Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 227 posts

Re: Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?

#171

Post by simplicio »

I've worked on (unrelated to nuclear stuff) computer simulation projects for the Navy where they had standard, notional models of the battleship which had the same sort of general properties you'd expect a battleship to have, but wasn't based on the design of any real battleship, so they could share them with researchers to develop their codes on without having to worry about revealing classified details.

Wonder if this isn't something similar, if the DoE has some sort of "standardized notional warhead" design they can use to give to outside researchers without having to give every post-doc and grad-student a security clearance.

Re: Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?

#172

Post by walrus01 »

simplicio wrote: post #171

I've worked on (unrelated to nuclear stuff) computer simulation projects for the Navy where they had standard, notional models of the battleship which had the same sort of general properties you'd expect a battleship to have, but wasn't based on the design of any real battleship, so they could share them with researchers to develop their codes on without having to worry about revealing classified details. Wonder if t…

Do you actually mean battleship, or frigate, corvette, aircraft carrier, etc? Battleships in the sense of the Iowa class and similar haven't been a thing in the US Navy for a very long time, unless you were working on blast damage/effect simulations in the 1980s when Reagan reactivated them for a short time.

Re: Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?

#173

Post by bobthepanda »

gnfargbl wrote: post #149
next_xibalba wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what is it that the author thinks is particularly unusual about this image? The level of detail, particularly the articulation of components/subsystems (primary, secondary, radiation case, interstage medium, tamper, fusion fuel, and a "sparkplug"). All according to the article. Per author, DoE has very strict guidelines on the depiction of nukes, and this image appears to violate those guidelines. The official depi…

> I am speculating here, but it seems like DoE must believe that anything beyond simple shapes may provide bad actors (i.e. anyone but US Govt and allies) clues as to how to build a thermo-nuke. And with good reason: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science It's a bit like the Egg of Columbus. Doing it the first time needs a team of visionary geniuses, but once the trick is known to work then even us…

the problem is usually getting the fissile material.

as far as non-state actors go though, other types of WMD are probably more attainable. Aum Shinrikyo is probably the most infamous example where a cult manufactured multiple chemical weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo#Tokyo_subway_sar...

Re: Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?

#174

Post by BWStearns »

_n_b_ wrote: post #159
BWStearns wrote: post #141

Tangentially: I wonder if the checker badge is a visual pun on the Arms and Influence cover. https://www.amazon.com/Arms-Influence-Preface-Afterword-Lect...

I would bet a few dollars that no Facility Security Officer (the name for people who manage security programs for defense contractor, despite sounding like a Sunday name for ‘guards’) in the entire NNSA complex has ever read Arms and Influence. That’s not quite their demographic profile.

I'd take the other side of that bet. I've met some with pretty surprising backgrounds.

Re: Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?

#176

Post by Joking_Phantom »

walrus01 wrote: post #172
simplicio wrote: post #171

I've worked on (unrelated to nuclear stuff) computer simulation projects for the Navy where they had standard, notional models of the battleship which had the same sort of general properties you'd expect a battleship to have, but wasn't based on the design of any real battleship, so they could share them with researchers to develop their codes on without having to worry about revealing classified details. Wonder if t…

Do you actually mean battleship, or frigate, corvette, aircraft carrier, etc? Battleships in the sense of the Iowa class and similar haven't been a thing in the US Navy for a very long time, unless you were working on blast damage/effect simulations in the 1980s when Reagan reactivated them for a short time.

It seems likely that theoretical work would still be done on battleships, after we stopped using them in the real world.

Re: Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?

#178

Post by diab0lic »

felipelemos wrote: post #177

> at someone had posted on Reddit late last night (you know, as one does, instead of sleeping) After a couple of decades of internet I was expecting people to realize other timezones exists.

The full paragraph is as follows.

> I happened to look at a slide deck from Sandia National Laboratories from 2007 that someone had posted on Reddit late last night (you know, as one does, instead of sleeping), and one particular slide jumped out at me:

The author is making fun of themselves for being up late reading this deck instead of sleeping. They’re not making fun of the person who posted the slide deck.

Re: Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?

#179

Post by echelon »

kstrauser wrote: post #146
next_xibalba wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what is it that the author thinks is particularly unusual about this image? The level of detail, particularly the articulation of components/subsystems (primary, secondary, radiation case, interstage medium, tamper, fusion fuel, and a "sparkplug"). All according to the article. Per author, DoE has very strict guidelines on the depiction of nukes, and this image appears to violate those guidelines. The official depi…

Conclusion: that's a diagram of the obvious approach to building a thermonuclear device, which happens to be completely wrong for classified reasons, and if you pursue this design you're going to waste a decade before you figure out why.

> which happens to be completely wrong

Or simply suboptimal.

Re: Did Sandia use a thermonuclear secondary in a product logo?

#180

Post by why_only_15 »

fragmede wrote: post #158
lazide wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

speculation can be found on Wikipedia, perhaps accurate speculation, perhaps not. DoE contractors leaking details that confirm that speculation would indeed be a big deal, and might well save adversaries some real time and mistakes they’d otherwise make.

Or it's a psyop designed to make adversaries waste their time on a design that couldn't work.

In the post he mentions why he thinks this is unlikely and is not a thing the US has done previously.
Post reply on HN