6 ms·
Experiment is the arbiter of truth -- being able to verify that aging fissile materials continue to function as-expected is very important. It really matters t
by ISL 4y ago
Experiment is the arbiter of truth -- being able to verify that aging fissile materials continue to function as-expected is very important.
It really matters that nuclear weapons go bang when you want, but not when you don't.
An example of why one needs to care about such things in stockpile stewardship -- plutonium's own radioactivity means that helium is effectively being born within the crystal lattice, causing damage, distortion, and swelling. It isn't a guarantee that a bomb that worked 50 years ago will work today.
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1241955 https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1241955
- 4pkjai 4y agoI’m actually okay with nuclear weapons not working when someone wants them to
- aplummer 4y agoAre you ok with them working when someone doesn’t want them to though?
- labster 4y agoOnly if they’re on Russian military bases.
- geysersam 4y agoDo you need fusion plasma simulation to achieve that? Don't think so.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> Do you need fusion plasma simulation to achieve that? Don't think so. Would you prefer to know? Or go off a hunch?
- geysersam 4y agoI'll admit it's just a hunch telling me you don't actually need experiments on extremely high temperature plasma to prevent a reaction that never naturally takes place on earth. Intuitively, simply not building a bomb seems sufficient to prevent any accidental detonations. But I'm of course no expert.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> to prevent a reaction that never naturally takes place on earth The cores of these weapons are unlike any environment on Earth. Maintaining the stockpile without running simulations is negligent.
- DuskStar 4y agoNot building nukes guarantees a nuclear detonation will occur on earth, because The Other Side (TM) will use theirs on you.
- hutzlibu 4y agoThis is highly unlikely. An accident, where radiation leaks, maybe, but for a nuke to go off, everything has to work flawless.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xref 4y agoYikes, that’s alotta dead people when a nuke isn’t working as designed and unexpectedly detonates US ICBM silo map https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-45b10c7543ed5219a778587ef9c62c4e-c https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-45b10c7543ed5219a77858...
- geysersam 4y agoDon't misrepresent what the comment said. > okay with nuclear weapons not working when someone wants them to Obviously s/he hoped the weapons not to explode when fired.
- adrianN 4y agoSince it's not trivial to start a chain reaction that lasts long enough to create a sizeable explosion, unexpected (nuclear) explosions are a very unlikely failure mode for nuclear weapons.
- xref 4y agoAgreed, though the comment wasn’t about the _likelyhood_ of a failure
- mlyle 4y agoEveryone understands you are misrepresenting the GP comment. I hope it's on accident.
- mlyle 4y agoAnd now you've made an abusive edit; your original comment here was mocking and pointing out that it was the GP "wishing" for a failure. GP wished for a (moderately) likely failure: failure to detonate. GP obviously didn't wish for unlikely failures, like spontaneous detonation, ICBMs all flying to Washington DC, etc.
- ncmncm 4y agoWe all wish that were true. Experience has shown that it is not.
- hutzlibu 4y agoI very much agree, except for the one case, where they are supposed to blow up, or deflect an incoming asteroid.
- fallingknife 4y agoIt's actually worse though. If a bomb fails 50% of the time, they will just launch 5 to have a >95% chance of a hit.
- ncmncm 4y agoOddly, the US Department of Energy's statutory responsibility for "the safety and reliability of the nuclear arsenal" is officially interpreted within the department as: safety, it goes bang when you push the button; and reliability, it makes as big a bang as it says on the tin. Of course this "safety" has absolutely nothing to do with what the public naturally assumes is meant, which is typically that it won't go bang when you don't push the button, or leak, or be hijacked, or fall out of a plane carrying it. The DoE considers none of those its responsibility under the law. One might guess that going bang when the button is not pressed would be extremely unlikely. But when a B-52 crew made a booboo and dropped a pair of hydrogen bombs in a farmer's field, investigation showed that all of the processes that would have set them off completed; just not all on the same bomb.
- sandbags 4y agoI am listening to Eric Schlosser’s book “Command and Control” at the moment and it has quite a bit of detail on this and other nearly disastrous incidents and the complete lack of serious command & control around nuclear material/weapons. We are very lucky not to have had several accidental or unwanted nuclear detonations to this point. I’ve not finished the book but I am not optimistic the situation is very much better today.