This is just interesting if anything.
LIVERMORE, CALIF. — A group of nuclear weapons designers and scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory conducted a what-if
experiment several years ago, deploying supercomputers to simulate what happens to a nuclear weapon from the moment it leaves storage to the point
when it hits a target.
They methodically worked down a checklist of all the possible conditions that could affect the B-83 strategic nuclear bomb, the most powerful and one
of the most modern weapons in the U.S. arsenal, officials said. The scientists and designers examined how temperature, altitude, vibration and other
factors would affect the bomb in what is called the stockpile-to-target sequence.
The article goes on to say that the models show that any detonation has a pretty good chance of hitting innaccurately or not at all.
But the military has spent the past couple of years remdying this.
Acutal nuclear tests have not been run since the 90s, but this computer modeling brings up an interesting debate that it may break the nuclear test
ban treaty.
Does computer simulation break a test ban treaty? This was created in 99 but has not been adopted by the United States as of yet.
Considering that the US is the second largest holder of nukes outside of Russia, I can see why the UN feels its important for the US to be on it.
The episode, details of which remain classified, offers a glimpse into a rarely seen but potentially significant shift in the nuclear weapons era.
According to scientists and officials, the United States’ weapons laboratories, armed with some of the fastest computers on the planet, are peering
ever deeper into the mystery of how thermonuclear explosions occur, gaining an understanding that in some ways goes beyond what was learned from
explosive tests, which ended in 1992.
This is basically the next shift that military is going really high tech. If you don't have the supercomputer, your not going to be able to compete.
Someone should steal Wal Marts.
Another interesting result of this computer simulation is that many faults were found with the nukes. But the computer simulations saved millions that
would of cost to fix them.
Now the other interesting point the article brings up that computer modeling is not a sufficient replacement for nuclear testing. Some say it is,
others say that it isn't.
Since the US is not on the treaty, the US is till open to nuclear testing.
Do you think that actual nuclear testing is needed to determine the efficiency of weapons?
washingtonpost.com
edit on 2-11-2011 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)
