4 ms·

A lot of the government's supercomputer funding is much more practical than that: its about doing simulation on nuclear weapon assemblies. During the cold war,

A lot of the government's supercomputer funding is much more practical than that: its about doing simulation on nuclear weapon assemblies. During the cold war, nuclear weapons were not designed for long lifetimes or to be upgraded after construction. Most of our nuclear stockpile is or will soon be past its design lifespan. We can't just replace them with new weapons because of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (yeah, it hasn't been ratified, but no administration is excited about breaking it and effectively telling everyone on Earth that the US has no interest is sticking with the NPT). So we have weapons assemblies that are degrading every day and we need to ensure that they work (i.e., they detonate when instructed to and more importantly fail to detonate when NOT commanded to). Physical inspection and retrofitting is extremely difficult because the assemblies were not designed for that. So the only option left is massive simulation. Which is what Lawrence Livermore and the other national labs do. China's got nothing to do with it. Without supercomputers, the US lacks an effective nuclear deterrent (or at least, confidence that it has an effective deterrent).

burgerbrain 16y ago
"(or at least, confidence that it has an effective deterrent)" Well that's the key isn't it. The only effective way to use nuclear weapons is to "not" use them. They could just as easily just release a few press-releases saying "oh yeah, we checked it out and these things totally still work", and almost as if by magic, they would continue to work.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  But no one would believe that. It just wouldn't be credible. This isn't a new problem; it has been building for decades. Components age. Materials fracture. Seals crack. Everyone knows that and you can't wish that knowledge away. I mean, the national labs that are charged with ensuring the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile are not some tiny 5-man operation in the middle of nowhere; we're talking about thousands of people working an hour away from San Francisco, very much plugged into the local university and tech scene.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    It's not like they are publishing in detail all of their findings currently. For all we really know, they already are bluffing, and just using all the money for hookers, blow, and blackjack.

burgerbrain 16y ago

"(or at least, confidence that it has an effective deterrent)" Well that's the key isn't it. The only effective way to use nuclear weapons is to "not" use them. They could just as easily just release a few press-releases saying "oh yeah, we checked it out and these things totally still work", and almost as if by magic, they would continue to work.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
But no one would believe that. It just wouldn't be credible. This isn't a new problem; it has been building for decades. Components age. Materials fracture. Seals crack. Everyone knows that and you can't wish that knowledge away. I mean, the national labs that are charged with ensuring the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile are not some tiny 5-man operation in the middle of nowhere; we're talking about thousands of people working an hour away from San Francisco, very much plugged into the local university and tech scene.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  It's not like they are publishing in detail all of their findings currently. For all we really know, they already are bluffing, and just using all the money for hookers, blow, and blackjack.