciences de l’Homme de Bretagne. Le projet présenté et adapté a reçu le soutien financier et logistique de la MSHB. Ce soutien a permis, non seulement de démarrer l’étude, mais également de bénéficier d’un appui logistique en termes de communication et d’organisation.