hoom wrote:And thus we have the reason why a few months back I think it was assistant Secretary of State or similar did a press conference claiming that Russia is 'certainly' breaching the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.U.S. Nuclear Bombs Defective
Fortunately there were one or two actual Journos who asked for some evidence -> a couple of steps of prevarication & rolling back the claim via 'probably' and 'maybe' to 'we have no evidence at all but they have the capability'.
Many years ago I came to the conclusion that whenever the US is publicly accusing some other country of doing something nefarious you will find that infact the US either just started doing that nefarious thing or is about to start.
Its clear that they've been trying to find an excuse to let off a nuke/restart testing but aside from the general 'we haven't actually tested one for ages' I hadn't seen the 'what they just started doing or about to start' bit & there it is
Fascinating though: its my understanding a big series of mega-supercomputers they've been buying over the last couple of decades has been to enable complete simulation of their new design warheads right down to every individual atom.
How the do you spend so many Billion$ to run that level of simulation without noticing you're using components without sufficient shock strength to be carried on a plane???
Well, computers are all about GIGO. Garbage in = garbage out. Real physics experiments can never be replaced by models. This is pure
conservation of information. Every model is some approximation to reality and all models have to be perpetually improved to ingest
new empirically obtained information. The process is never ending.
Of course for some simple things, a model will be good enough. But nuclear bombs are just too complex to develop inside existing
models. That is, every new bomb requires a new model since all the variables are not represented and there are many empirical
parameters. Simulating nuclear explosions via fluid dynamics equations does not give you bomb device development. You need to
figure out how your new device actually detonates and what sort of neutron cascade properties it has. No amount of fluid dynamics
simulations will tell you that. That is why experimentation is non-negotiable in such tech creation.
I guess we see the sort of detachment from reality that afflicts US decision makers. Some clown committee concluded in the 1970s
that simulating nuclear bombs based on the existing stock of devices was good enough to replace real world testing. The clowns clearly
did not understand that new information cannot be extrapolated from old archived information. Especially in complex nonlinear systems
lacking "convergent" characterization (i.e. all the essential variables are known and processes understood). Building a nuclear bomb
is not like building a car. You can actually model every component of a car even if you design new parts.