Supercomputers offer tools for nuclear testing — and solving nuclear mysteries

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

Originally posted by nixie_nox
This is just interesting if anything.

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.

edit on 2-11-2011 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

Wait, so we can guide a cruise missile into a window from thousands of miles away, but potentially MISS with a nuclear explosion? I think someone got their facts mixed up.

reply to post by steppenwolf86


I am no where near a military weapons expert. But I would assume that different missles require different launches. Would a cruise missle be launched from within the land mass they intend on targeting? As oppossed to guiding a nuclear missle over the ocean to another continent?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Do you think that actual nuclear testing is needed to determine the efficiency of weapons?

No, I don't. We've done testing already, and we have a knowledge of how these weapons work. If it turns out the nuke yields a 100 megaton explosion instead of 80 or 120, well, you're still royally screwed if that lands on your hometown. As bad as most world governments are, at least they've had the sense not to use nuclear weapons in war since 1945. We don't need bigger nukes, and I would argue we don't even need them at all. Even if we did, we already know how to build them, and we can already take out a city with one; why on earth would you need more than that?

Originally posted by steppenwolf86

Originally posted by nixie_nox
This is just interesting if anything.

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.

edit on 2-11-2011 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

Wait, so we can guide a cruise missile into a window from thousands of miles away, but potentially MISS with a nuclear explosion? I think someone got their facts mixed up.

You're comparing apples to oranges. A cruise missile, using terrain-contour matching and GPSS updated guidance is (or at least had better be) a lot more accurate than an unguided gravity bomb (or, to use the less-flattering term, a 'dumb bomb') like the B-83. That said, one can make a fairly convincing argument that when you're delivering a munition with a 1.2 megaton yield, pinpoint accuracy isn't really necessary.

I was thinking more along the lines of SS series and Patriot Ballistic Missiles. Perhaps the cruise missile was a poor comparison considering it hugs the ground and the other comes from outside the atmosphere. I just have a hard time believing the missiles would be so innacurate.

reply to post by steppenwolf86


I understand what you mean but nuclear weapons are going to be launched halfway around the world, as opposed from a facility or vehicle that is not that far from the target.

I can imagine that weather, earth rotation and orbit, would start interfering the further you have to go. But that is just a guess.