4 ms·

There is no indication in the article that a nuclear weapon will be used in the test. I doubt that Russia or the US needs to really test nuclear weapons at thi

There is no indication in the article that a nuclear weapon will be used in the test. I doubt that Russia or the US needs to really test nuclear weapons at this point, it is all about the delivery mechanism.

cm2187 11y ago
I think any engineer or developer would agree that we only know a technology works after testing it, not just because it works on paper. I wonder how the US or Russia can really have any confidence in any nuke designed since the early 90s.
- konart 11y ago
  What nukes? All of them are pre-90s. Delivery systems and containers can be new though.
  - cm2187 11y ago
    I would expect even nukes to have a shelve life. There are chemicals (explosives) that surely are only stable for a given period.
- iSnow 11y ago
  There's indeed a case to back you up: >Air-launched weapons like cruise missiles must endure hours of sub-freezing temperatures at high altitudes while riding their carrier aircraft. Weaponeers successfully subjected the W-80’s components – including the IHE – to temperatures down to -65 Fahrenheit – during development. >But when actually tested in Shot Baseball during Operation Guardian in January 1981, the W-80 fizzled. The new nuke failed to ignite its fusion secondary and produced only a fraction of its intended yield. The IHE proved to be the culprit. It didn’t burn well at very low temperatures. http://warisboring.com/articles/america-had-a-problem-with-its-nuclear-warheads-freezing/ http://warisboring.com/articles/america-had-a-problem-with-i...
finid 11y ago
We never really stopped testing nuclear weapons. After the ban, we continued using supercomputers to perform the tests, which, given how powerful the supercomputers are, is just as good as testing the real thing. Ditto for the Russians and other nuclear powers.
- varjag 11y ago
  The virtual tests are as good as the models behind it. How fast or detailed you get the wrong answer is irrelevant. Not to say the models are actually wrong: I certainly wouldn't bet my hometown on it.
valarauca1 11y ago
If you believe this you are pretty naive. The space program was initial started to support Starfish Prime type high altitude nuclear tests. All launch vehicles until Apollo were ICBM's. The moon landing was originally planned to be a diplomatic stunt by JFK who wanted a peaceful mission to open a larger diplomatic dialog. Space programs have always, and likely will always be a way to project power. And test high end military weapons under the guise of peace and science.
- DominikR 11y ago
  First of all it would be great if you didn't insult me to bring across your point. The second thing I'd like to say: I never contradicted any facts you state here. Likely they will be using the data to improve their ICBM's, it would be an enormous waste of resources if they didn't. (and so does every other country that has ICBM's) I said: nothing indicates that they will use a nuclear weapon, "it is all about the delivery mechanism" -> they will use ICBM's but without the warhead, which does not break any treaties to my knowledge.
- rl3 11y ago
  >The space program was initial started to support Starfish Prime type high altitude nuclear tests. Do you have a source for that? I'd think there were a multitude of reasons in reality, a specific defense purpose being but one. Funny enough, high-altitude nuclear testing proved to be a serious concern for the safety of manned space flight.[0] [0] http://www.wired.com/2012/03/starfishandapollo-1962/ http://www.wired.com/2012/03/starfishandapollo-1962/
gherkin0 11y ago
> I doubt that Russia or the US needs to really test nuclear weapons at this point, it is all about the delivery mechanism. IIRC, there's still some need to test in order to evaluate the performance and other aging characteristics of old warheads. The US, at least, is trying to accomplish that testing via simulation rather than actual detonations. though.

cm2187 11y ago

I think any engineer or developer would agree that we only know a technology works after testing it, not just because it works on paper. I wonder how the US or Russia can really have any confidence in any nuke designed since the early 90s.

konart 11y ago
What nukes? All of them are pre-90s. Delivery systems and containers can be new though.
- cm2187 11y ago
  I would expect even nukes to have a shelve life. There are chemicals (explosives) that surely are only stable for a given period.
iSnow 11y ago
There's indeed a case to back you up: >Air-launched weapons like cruise missiles must endure hours of sub-freezing temperatures at high altitudes while riding their carrier aircraft. Weaponeers successfully subjected the W-80’s components – including the IHE – to temperatures down to -65 Fahrenheit – during development. >But when actually tested in Shot Baseball during Operation Guardian in January 1981, the W-80 fizzled. The new nuke failed to ignite its fusion secondary and produced only a fraction of its intended yield. The IHE proved to be the culprit. It didn’t burn well at very low temperatures. http://warisboring.com/articles/america-had-a-problem-with-its-nuclear-warheads-freezing/ http://warisboring.com/articles/america-had-a-problem-with-i...

finid 11y ago

We never really stopped testing nuclear weapons. After the ban, we continued using supercomputers to perform the tests, which, given how powerful the supercomputers are, is just as good as testing the real thing. Ditto for the Russians and other nuclear powers.

varjag 11y ago
The virtual tests are as good as the models behind it. How fast or detailed you get the wrong answer is irrelevant. Not to say the models are actually wrong: I certainly wouldn't bet my hometown on it.

valarauca1 11y ago

If you believe this you are pretty naive. The space program was initial started to support Starfish Prime type high altitude nuclear tests. All launch vehicles until Apollo were ICBM's. The moon landing was originally planned to be a diplomatic stunt by JFK who wanted a peaceful mission to open a larger diplomatic dialog. Space programs have always, and likely will always be a way to project power. And test high end military weapons under the guise of peace and science.

DominikR 11y ago
First of all it would be great if you didn't insult me to bring across your point. The second thing I'd like to say: I never contradicted any facts you state here. Likely they will be using the data to improve their ICBM's, it would be an enormous waste of resources if they didn't. (and so does every other country that has ICBM's) I said: nothing indicates that they will use a nuclear weapon, "it is all about the delivery mechanism" -> they will use ICBM's but without the warhead, which does not break any treaties to my knowledge.
rl3 11y ago
>The space program was initial started to support Starfish Prime type high altitude nuclear tests. Do you have a source for that? I'd think there were a multitude of reasons in reality, a specific defense purpose being but one. Funny enough, high-altitude nuclear testing proved to be a serious concern for the safety of manned space flight.[0] [0] http://www.wired.com/2012/03/starfishandapollo-1962/ http://www.wired.com/2012/03/starfishandapollo-1962/

gherkin0 11y ago

> I doubt that Russia or the US needs to really test nuclear weapons at this point, it is all about the delivery mechanism. IIRC, there's still some need to test in order to evaluate the performance and other aging characteristics of old warheads. The US, at least, is trying to accomplish that testing via simulation rather than actual detonations. though.