SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
How Do We Know the Nukes Still Work?:
Though the treaty explicitly banning all nuclear weapons tests has not yet entered into force, the United States has not detonated a nuclear weapon since 1992. The American nuclear strategy still relies on the nuclear weapons working, but without full-scale tests, the Department of Energy's National Labs now operate the Stockpile Stewardship program, which relies on theory, simulations, and experiments to deliver annual weapons assessments to the federal government.
[...] "The [Stockpile Stewardship program] has gone through a number of administrations, and the Defense Department hasn't said that we have to go back to testing," Victor "Vic" Reis, former assistant secretary of energy for defense programs at the Department of Energy and one of the program's architects, told Gizmodo. "We understand enough of what's happening with the current stockpile of weapons—they're safe and reliable."
Reis teamed up with senior scientists and military personnel to draft a program that could validate the performance of the weapons and simulate the effects of aging on the weapons and their safety—what he called Science Based Stockpile Stewardship. [...] However, there wasn't nearly enough computing capacity to run all of the required simulations. Fortunately, Reis had previously been the director of DARPA and convinced a manager there to lead what would become the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative, a program that would significantly increase the computing power available to the weapons labs. Today, the Stockpile Stewardship program operates on a three-pillared approach, combining theory, simulation, and experiment, and runs mainly out of those three labs as well as the Nevada National Security Site.
[...] Understanding how the weapons age is a crucial component to the simulations. "There's a whole aspect of what happens to various materials and how they interact with metals, or with components of the devices themselves, that's all aging. We have no data on what happens when something is 40 years old," Irene Qualters, associate laboratory director for simulation and computation at Los Alamos National Lab, told Gizmodo.
[...] Reis told Gizmodo that he thinks the strategy should last at least another generation. The U.S. has found an effective workaround to true nuclear testing—it's not quite as showy as nuking ships in the Pacific, but scientists each year report to Congress with 100 percent confidence that the nuclear arsenal is reliable.
"But beyond 20 to 25 years, who knows," Reis said. Future politicians will eventually have to decide what to do about the aging nuclear arsenal.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by acid andy on Friday May 15 2020, @12:20PM (32 children)
They should only exist as a deterrent. If we get to the point of mutual destruction it's arguably better that they don't work. They just need to maintain the illusion that they probably still work.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Friday May 15 2020, @12:32PM (4 children)
The problem is that they are only a deterrent if everybody knows that they actually do work. If that somehow becomes in doubt that creates uncertainty and nobody likes that. They need to maintain the capability that they do work, and will launch when the command comes, otherwise people can get stupid ideas. If they somehow start to estimate that say half, two-thirds, four-fifths or whatever fraction of them are now duds then that makes it more tempting to gamble compared to say assured nuclear death and destruction.
Perhaps use a couple of them to nuke Mars (or the Moon?) to kickstart the terraforming processing? Alternatively there is always the option to just nuke some country we (or the once with the nukes) can all agree on isn't needed anymore ...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday May 15 2020, @02:17PM (1 child)
Knows is probably too strong a word. They work if everyone believes they will explode.
Sadly, the real answer to the question is a hugely complex Fortran 77 program, which cannot be modified while the test-ban treaty is in effect because modifying it will potentially introduce bugs. This one program completely subsidises the Fortran compiler industry (I learned, back when I worked on a Fortran compiler). The DoE group responsible is the worst customer because it takes them six months to declassify a reduced test case, and by the time they've reduced it to not contain classified information it often doesn't trigger the bug.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday May 15 2020, @08:18PM
They still haven't read Working Effectively with Legacy Code by Michael C Feathers? Why doesn't that surprise me?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 15 2020, @06:58PM
If only 1/4 of the US or Russian nuclear arsenal are functional, that's still more than enough to render Earth uninhabitable by humans. According to some professional estimates, even India and Pakistan deciding to go nuclear would be enough to do it, not because of the radiation but because nuclear winter means plants don't grow, and plants don't grow means livestock don't eat and die, and no plants + no livestock means people don't eat and die.
I agree that what really matters is that all the world leaders who might be tempted to start WW III believe that enough nukes work to create MAD.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2020, @07:44PM
This statement is more true that it sounds.
I heard a fairly convincing argument that war itself is the manifestation of uncertainty. If Country A knows absolutely that Country B will fight over this piece of land, and knows absolutely Country B will defeat them in that fight, they'd probably hand it over without a fight. Wars happen when Country A thinks B is bluffing, or is weaker than they appear, or whatever.
Now this is too simplistic a model to 100% hold (for example, Country A doesn't want to get a reputation it can be bullied, Danegeld is only a short-term issue, and if Country B won't want to expend too many resources and leave them vulnerable to Country C). But the general idea holds... a major source of war is uncertainty.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 15 2020, @01:08PM (25 children)
MAD doesn't work on fanatics. Muslims and Christians, for example. The ones who really, really, really believe won't actually have a problem with going out in a blaze of nuclear hellfire, because if anything they figure it'll get them to heaven faster. We have millions of people in the US alone who are constantly creaming themselves at the thought of Armageddon, and there are loads of Muslim fanatics who would willingly blow themselves up.
Eventually, we're going to be lead by someone who insists that nuclear fallout is the new manna from heaven, and/or fighting someone who refers to the initial thermal pulse as "flames of Allah."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2020, @03:22PM (3 children)
You're right. We need atheists at the helm to stop this dangerous nuclear menace. Like the atheist states of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Only then can the world be rid of nukes.
Idiot.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 16 2020, @12:25AM (2 children)
You have to admit, one thing even the worst atheist regime has going for it in this context is they don't believe there's a kingdom come they'd happily be blown to if they don't get their way. Bit of a stumper there, isn't it? Suddenly these religious beliefs turn out to be intensely *mal*adaptive in a world of science more advanced than steam engines...
PS: I'm not an atheist myself, I just recognize a death cult when I see it. Idiot.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 16 2020, @10:25PM (1 child)
You are arguing that the CCCP and North Korea arent death cults?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 17 2020, @04:52AM
Not in a religious sense, though they sure do like to borrow religious elements, what with all the "don't look at Dear Leader's portrait or you'll go blind!" bullshit.
You know, all these arguments you're throwing at me are backfiring. You might want to consider a bit longer before you type stuff like this.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 15 2020, @03:34PM (12 children)
MAD works on Christians fine, because none of them are sure they're going to go to heaven. I surmise Muslims feel the same way.
Fanaticism is not limited to the religious. Marxists commit lots of atrocities in the name of ideology, and they're atheists. If we want to go on pure numbers then Marxists have killed orders of magnitude more people in pursuit of their beliefs than all others have in pursuit of theirs.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2020, @04:39PM (4 children)
Please. Hitler? 50 million?
Also, is this some dick measuring contest here?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2020, @06:21PM
What does Hitler have to do with anything? It was the International Jews and race traitors in the allied nations that killed everyone in WW2, including their own Jewish people. Hitler was just defending his country from them. Watch Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 15 2020, @09:04PM (2 children)
Yes, Stalin and Mao easily match [hawaii.edu] that. Notice in that list, Hitler was attributed with 21 million deaths, while both Stalin and Mao were attributed with over 60 millions deaths
(Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Saturday May 16 2020, @04:17AM
I think it is also arguable how much you could actually call Hitler religious, at least in the traditional sense.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday May 16 2020, @05:00AM
So an Eastern Orthodox and Buddhist beat the Catholic. Nothing like a religious upbringing to make someone moral.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday May 15 2020, @04:54PM (3 children)
Interesting.
My understanding is that Christians don't believe they are worthy of going to heaven, but have no doubt that they are going despite that unworthiness.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 15 2020, @09:10PM (1 child)
Well, everyone wants more time to be really, really good so they'll make up for their sins and make the cut.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday May 18 2020, @02:10PM
The whole point of Christianity, as repeated throughout the entire new testament, is that it is impossible to be good enough to make up for ones sins. It is impossible for us do ever do anything that could make the cut. That's the bad news.
The word "gospel" means good news, which is that God offers grace and forgives sins for those who believe Jesus died and rose from the dead to pay for their sins.
Whether you, or I, or anyone specifically believes that is a different concern than the fact that the previous two paragraphs are the core message of Christianity.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Saturday May 16 2020, @10:13AM
This is denomination based.
Catholics believe you might or might not go to heaven depending on whether you've committed a mortal sin (compared to a venial sin) and if you've confessed or not. If you die between committing the mortal sin and confession, you're burning for eternity.
On the other hand, a lot of protestants (I thinking Baptists, but there are other denominations too) believe "If you believe in Jesus [that Jesus is "the Son of God"], then you're going to heaven". This, of course, gets mocked by some people because this could in theory allow Baptists to commit all sorts of horrific sins and still get into heaven. The counter to that is that Jesus knows if you're really trying to be good -- which goes against their simple "if only you believe in Jesus" argument. (This is all overly simplified, of course.)
I haven't even dived into the "What if a baby dies before being baptised? Can he/she go to heaven?" question. That's an interesting set of arguments to listen to (assuming you don't auto-retch when listening to religious arguments).
It also doesn't get into whether you're talking to a guy on the street or a fully trained theologian. (My explanation is a combination of both street and official doctorine.)
Both belief systems I mentioned have their basis from parts of the Bible.
When you add scientific / logical perspective into the fray, both arguments have a very difficult time holding up. (For the Catholics: space-time is based on the universe we live in, so how can the when we confess affect our afterlife? For the Baptists: Reality has taught us to be reserved about what we believe (is time really a constant?), thus how can we just simply believe in something without proof? Was Jesus just a man or was he part / all god? How can God have a son and still be one entity?)
Disclaimers: Answers are the compliments of my upbringing, but not necessarily my current view points. Answers are here not to be taken as a challenge, but only for information / entertainment value.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2020, @04:55PM
You assumed incorrectly. Dying for the cause of mohammadism is a guaranteed path to mus heaven.
Know your enemy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 16 2020, @12:27AM (1 child)
> none of them are sure they're going to heaven
...uhhhh. Do you just, like, not talk to anyone but yourself...?
> Blah blah atheism is a religion, hurp-a-derr false equivalence, you're a mean mean lady so fuck you
Yeah. Shut up, kid. [/thnikkaman]
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 16 2020, @04:03AM
Back atcha. Do you not talk to anyone but rank stereotypes that swirl in your head?
You're responding to stuff I didn't write because it's easier (preferable?) than considering my larger point that zealotry is zealotry and really requires no deity at all?
For what it's worth, I don't care if you're a mean, mean lady. I'm mean. Acting daft is a greater sin.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday May 15 2020, @04:52PM (2 children)
You are making a broad sweeping generalization about at least Muslims and Christians based on some actual or imagined examples you have seen.
For example, (I can't speak about Muslims) but I have never met anyone claiming to be Christian who would be in favor of causing a blaze of nuclear hellfire.
While I have no objection to getting to heaven faster, I have no interest in trying to cause that to happen by any means. On either a small or large scale. If a nuclear disaster (or other civilization destroying disaster) did happen, I would rather not survive it; but that is simply because I have no wish to live in the aftermath. I have no intention to harm myself or anyone else. But if something bad happens, out of my control, I'm ready to go.
While I do believe bad things are going to happen in the future, I do not need to do anything to cause their happening. They will just happen.
Eventually, we're going to be lead by a deer leader who will create or enforce a global peace. But it won't last. And of course, you can believe what you want.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 16 2020, @12:32AM (1 child)
Again: Revelation was speaking of events almost 2000 years in our past.
"[Y]ou can believe what you want" is trivially true, but you're attempting to use it to put all beliefs on an equal footing. With all due respect, they are not, and a belief deserves respect only in proportion to its adherence to reality. You try to appear civil and sane, but you are just as much a fanatical death cultist with a permanent Armageddon-boner as any Dominionist, and it *shows.*
Get over yourself. Your religion is puerile devil worship, its God-figure hasn't got the morals of a reasonably well-developed first grader, and you yourself are contributing to the decay and self-destruction of our country by continuing to support it. Jesus would not recognize modern Christianity--nor would he recognize what was decided at Nicaea almost 1700 years ago, or even what Saul of Tarsus was preaching not 30 years after his death. You would not know Jesus if he came up and bit you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 16 2020, @03:07AM
That's because Jesus wouldn't bite. Lips and tongue only. Well, maybe a little nibble but only softly.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday May 15 2020, @05:27PM (3 children)
If MAD didn't work on Christian fanatics we would already be dead, but because we are not all dead it must work. In the same light it worked for the godless Soviets because again, we are not all dead. So far it appears to work for the Muhammadans and the Hindu/Sikhs because India/Pakistan have not killed eachother yet. I imagine the Islamic Republic of Iran would be fine with nukes because they aren't retarded, although I wouldn't trust the Saudis. The Isrealies have so far not used theirs on Iran, although if the Jews were so inclined now would be the perfect time because their enemy has not yet reached parity.
Tldr people are people regardless of their belief system and with that comes radicalization. Every belief has its radical parts and some have a greater number than others, but all of them have less than they used to.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday May 15 2020, @05:42PM (1 child)
Beware the small sample size of people capable of launching nukes.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Friday May 15 2020, @06:53PM
Since I posted that I have been reading about applications of the Madman Theory for foreign policy both its successes and failures because I had not done so in a while. Nixon/Kissinger is of course the most well known failure of the theory when he tried to apply it in Vietnam to force the Soviets hand, based on his comments elsewhere he probably based it on what he felt was a successful application by Eisenhower to end the Korean war and by Khrushchev in the Cuban missile crisis. More recently we saw Trump try to use it with North Korea. It works out fine unless they call your bluff and you don't act. The CCP was unsure on how Ike would act and JFK did not know how Khrushchev would act. The Russian's called Nixon/Kissinger's bluff because they did not think it possible that men like Nixon or Kissinger could actually be insane, and that Nixon, a Quaker, would never actually kick off a larger conflict. Trump's gamble was interesting and worked in bringing the North to the table, but when he had to switch roles from the stick to the carrot to the stick and back down it faltered. As Trump had said in public, a conflict is impossible because we could do nothing to protect Seoul. Bolton was useful but when they left the second conference without a deal the whole thing was over.
The second conference was very interesting where Bolton tried to scare Kim and it appeared to work but Kim/his generals must have remembered that they still had power over Seoul. For those that might not recall it was when Trump and Kim were on camera standing around talking about the possibilities, Kim appeared to dislike whatever was being discussed and his body language showed dismissal. Bolton appeared out of nowhere and told Trump something along the lines of "we do have the other option", it was hard to hear but after the translator related it to Kim you could see his face turn pale and he was vehement to talk again. Bolton is perfect for that role, absolute evil, absolute warmonger, NK has a absolute hatred for him for good reason, but the other side of that is that because Bolton was involved nothing we say could ever be relied on.
An interesting point about Nixon/Kissinger's application, is that they felt because they had a long run of being seen as intelligent and stable by the CCCP leadership they would come across as "fed up with the whole thing and gone mad". That could work with those two, but could never work with Bolton.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 16 2020, @12:49AM
Counterpoints:
1) To date (at least, I hope this still holds...) we don't have the kind of stark, staring-at-your-left-ear, drooling-a-bit fanatic in charge. We're coming uncomfortably close though, and the Dominionists have infiltrated the government apparatus to a disturbing degree; I for one believe the rot is fatal and pervasive.
2) As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, sorry, but this is one of those cases where the eeeeeeebil atheists have the upper hand: as they do not believe in a kingdom come to be blown to, they are less likely to blow everything to kingdom come. Sure, we may get a complete nihilist in charge at some point in one of those scary scary atheist regimes, but none of them are going to believe it'd be a positive good to wipe out this world in favor of the next.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 15 2020, @07:55PM
It's really not religion. The recipe is pretty simple:
1. A complete lack of caring for others, or at least anyone outside of whoever they've decided is their "in" group.
2. No hope their own lives can improve in any significant way, leading to suicidal thoughts.
When that kind of person is locked up in a cell, powerless to harm anyone but themselves, they will try to kill themselves and anyone who tries to stop them. When that kind of person is unarmed and trying to drown his sorrows at the bar, expect the stools to start flying. When that kind of person has a gun, expect a murderous rampage. When that kind of person has access to lots of explosives, expect suicide bombing. When that kind of person has control of a criminal gang, expect murderous heists. When that kind of person has control of an army, expect a war.
The ideology doesn't matter very much: Adherents of every non-pacifist religion, atheists and agnostics, and people on both the left and right wings politically, have done this sort of thing. What matters is that this person expects to go out in a blaze of glory, because the only alternative in their mind is to die without even being a footnote in history.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Friday May 15 2020, @02:32PM
Exactly. Say a man is pointing a gun at you. Might be loaded. Might not. If you feel compelled to comply with his demands, then his weapon is working exactly as intended.