Re:America's nuclear arsenal to cost $946B over next decade
by dreamcompiler on Sunday April 27, 2025 @09:35AM
(#43811810)
> The real conundrum these days is that you can't test more.
This is why the DOE has the most powerful supercomputers in the world. They have to simulate nuclear explosions because they can't test them.
Re:America's nuclear arsenal to cost $946B over next decade
by jebarker on Sunday April 27, 2025 @09:46AM
(#43811897)
I wonder to what extent simulation can reliably test the mechanical and detonation aspects? I always imagined simulation assumed you have an explosion and you want to see the effect.
Re:America's nuclear arsenal to cost $946B over next decade
by rbanffy on Sunday April 27, 2025 @10:52AM
(#43812357)
If you can’t run physical experiments to adjust your models, you are limited with what you can do in terms of new designs. I would assume manufacturing and maintenance of nuclear warheads is very conservative with their designs.
Whatever that number is, the 31,000+ we used to have was stupid. 3,500 in a historical context is a relief.
The real conundrum these days is that you can't test more. You want to be 100% certain it goes off when needed, but it's pretty hard to test that theory without... testing one.
If all that could be done with 1,500 I'm all in. Just a lot of 'practical' considerations that go into whatever 'x' number is.