[arinlen]

> (..) when nuclear labs get >1000 petaflop super computers (..)

Would you prefer the research being performed based on empirical testing instead of running simulations?

[ok_dad]

IMO: we had good enough nuclear weapons 50 years ago to glass the whole planet, so why continue to try and improve a weapon of armageddon? Just maintain and build the same old nuclear weapons that are effective enough and try and remove the need for the weapons over time with the diplomatic and political process.

[arinlen]

> IMO: we had good enough nuclear weapons 50 years ago to (...)

The money pouring into research disproves this.

In fact, it makes no sense at all to clam that our collective understanding of a phenomenon is already satisfactory and all research was already done after a few years of the first real world test.

For context, the Oklahoma City bombing was a few decades into the past but it still motivates a great deal of research in multiple research paths, even though none of it is rocket science or involves cutting-edge physics.

[ok_dad]

> The money pouring into research disproves this.

Yea, because money always goes to the most important and most useful research! /s

[dekhn]

that's why the mission switched to "stockpile stewardship" some time ago - we have to maintain the reliability of the existing fleet since we don't build many new ones.