[neetdeth]

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.

[bob1029]

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?

[jjoonathan]

> undue delay related to aging circuitry

Instead of a dumb inert core they use a smart inert core that broadcasts precise measurements of the implosion using fiber optics and triboluminescent capsules that flash as the implosion wavefront crushes them. The computer has to broadcast the data before it itself gets crushed microseconds later. But yes, I still share your overall concern even though we can push the question marks one step later in the delicate process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYdAT0v4DHs

[D-Coder]

> What is the range of uncertainty on that system after 3 decades?

On a NUCLEAR BOMB? Who cares if it's 50% bigger or smaller than expected? These are not precision weapons.

[defrost]

There are multiple ways in which nuclear weapons are 'precise'.

The yields are known to precise amounts - with more than 2,000 nuclear weapons already detonated both below and above ground there's a mind boggling array of technical data available.

There's data on the physical impulse of various types of nuclear detonation, and data on how much or little direct radiation is created by doping the core and surrounds.

The effects of those yields is known for a wide range of scenarios; very high in the atmosphere, above the ground such that the blast radius barely touches the ground, at ground level and below ground.

Data exists to show they essentially suck for technical engineering and canal building, they irradiate vast amounts of debris at ground level and create massive clouds of fallout, and that they flatten cities with minimal side effect if detonated high enough for the shock wave to do all the work of crushing buildings.

The precision is sufficient to setup in advance to create 'Dixie Showgirl' bad ballet photoshoots:

https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/05/18/friday-image-the-...

FWiW I'm not pro nuclear war here, but it pays to be realistic about what has been achieved in the nuclear weapons domain.

[jjoonathan]

Problems don't make it go to 50%, they make it go to 0.1%. Not only are these precision weapons, these are the most precision weapons.

[justahuman74]

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]

If they're lobbing any, they're probably lobbing most anyways.

[gumby]

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]

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.

[gumby]

This was not considered "strategic" decision making back in the 80s, but I see your point. I do think it's good the US junked its tactical nuke programs (Davy Crocket et al) because they are tricky and hard to find good use cases for. They are also hard not to lose (most people don't realize how many portable things get lost in combat).

Allegedly Russia has various "red lines" which, when crossed would lead to tactical nukes in the Ukraine theatre. Many of those lines have been crossed with no nuke use. Prof Phillips P. OBrien pointed out that tactical nukes at this point would be an admission of weakness and would turn many allies against Russia. Also, like chemical weapons, they are simply hard to use without interfering with your own troops. Probably, IMO, the only use case is on day 0 right at the initial invasion.

The US has a wide range of non-weaponry responses, and who knows what they have in their subs, They may have smaller scale nukes as well. Subs are destabilizing today because nobody knows where they are. They used to be destabilizing because that also meant they were inaccurate (thus only useful against cities, where, like the game of horseshoes, "close" is good enough). Nowadays once they are launched they can use GPS, the stars, and probably simply vision since they know the approximate launch and destination locations.

You're currently getting downvoted which seems unreasonable.

[icegreentea2]

What about B61s do you think are unviable? Or is it the lack of missile systems that you're considering is unviable?

[oceanplexian]

B61s are aircraft delivered gravity bombs, a relic of the 1960s. It’s an entirely different category compared to the short range ICBMs that Russia employs from mobile ground vehicles.

[nkrisc]

Only launching one 10th of their warheads? What are the saving the other 90% for, exactly? The next nuclear war? A rainy day?

[bhickey]

While game theory is useful when developing nuclear strategy I don't think anyone takes MAD seriously: It isn't subgame perfect. Once the rockets are up, retaliation is no longer credible... because the purpose of the threat of retaliation is to discourage an attack in the first place.

[thsksbd]

MAD is stable because people aren't rational beings and game theory is therefore nuts.

When I have 500 nukes headed my way, I wont stop to think "well, maybe the remaining 10% of my population can scrape by a living as dogs. Lets not retaliate and maybe they wont launch their remaining 500"

Ill think: "fuck 'em m! launch everything we got"

[jowea]

That's what dead's man switch[0] and madman theory are for. Or just human nature, specifically hate and desire for vengeance and punishment I guess.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

[saboot]

Would you be comfortable with testing being done near where you live?

Why not? And where would you propose instead?

[ceejayoz]

Why would you test them near where someone lives?

Deep underground in unpopulated areas works fairly well; we learned how to do it without fallout as early as the late 1950s. You're at dramatically greater health risk living downwind of a coal power plant.

[defrost]

> Why would you test them near where someone lives?

Because they're Australians, Pacfic Islanders, gamblers that already visit Las Vegas, etc.

We already have the answer to "why test near where people live" from the 2000+ tests already taken place at Yucca Flat (fallout on Vegas & elsewhere), Emu Fields (Adelaide and a future British PM dusted with fallout), Castle Bravo (shat on people's lovely island home and created Gojira (allegedly)), etc.

With eight billion+ on the planet it's hard to test anywhere without affecting someone - hence the move away from above ground to below ground (Atmospheric testing was banned by the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty) and a later move to simulations only by the US (although not India, Pakistan, North Korea, etc).

[ceejayoz]

Each of the fallout issues you identify stem from atmospheric testing.

Again, we've known how to prevent fallout via underground tests and carefully constructed tunnel layouts for ~70 years now. No one of influence in the West is proposing a return to atmospheric testing.

[defrost]

Underground or overground the answer to the question you posed ( "Why would you test them near where someone lives?" ) is, from past experience, because we (for various values of 'we') just do.

Actual tests of real weapons (not simulations) underground collapse mountains (North Korea) and affect fault lines, sub surface water flows, etc - these things will likely affect some people in a 200 km radius - and places with no one in that vicinity are hard to come by - generally you move people off their islands, off their land, or simply don't care.

[saboot]

> or simply don't care

Bingo

[dboreham]

Fair point. Perhaps also worth noting that an "end-to-end" test has been performed by the US exactly once.

[tpmx]

(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 (Test #2) and Fat Man (Test #3) also worked.

[m3047]

I think that's explained by "are you scared? good. do it scared."

[andbberger]

which test was that

[perihelions]

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#Frig...

[danbruc]

Or just get rid of all nuclear weapons.

[oceanplexian]

If you have some ideas on how to change the laws of physics I’m all ears. Otherwise someone will always be able to build one.

[jjoonathan]

You get to choose what you do, not what the other guy does.

[thsksbd]

And get rid of all guns while your at it.

[bayindirh]

> Just bring back testing.

...and rolling earthquakes with that. Why not? Great idea.