[HN Gopher] US moves closer to underground testing of nuclear we...
___________________________________________________________________
US moves closer to underground testing of nuclear weapons without
any explosions
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 18 points
Date : 2023-10-08 21:47 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (qz.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (qz.com)
| m3047 wrote:
| "...where scientists have been conducting subcritical experiments
| since 1995..."
| perihelions wrote:
| 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-administra...
| tpmx wrote:
| _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 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 wrote:
| 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
| tpmx wrote:
| You'd imagine they have a learned a bit since then. And it's
| underground.
| [deleted]
| jbandela1 wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| neetdeth wrote:
| 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.
| dboreham wrote:
| Fair point. Perhaps also worth noting that an "end-to-end" test
| has been performed by the US exactly once.
| tpmx wrote:
| (Twice.)
|
| I find it somewhat incredible from a pure engineering point
| of view that Trinity worked in the first test and that both
| Little Boy (#2) and Fat Man (#3) also worked.
| andbberger wrote:
| which test was that
| perihelions wrote:
| Dominic / Frigate Bird in 1962.
|
| _" Frigate Bird was the only US test of an operational
| ballistic missile with a live warhead."_
|
| https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Dominic.html
| bob1029 wrote:
| I agree.
|
| How long until subcritical experiments need to turn into
| supercritical ones? At some point you have to do an integration
| test or no one can say anything of certainty.
|
| Proving a sample of plutonium emits the right dose of radiation
| when whacked appropriately is a great starting point, but it
| doesn't validate the rest of the weapon system.
|
| You could test the bombs with inert cores to prove everything
| _outside_ the physics package is valid, but there is still the
| "but sometimes" bullshit space where perhaps the core seems
| good on paper but the neutron initiator has an undue delay
| related to aging circuitry and we lose 80% of the expected
| yield. Whatever the case - in isolation both system elements
| might test OK but they could still fail when combined.
|
| I feel like the dial-a-yield devices are most precarious (e.g.
| B61). How could you _really_ know you aren 't going to
| over/undershoot massively? What is the range of uncertainty on
| that system after 3 decades?
| justahuman74 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| If they're lobbing any, they're probably lobbing most
| anyways.
| perihelions wrote:
| Relevant and interesting:
|
| 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"_)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-08 23:01 UTC)