watch_wait_plot wrote:It takes much longer than a decade (probably more along the lines of a century or two), but keep in mind that a nuclear warhead needs farmore than half of it's fissionable materials in order to maintain its functionality. I imagine the gap is even more narrow for maintaining warhead yield. (Yes, that was conjecture. But it was logical conjecture. ) I'll look for some exact figures, on that.
Yes, the plutonium decay is a factor for a weapon on the order of one half century old, but given other constraints, including delivery system compatibility, nuclear weapons are not expected to last that long in the first place.