4 ms·

HN doesn't appreciate confident arguments that are based on zero or anecdotal evidence. It also doesn't appreciate goalpost-shifting (from safety record in ter

HN doesn't appreciate confident arguments that are based on zero or anecdotal evidence. It also doesn't appreciate goalpost-shifting (from safety record in terms of crashes, to in terms of nukes going off (???)). More generally, fanboyish rants about how $FOO is the best $BAR ever made tend to draw particular attention. And lastly, complaining about downvotes is in the actual guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > that they have been carrying nukes about for the past 50 years and that we havent seen a singular nuclear accident with them. As other commenters have noted, this is more a testament to the phenomenal safety of nuclear weapons; they've been blown off the top of exploding ICBMs, hit the ground and the water at high speeds in crashing bombers, and generally gone through a LOT of abuse without going off.

tempguy9999 7y ago
IIRC atomic explosions are intrinsically difficult things to set off. I suppose the lensing explosive might go off and blow around nasty chunks, particulates, metal vapour perhaps, without actually producing a nuclear explosion of any sort. (IANA nuke engineer)
- azernik 7y ago
  Yup - though there are still safety problems, especially when it comes to inputs that might set off the trigger circuitry e.g. a lightning strike might have set off some early weapons. See Eric Schlosser's Command and Control for a history of nuclear weapons safety. (BTW - even a fizzle can have the force of a pretty large conventional bomb. e.g. the first North Korean nuclear test, which probably fizzled, had a yield of something like 1kt TNT-equivalent, and the failed attempts to make a uranium hydride bombs still yielded something like 200t TNT-equivalent.)
jsjohnst 7y ago
> As other commenters have noted, this is more a testament to the phenomenal safety of nuclear weapons Exactly, there were numerous nuclear accidents with B-52s, but due to the safety of nuclear warheads, no explosions. Googling the phrase “b-52 nuclear accidents” shows a long list of them.

tempguy9999 7y ago

IIRC atomic explosions are intrinsically difficult things to set off. I suppose the lensing explosive might go off and blow around nasty chunks, particulates, metal vapour perhaps, without actually producing a nuclear explosion of any sort. (IANA nuke engineer)

azernik 7y ago
Yup - though there are still safety problems, especially when it comes to inputs that might set off the trigger circuitry e.g. a lightning strike might have set off some early weapons. See Eric Schlosser's Command and Control for a history of nuclear weapons safety. (BTW - even a fizzle can have the force of a pretty large conventional bomb. e.g. the first North Korean nuclear test, which probably fizzled, had a yield of something like 1kt TNT-equivalent, and the failed attempts to make a uranium hydride bombs still yielded something like 200t TNT-equivalent.)

jsjohnst 7y ago

> As other commenters have noted, this is more a testament to the phenomenal safety of nuclear weapons Exactly, there were numerous nuclear accidents with B-52s, but due to the safety of nuclear warheads, no explosions. Googling the phrase “b-52 nuclear accidents” shows a long list of them.