Endangered Species

[kuma]

I can appreciate the use of computer simulations and other means to provide a high degree of confidence in the existing nuke inventory. But what if there arises a need to design and build a new nuke warhead, in the event that the dream of nuclear disarmament never materializes and the existing nukes deteriorate to questionnable status? The US may have no recourse but resort to resume active nuke testing to prove the credibility and deterrent value of it's new design.

Maybe Pakistan, India or China could spare a few nuke weapons designers when time comes?


http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Nuke Expert Pool Shrinking
Drop in Weapons Testing Raises Safety Concerns in U.S.

Apr. 14, 2012 - 11:47AM |
By KATE BRANNEN |

In about five years, every scientist with experience designing and testing nuclear weapons will have retired from the U.S. government.

Thomas D’Agostino, the undersecretary for nuclear security and the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), said the number of nuclear scientists with weapons testing experience is somewhere in the mid- to low teens.

The definition he uses for test experience is “someone who’s had a key hand in the design of a warhead that’s in the existing stockpile and who was responsible for that particular design when it was tested back in the early 1990s.”

“Last year, it was in the 17 to 18 range, but I’ve got to believe it’s five fewer than that now,” he said at a March 8 breakfast with reporters.

“Five years from now, they will no longer be active employees of our laboratories.”

[Rebel44]

I really dont understand why USA ever stopped developing better warheads.

[dutched]

Originally Posted by kuma

I can appreciate the use of computer simulations and other means to provide a high degree of confidence in the existing nuke inventory. But what if there arises a need to design and build a new nuke warhead, in the event that the dream of nuclear disarmament never materializes and the existing nukes deteriorate to questionnable status? The US may have no recourse but resort to resume active nuke testing to prove the credibility and deterrent value of it's new design.

Maybe Pakistan, India or China could spare a few nuke weapons designers when time comes?


http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Nuke Expert Pool Shrinking
Drop in Weapons Testing Raises Safety Concerns in U.S.

Apr. 14, 2012 - 11:47AM |
By KATE BRANNEN |

In about five years, every scientist with experience designing and testing nuclear weapons will have retired from the U.S. government.

Thomas D’Agostino, the undersecretary for nuclear security and the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), said the number of nuclear scientists with weapons testing experience is somewhere in the mid- to low teens.

The definition he uses for test experience is “someone who’s had a key hand in the design of a warhead that’s in the existing stockpile and who was responsible for that particular design when it was tested back in the early 1990s.”

“Last year, it was in the 17 to 18 range, but I’ve got to believe it’s five fewer than that now,” he said at a March 8 breakfast with reporters.

“Five years from now, they will no longer be active employees of our laboratories.”

I am not quite sure what you are after. Assuming we can physically test the a system for it's working safely right up to the point where it should produce an atomic bang. The question is does anybody needs that to sleep assured of being safe? Other than producing a show of strength.
I am confident that if state of the art in nucular fission progresses testing will resume where necessary. I don't think those in charge will not deem it essential to get our approval nor input.

Ed.

[MonsterZero]

Originally Posted by Rebel44

I really dont understand why USA ever stopped developing better warheads.

That's not the main problem anymore. Weapons have a limited shelf life. If a nuclear warhead has been sitting in a silo for 2 decades, what do we do? The system is obviously less reliable than when brand new.

[kuma]

I just think you have to test one eventually to validate your computer models. Especially true if you ever have to design and build,a,new,warhead.

[Greasel_burger]

To be fair, nuclear weapons have reached a a level of destructive capability that more research is not really needed. Seriously, when you have a yeld of 9mt on a warhead, you dont need more power.

Then again, you can never have enough dakka...

[kuma]

Originally Posted by Greasel_burger

To be fair, nuclear weapons have reached a a level of destructive capability that more research is not really needed. Seriously, when you have a yeld of 9mt on a warhead, you dont need more power.

Then again, you can never have enough dakka...

I was thinking of something smaller that could find use as a super bunker buster. Facilities could be built deep enough to withstand even a MOP, currently the largest conventional bunker buster in the inventory.

[Chukka]

Originally Posted by kuma

I was thinking of something smaller that could find use as a super bunker buster. Facilities could be built deep enough to withstand even a MOP, currently the largest conventional bunker buster in the inventory.

If nuclear Bunker Busters come off the shelf, I think the balloon will have well and truly gone up, and it will be a short matter of time before these weapons end us all.

Does anyone out there think that once tactical nukes start being thrown around, that things will just drift back to normal afterwards? Or will it be the beginning of the end of all of us.

[GCoyote]

Really depends on who the belligerents are at the time. If major powers go at it then it is bound to get world-class-ugly. OTOH is someone decides on a one-off to kill a critical time-sensitive target there may be a lot of political turmoil afterwards but is does not necessarily have to to lead to all out war with all comers.

[Chukka]

My worry is that we will start to see them being seen as a viable option, and they go from a 'one-off' use for something "really important", to seeing one pop every decade, and that sometime in the next century they will be going off annualy. I just don't see the tactical nuke genie going back in the bottle.

[Achtung Baby]

'If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce.'
Winston Churchill.