3 ms·
Fortunately, designing one doesn't mean you'll successfully build one, and building one doesn't mean you'll have something that actually works.
by rosser 13y ago
Fortunately, designing one doesn't mean you'll successfully build one, and building one doesn't mean you'll have something that actually works.
- phaemon 13y agoI'm guessing the fact that it was a design for a "working atomic bomb" (from the article) is the bit that means you'd "have something that actually works."
- pyre 13y agoThe generic design might be something that works, but if you don't account for materials, tolerances, etc that are associated with the building of the device, it could be broken.
- voyou 13y agoYes, the gap between the theoretical knowledge of how nuclear weapons work, and the practical ability to build one, is large. There's an interesting article about the possibility of "uninventing" nuclear weapons by stopping to make them, thereby losing the practical knowledge that is required to produce them: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2782506 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2782506 (requires registration to read).
- Nrsolis 13y agoThis will NEVER happen. For one thing, it would be trivial for us to re-learn how to make one. The folks that had NEVER invented one did it in short order without computers and specialized equipment. They weren't even sure they'd be successful the first go around. Possessing this knowledge would be very useful in a world where other nations didn't have it. Just look at history to know the reason why. The only thing stopping the spread of this knowledge is the early warning provided by watching for the attempts of governments to acquire it themselves. Once you know they are trying, you use political/economic/military pressure to force them to abandon the effort. In some cases that works (South Africa). In some cases it doesn't (North Korea).