7 ms·

> Only in December of 2022 did scientists at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory announce that they had achieved the fi

> Only in December of 2022 did scientists at the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory announce that they had achieved the first recorded fusion reaction with a net energy gain We've been achieving fusion reactions with net energy gain since the 1950s, when hydrogen bombs were developed. And, on top of that, the achievement they're talking about was more energy out than light energy put in from lasers. The NIF lasers are not anywhere close to 100% efficient at converting energy to light, and so it was not actually net energy positive. NIF is not going to lead to fusion power. That's not the point. Fusion bombs are primarily an engineering problem. There's lots of plasma physics going on that is very difficult to simulate with a computer, and you need real world data to inform the simulations to make sure they're working properly. That's what NIF is for. Instead of having to blow up a nuclear bomb, and violating test ban treaties, NIF can produce that data. And with the PR shine of tying it to fusion energy.

daedrdev 2y ago
We already have enough nukes to glass the world several times over.
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  I don't understand your comment at all. It doesn't seem to me that GP was suggesting more bombs, just suggesting more testing and letting bomb makers use all their available tools and funding on it.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  This is not true.
- dekhn 2y ago
  That may have been true in the past but the major nuclear arsenals are much smaller, and the yields much lower, with the intent of incapacitating an enemy, not destroying the entire world.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  I doubt you meant that literally, but just to illustrate the gap, let's consider what it would require for just one glassing. World land area is ~149,000,000 km². Acknowledged nuclear warheads are ~13,000. So the average single warhead would somehow need to "glass"--however, thoroughly or deeply you choose to define that--over 11,000 km². For context, that's about one US state of Connecticut or the nation of Qatar. ... So you might say I'm a "glass is nowhere even close to half-full" kinda guy.
rqtwteye 2y ago
It’s pretty crazy that they are still working on improving nuclear bombs. If there is one area where the current state is “good enough” it should be that area. I can see the need for maintaining what we have already but why try to advance the technology? A pure fusion bomb would be cleaner as far as I know but do we really want to make nuclear war more feasible?
- dgacmu 2y ago
  In their defense, some of the questions and that they're asking are about how our stockpile degrades over time - which hopefully means keeping weapons on ice longer instead of having to reprocess and build as many new ones.
- segfaultbuserr 2y ago
  > I can see the need for maintaining what we have already [...] The officially-stated goal of these labs (pulsed power, fusion, and hydrodynamic test facilities [0]) is indeed for maintaining existing nuclear weapons, not to design new ones (and also for doing basic research during free time). This was called the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship program [1] - ensure that existing nuclear weapons would remain functional in the foreseeable future. (Interestingly, the lesser-known hydrodynamic test facilities such as the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility are more useful for weapon designs than fusion facilities). The idea is to test materials under extreme lab conditions to help computer modeling, so that it would still be possible to do minor design changes to replace obsolete or end-of-life parts (the FOGBANK incident [1] came to mind). Understanding long-term aging is also a stated goal. [0] http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/agex.htm http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/agex.htm [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile_stewardship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile_stewardship [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank
- doubloon 2y ago
  if we do not maintain expertise in nuclear weapons then we will end up like Ukraine.
  - rqtwteye 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

daedrdev 2y ago

We already have enough nukes to glass the world several times over.

jvanderbot 2y ago
I don't understand your comment at all. It doesn't seem to me that GP was suggesting more bombs, just suggesting more testing and letting bomb makers use all their available tools and funding on it.
pfdietz 2y ago
This is not true.
dekhn 2y ago
That may have been true in the past but the major nuclear arsenals are much smaller, and the yields much lower, with the intent of incapacitating an enemy, not destroying the entire world.
Terr_ 2y ago
I doubt you meant that literally, but just to illustrate the gap, let's consider what it would require for just one glassing. World land area is ~149,000,000 km². Acknowledged nuclear warheads are ~13,000. So the average single warhead would somehow need to "glass"--however, thoroughly or deeply you choose to define that--over 11,000 km². For context, that's about one US state of Connecticut or the nation of Qatar. ... So you might say I'm a "glass is nowhere even close to half-full" kinda guy.

rqtwteye 2y ago

It’s pretty crazy that they are still working on improving nuclear bombs. If there is one area where the current state is “good enough” it should be that area. I can see the need for maintaining what we have already but why try to advance the technology? A pure fusion bomb would be cleaner as far as I know but do we really want to make nuclear war more feasible?

dgacmu 2y ago
In their defense, some of the questions and that they're asking are about how our stockpile degrades over time - which hopefully means keeping weapons on ice longer instead of having to reprocess and build as many new ones.
segfaultbuserr 2y ago
> I can see the need for maintaining what we have already [...] The officially-stated goal of these labs (pulsed power, fusion, and hydrodynamic test facilities [0]) is indeed for maintaining existing nuclear weapons, not to design new ones (and also for doing basic research during free time). This was called the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship program [1] - ensure that existing nuclear weapons would remain functional in the foreseeable future. (Interestingly, the lesser-known hydrodynamic test facilities such as the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility are more useful for weapon designs than fusion facilities). The idea is to test materials under extreme lab conditions to help computer modeling, so that it would still be possible to do minor design changes to replace obsolete or end-of-life parts (the FOGBANK incident [1] came to mind). Understanding long-term aging is also a stated goal. [0] http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/agex.htm http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/agex.htm [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile_stewardship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile_stewardship [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank
doubloon 2y ago
if we do not maintain expertise in nuclear weapons then we will end up like Ukraine.
- rqtwteye 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]