4 ms·

US moves closer to underground testing of nuclear weapons without any explosions

tpmx 3y ago
Scientists call it “tickling the dragon’s tail," Custer said, because the experiment approaches but stays below the stage at which the fission of nuclear materials sustains an ongoing series of chain reactions. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core Feynman was the person behind that expression. Scientists referred to this flirting with the possibility of a nuclear chain reaction as "tickling the dragon's tail", based on a remark by physicist Richard Feynman, who compared the experiments to "tickling the tail of a sleeping dragon".
- nico 3y ago
  From the Wikipedia article: > The demon core was a sphere of plutonium that was involved in two fatal radiation accidents when scientists tested it as a fissile core of an early atomic bomb > In both cases, an experiment was intended to demonstrate how close the core was to criticality with a tamper, but the core was accidentally put into a critical configuration That doesn’t sound very reassuring
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tpmx 3y ago
    You'd imagine they have a learned a bit since then. And it's underground.
neetdeth 3y ago
Unpopular opinion: Just bring back testing. I’ve seen way too many people speculate recently that Russia’s nuclear arsenal possibly doesn’t work. This is incredibly dangerous. What’s the plan when humanity is so many decades into a test ban that nuclear detonations are a generational memory? Something akin to a myth. The relative stability afforded by MAD doctrine is bound to decline.
- justahuman74 3y ago
  Also: we don't want someone lobbing 10x as many warheads because they only think half work I think a few countries will feel a bit vulnerable at some point (like Poland/Japan/Australia/SouthKorea) and start to question if concepts like the US umbrella is truly a sufficient deterrent, and probably start their own development/testing
  - giantg2 3y ago
    If they're lobbing any, they're probably lobbing most anyways.
    - gumby 3y ago
      When I took a class on strategic nuclear game theory back in the 80s the options were 1, 2 and all, with "all" being the only serious cases. The assumption was the enemy would try to take out all your nukes so you'd have to launch quickly before they were taken out. Subs, of course, being the ultimate terror weapon, changed the calculus completely. What I really got out of the class was that this kind of game theory was almost useless once you had subs with nukes on them. "Almost" because antimissile defense was destabilizing even without subs, so is in everybody's interest to negotiate away.
      - oceanplexian 3y ago
        MAD is a scenario, not the only or most likely. There are a million and one scenarios where you have some kind of nuclear conflict and it stays regional. And actually this part is a massive problem for the US since we don’t have a viable tactical nuclear arsenal. Our strategic options are limited and the US wouldn’t be able to respond tit-for-tat if, say, the Russians started using smaller weapons in a battlefield situation, our only option is to either do nothing, or level a city and escalate the conflict.
        icegreentea2 3y ago
        What about B61s do you think are unviable? Or is it the lack of missile systems that you're considering is unviable?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
perihelions 3y ago
Relevant and interesting: https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/remarks-nnsa-administrator-jill-hruby-ctbt-science-and-technology-conference-2023 https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/remarks-nnsa-administra... ("Remarks by NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby at the [Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty]: Science and Technology Conference 2023") Likely not common knowledge that Russian, Chinese, and treaty organization observers are hosted at these lab tests and witness them—to verify that no nuclear detonations are taking place.
m3047 3y ago
"...where scientists have been conducting subcritical experiments since 1995..."
- perihelions 3y ago
  Right. There's been 33 since then, with two more planned in 2024. The title is pretty misleading, in that respect. The US can't be "moving closer to" something that it's already doing. - "Currently, the NNSA is building two new subcritical experimental testbeds at the U1a Complex in Nevada. The testbeds will provide data to help address stockpile questions, with a special focus on the impact of plutonium aging on weapon performance. Since halting underground nuclear explosive testing, the United States has executed 33 subcritical experiments. The United States is preparing to execute two subcritical experiments in 2024 and plans to conduct approximately three subcritical experiments per year by the end of the decade." https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/remarks-nnsa-administrator-jill-hruby-ctbt-science-and-technology-conference-2023 https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/remarks-nnsa-administra...
jbandela1 3y ago
This would be a great plot opener for a thriller book: The testing reveals that none of initial batch of warheads tested work. Worry spreads throughout the scientists as they broaden the testing none of the warheads work. There is full on panic now that the entire US nuclear deterrent has evaporated. If foreign powers found out, the US and all nations under the nuclear umbrella would be subject to blackmail.
- genman 3y ago
  That been strongly speculated about the Russian state of nuclear warheads - because those are not properly maintained, none of them works - Russia, despite their wild claims doesn't have any nuclear deterrent as we speak. So it is likely that they are moving toward doing an actual nuclear test, likely in the atmosphere. Legal framework to move in that direction is currently in progress. They of course try to milk as much leverage they can get in such process - I hope that Western policy makers understand that it will not change the end result - there will be a nuclear test regardless of the amount of concessions they will make.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    >Russia is in the late stages of a decades-long modernization of its strategic and nonstrategic nuclear forces to replace Soviet-era weapons with newer systems. In December 2022, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu reported that modern weapons and equipment now make up 91.3 percent of Russia’s nuclear triad. https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Russian-nuclear-weapons-2023.pdf https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Russian-nuclear-w...
    - genman 3y ago
      Claims are cheap.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - tivert 3y ago
    > That been strongly speculated about the Russian state of nuclear warheads - because those are not properly maintained, none of them works - Russia, despite their wild claims doesn't have any nuclear deterrent as we speak. I've seen speculation to that effect, but I do think you're talking the conclusion too far: it's reasonable to speculate some of their warheads don't work, but not all of them. While googling your claim, I came across this source (https://thebulletin.org/2009/12/nuclear-weapons-the-modernization-myth/ https://thebulletin.org/2009/12/nuclear-weapons-the-moderniz...), which does say the Russians maintain their warheads more poorly, but they compensate for that by re-manufacturing and replacing them regularly. > So it is likely that they are moving toward doing an actual nuclear test, likely in the atmosphere. Legal framework to move in that direction is currently in progress. Cite?
wudangmonk 3y ago
Deterrant?, I honestly do not fear Russia, NK or any other nation but the U.S in starting a nuclear war, why? for the simple fact that some idiot think tank somewhere has convinced themselves that such a war in winnable.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  The US is the only party that probably will never have a reason to really consider a nuclear first strike: Basically endless conventional options with significant superiority over any potential enemy makes the risk of MAD completely unworkable. The party most likely to go nuclear is the one that has no other avenue to success.
  - thsksbd 3y ago
    Incredible. Two years later and Americans have forgotten the Saigon like scenes in Kabul and we're back to being invincible. We haven't won a war against a peer enemy since WW2 and lost most of the wars against non-peers since then.
    - ocdtrekkie 3y ago
      > We haven't won a war against a peer enemy since WW2 and lost most of the wars against non-peers since then. Sure, but effectively because the US is fighting on terms that nuclear weapons do not really help: The US has more than enough conventional firepower to turn most of the countries it has been at war in to sheets of glass, but the goal is very distinctly to not do that. Losing wars fought in the streets where you're trying to not kill civilians isn't really a scenario where adding nukes helps.
    - jjtheblunt 3y ago
      Depending on the definition of war, that claim can look quite different: perhaps cultures conduct their real clashes not with armaments but with propaganda and economic prowess. (google and android and apple and iphones might all be examples, as might be science like CRISPR-CAS9, none of which originate in Chinese or Russian labs, though China was smart enough to build factories as a service, for examples, but in some collaboration of european cultures including in the americas).

tpmx 3y ago

Scientists call it “tickling the dragon’s tail," Custer said, because the experiment approaches but stays below the stage at which the fission of nuclear materials sustains an ongoing series of chain reactions. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core Feynman was the person behind that expression. Scientists referred to this flirting with the possibility of a nuclear chain reaction as "tickling the dragon's tail", based on a remark by physicist Richard Feynman, who compared the experiments to "tickling the tail of a sleeping dragon".

nico 3y ago
From the Wikipedia article: > The demon core was a sphere of plutonium that was involved in two fatal radiation accidents when scientists tested it as a fissile core of an early atomic bomb > In both cases, an experiment was intended to demonstrate how close the core was to criticality with a tamper, but the core was accidentally put into a critical configuration That doesn’t sound very reassuring
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tpmx 3y ago
  You'd imagine they have a learned a bit since then. And it's underground.

neetdeth 3y ago

Unpopular opinion: Just bring back testing. I’ve seen way too many people speculate recently that Russia’s nuclear arsenal possibly doesn’t work. This is incredibly dangerous. What’s the plan when humanity is so many decades into a test ban that nuclear detonations are a generational memory? Something akin to a myth. The relative stability afforded by MAD doctrine is bound to decline.

justahuman74 3y ago
Also: we don't want someone lobbing 10x as many warheads because they only think half work I think a few countries will feel a bit vulnerable at some point (like Poland/Japan/Australia/SouthKorea) and start to question if concepts like the US umbrella is truly a sufficient deterrent, and probably start their own development/testing
- giantg2 3y ago
  If they're lobbing any, they're probably lobbing most anyways.
  - gumby 3y ago
    When I took a class on strategic nuclear game theory back in the 80s the options were 1, 2 and all, with "all" being the only serious cases. The assumption was the enemy would try to take out all your nukes so you'd have to launch quickly before they were taken out. Subs, of course, being the ultimate terror weapon, changed the calculus completely. What I really got out of the class was that this kind of game theory was almost useless once you had subs with nukes on them. "Almost" because antimissile defense was destabilizing even without subs, so is in everybody's interest to negotiate away.
    - oceanplexian 3y ago
      MAD is a scenario, not the only or most likely. There are a million and one scenarios where you have some kind of nuclear conflict and it stays regional. And actually this part is a massive problem for the US since we don’t have a viable tactical nuclear arsenal. Our strategic options are limited and the US wouldn’t be able to respond tit-for-tat if, say, the Russians started using smaller weapons in a battlefield situation, our only option is to either do nothing, or level a city and escalate the conflict.
      - icegreentea2 3y ago
        What about B61s do you think are unviable? Or is it the lack of missile systems that you're considering is unviable?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

perihelions 3y ago

Relevant and interesting: https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/remarks-nnsa-administrator-jill-hruby-ctbt-science-and-technology-conference-2023 https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/remarks-nnsa-administra... ("Remarks by NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby at the [Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty]: Science and Technology Conference 2023") Likely not common knowledge that Russian, Chinese, and treaty organization observers are hosted at these lab tests and witness them—to verify that no nuclear detonations are taking place.

m3047 3y ago

"...where scientists have been conducting subcritical experiments since 1995..."

perihelions 3y ago
Right. There's been 33 since then, with two more planned in 2024. The title is pretty misleading, in that respect. The US can't be "moving closer to" something that it's already doing. - "Currently, the NNSA is building two new subcritical experimental testbeds at the U1a Complex in Nevada. The testbeds will provide data to help address stockpile questions, with a special focus on the impact of plutonium aging on weapon performance. Since halting underground nuclear explosive testing, the United States has executed 33 subcritical experiments. The United States is preparing to execute two subcritical experiments in 2024 and plans to conduct approximately three subcritical experiments per year by the end of the decade." https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/remarks-nnsa-administrator-jill-hruby-ctbt-science-and-technology-conference-2023 https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/remarks-nnsa-administra...

jbandela1 3y ago

This would be a great plot opener for a thriller book: The testing reveals that none of initial batch of warheads tested work. Worry spreads throughout the scientists as they broaden the testing none of the warheads work. There is full on panic now that the entire US nuclear deterrent has evaporated. If foreign powers found out, the US and all nations under the nuclear umbrella would be subject to blackmail.

genman 3y ago
That been strongly speculated about the Russian state of nuclear warheads - because those are not properly maintained, none of them works - Russia, despite their wild claims doesn't have any nuclear deterrent as we speak. So it is likely that they are moving toward doing an actual nuclear test, likely in the atmosphere. Legal framework to move in that direction is currently in progress. They of course try to milk as much leverage they can get in such process - I hope that Western policy makers understand that it will not change the end result - there will be a nuclear test regardless of the amount of concessions they will make.
- hollerith 3y ago
  >Russia is in the late stages of a decades-long modernization of its strategic and nonstrategic nuclear forces to replace Soviet-era weapons with newer systems. In December 2022, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu reported that modern weapons and equipment now make up 91.3 percent of Russia’s nuclear triad. https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Russian-nuclear-weapons-2023.pdf https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Russian-nuclear-w...
  - genman 3y ago
    Claims are cheap.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- tivert 3y ago
  > That been strongly speculated about the Russian state of nuclear warheads - because those are not properly maintained, none of them works - Russia, despite their wild claims doesn't have any nuclear deterrent as we speak. I've seen speculation to that effect, but I do think you're talking the conclusion too far: it's reasonable to speculate some of their warheads don't work, but not all of them. While googling your claim, I came across this source (https://thebulletin.org/2009/12/nuclear-weapons-the-modernization-myth/ https://thebulletin.org/2009/12/nuclear-weapons-the-moderniz...), which does say the Russians maintain their warheads more poorly, but they compensate for that by re-manufacturing and replacing them regularly. > So it is likely that they are moving toward doing an actual nuclear test, likely in the atmosphere. Legal framework to move in that direction is currently in progress. Cite?

wudangmonk 3y ago

Deterrant?, I honestly do not fear Russia, NK or any other nation but the U.S in starting a nuclear war, why? for the simple fact that some idiot think tank somewhere has convinced themselves that such a war in winnable.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
The US is the only party that probably will never have a reason to really consider a nuclear first strike: Basically endless conventional options with significant superiority over any potential enemy makes the risk of MAD completely unworkable. The party most likely to go nuclear is the one that has no other avenue to success.
- thsksbd 3y ago
  Incredible. Two years later and Americans have forgotten the Saigon like scenes in Kabul and we're back to being invincible. We haven't won a war against a peer enemy since WW2 and lost most of the wars against non-peers since then.
  - ocdtrekkie 3y ago
    > We haven't won a war against a peer enemy since WW2 and lost most of the wars against non-peers since then. Sure, but effectively because the US is fighting on terms that nuclear weapons do not really help: The US has more than enough conventional firepower to turn most of the countries it has been at war in to sheets of glass, but the goal is very distinctly to not do that. Losing wars fought in the streets where you're trying to not kill civilians isn't really a scenario where adding nukes helps.
  - jjtheblunt 3y ago
    Depending on the definition of war, that claim can look quite different: perhaps cultures conduct their real clashes not with armaments but with propaganda and economic prowess. (google and android and apple and iphones might all be examples, as might be science like CRISPR-CAS9, none of which originate in Chinese or Russian labs, though China was smart enough to build factories as a service, for examples, but in some collaboration of european cultures including in the americas).