The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the U.S.
inference-review.com
The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the U.S.
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the U.S.
#2> I was told that the mushroom clouds were clearly visible from the casinos.
Just warming up for Armageddon in the distance, NBD.
But on another note, Bernstein says that the barrier to armament is only political, not technical. How does a nation-state that has previously not had a thermonuclear program go about designing and testing a weapon in the age of test-ban treaties? (Ignoring countries that obviously flaunt it,N̶K̶ ̶&̶ ̶I̶r̶a̶n̶). Say Germany wanted to build up a weapons program - wouldn't testing be an absolute prerequisite?
Edit: ok, so hypothetically for countries that flaunt it.
Re: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the U.S.
#3I would love to read this (presumably excellent) article, but this horrible javascript monstrosity of a website has inexplicably disabled my ability to navigate the page with my j key.
Re: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the U.S.
#4> I was told that the mushroom clouds were clearly visible from the casinos. Just warming up for Armageddon in the distance, NBD. But on another note, Bernstein says that the barrier to armament is only political, not technical. How does a nation-state that has previously not had a thermonuclear program go about designing and testing a weapon in the age of test-ban treaties? (Ignoring countries that obviously flaunt…
Probably the same way that nations that previously tested nuclear weapons currently develop nuclear weapons: with supercomputers and ICF facilities.
Making a bomb isn't very tricky. The nuclear bomb tests were a combination of learning physics and threatening adversaries. The understanding of making nuclear weapons doesn't see significant benefit from blowing up more bombs.
The physics is freely available. The gist of the designs are public. The rest is plug n chug.
Re: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the U.S.
#5> I was told that the mushroom clouds were clearly visible from the casinos. Just warming up for Armageddon in the distance, NBD. But on another note, Bernstein says that the barrier to armament is only political, not technical. How does a nation-state that has previously not had a thermonuclear program go about designing and testing a weapon in the age of test-ban treaties? (Ignoring countries that obviously flaunt…
Much of the testing is due to refining designs to make them more efficient, smaller, and lighter. If the Ukraine decided to build a bomb that wasn't state of the art they could be reasonably assured that it would work, but substantially less clear on final yield.
Yield only really matters in theory and for planning MAD. Tank divisions are equally destroyed with a 100 kiloton device as a 10 megaton device.
Re: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the U.S.
#6> I was told that the mushroom clouds were clearly visible from the casinos. Just warming up for Armageddon in the distance, NBD. But on another note, Bernstein says that the barrier to armament is only political, not technical. How does a nation-state that has previously not had a thermonuclear program go about designing and testing a weapon in the age of test-ban treaties? (Ignoring countries that obviously flaunt…
>Ignoring countries that obviously flaunt it, NK & Iran
When has Iran flaunted it? Three countries have made tests ignoring the treaty. North Korea, India, and Pakistan, all non-signatory states.
Re: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the U.S.
#7> I was told that the mushroom clouds were clearly visible from the casinos. Just warming up for Armageddon in the distance, NBD. But on another note, Bernstein says that the barrier to armament is only political, not technical. How does a nation-state that has previously not had a thermonuclear program go about designing and testing a weapon in the age of test-ban treaties? (Ignoring countries that obviously flaunt…
>Ignoring countries that obviously flaunt it, NK & Iran When has Iran flaunted it? Three countries have made tests ignoring the treaty. North Korea, India, and Pakistan, all non-signatory states.
Also one of: France, Israel, and or South Africa [0], of whom the latter two were signatories to the 1963 agreement.
Re: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the U.S.
#8> I was told that the mushroom clouds were clearly visible from the casinos. Just warming up for Armageddon in the distance, NBD. But on another note, Bernstein says that the barrier to armament is only political, not technical. How does a nation-state that has previously not had a thermonuclear program go about designing and testing a weapon in the age of test-ban treaties? (Ignoring countries that obviously flaunt…
Probably the same way that nations that previously tested nuclear weapons currently develop nuclear weapons: with supercomputers and ICF facilities. Making a bomb isn't very tricky. The nuclear bomb tests were a combination of learning physics and threatening adversaries. The understanding of making nuclear weapons doesn't see significant benefit from blowing up more bombs. The physics is freely available. The gist o…
I think there is a large discrepancy between hypothetically viable, and demonstrably viable.
Re: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the U.S.
#9> I was told that the mushroom clouds were clearly visible from the casinos. Just warming up for Armageddon in the distance, NBD. But on another note, Bernstein says that the barrier to armament is only political, not technical. How does a nation-state that has previously not had a thermonuclear program go about designing and testing a weapon in the age of test-ban treaties? (Ignoring countries that obviously flaunt…
Much of the testing is due to refining designs to make them more efficient, smaller, and lighter. If the Ukraine decided to build a bomb that wasn't state of the art they could be reasonably assured that it would work, but substantially less clear on final yield. Yield only really matters in theory and for planning MAD. Tank divisions are equally destroyed with a 100 kiloton device as a 10 megaton device.
But as a deterrent, you would need this to be reasonably accurate, yes?
Re: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the U.S.
#10The book author is also the author of NukeMap.