
Virtual Nuclear Weapons Design and the Blur of Reality - chmaynard
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/virtual-nuclear-weapons-design-and-the-blur-of-reality/
======
jakeinspace
Nuclear weapons and MAD provide the best examples of double-think that I can
appreciate, and that I even partially buy into. Reading articles like this, I
want to jump to judgement and outrage over the physicists and engineers who, I
imagine, spend many more hours considering incremental technical improvements
than contemplating the reality of these devices. But if I could press a button
to relinquish my country's entire nuclear arsenal, would I? Would I rather
live in a more morally pure country in that respect, but one which no longer
has the safety benefits of mutually assured destruction? If not, then am I
just a hypocrite for criticising those with direct involvement?

The logic of nuclear deterrence depends on having an amoral chain of command.
Nuclear retaliation against Russia, China, or the United States is suicide,
and serves no beneficial purpose in the moment it is carried out. But there is
no way to fool an adversary into believing that we are capable of total
retaliation without actually putting the command structures and individuals in
place which are somewhat likely to follow through. Every time I seriously
ponder nuclear war, these questions enter my mind and I can't make headway.
Much of it boils down to utilitarianism versus more idealistic thinking.

~~~
gdubs
You might appreciate this panel discussion featuring Carl Sagan and Henry
Kissinger:

[https://physicsworld.com/a/the-day-after-35-years-later-
carl...](https://physicsworld.com/a/the-day-after-35-years-later-carl-sagan-
and-henry-kissinger-on-nuclear-war/)

I’ve always been struck by the caliber of this broadcast and the audience
engagement and questions. From a different time when public discourse on
nuclear weapons was common.

Perhaps part of the rising anxiety in society over the past decades is the
suppression of the knowledge that the we live with loaded guns pointed at our
heads. Sounds like an almost unhinged thing to say — but then again, the
policy is called MAD after all.

------
cjslep
One of my first jobs out of college was working on simulation code dealing
with weapons effects, incl. nuclear weapons.

I know I personally struggled with the ethics of it, but not all colleagues
did. To some it was patriotism, to others it was an interesting problem, to
yet some others it was just a job.

I learned a lot listening to the effects guys that were around during the live
testing. Makes the 2020's seem tame compared to what was going on during the
Cold War.

------
yummypaint
The best case scenario would be if no nukes worked, but everyone believed they
did. Unfortunately getting there is essentially impossible. At the moment the
US is responsible for most "stockpile stewardship" research, the fruits of
which are ultimately disseminated to other nuclear powers. If we were to stop
spending billions forging ahead in that area of research, it might make the
world's nukes less viable. Since the US has the most by number, our relative
advantage would still remain.

~~~
cjslep
The USA tried to give flawed nuclear bomb plans to Iran in a bid to slow down
their nuclear weapons program, but it backfired and Iran was informed that the
plan had purposeful flaws. It is debatable whether it wound up accelerating
the Iranian nuclear program.

Also, the threat of the nuclear bomb is what finally led to the ceasefire in
the Korean War. Both North Korea and the USA came in thinking they were the
"victors" and that the other side needed to sue for peace. Truman didn't want
to threaten the use of the nuclear bomb, having been the one to drop two on
Japan. When Eisenhower assumed Presidency, he threatened the use of nuclear
weapons, bullying North Korea in the process. Hence, the regime became
obsessed with obtaining one so that it could never be bullied again. It viewed
it as the prime ticket to true independence/security.

So the USA shot itself in the foot twice when it comes to "modern nations
obsessed with nuclear weapons programs that are not friendly to the USA".

~~~
Mirioron
> _It viewed it as the prime ticket to true independence /security._

It's true though. Nuclear weapons with delivery mechanisms are about the only
thing in the modern world which will make others back off. In every other case
you're relying on the good graces of others.

~~~
SiempreViernes
North Korea managed to survive up until 2006 without nukes, so obviously there
are other means.

At the same time, there are plenty of military planners that _don 't_ view
nukes as a definitive reason not to pick a fight considering the large amounts
of effort they put into planning a nuclear war.

~~~
exhilaration
From what I've read, it was Gaddafi's death in 2011 (after he gave up his very
limited nuclear weapons program) that made the North Korean regime realize it
absolutely needed a nuclear deterrent.

~~~
SiempreViernes
The Libya adventure probably served to settle any debate within North Korea,
but their program is much older and they have shown serious committent to it
much earlier than 2011.

In 1994 it was discovered they had reprocessed plutonium several times in the
80's, and it was suspected they had secret reprocessing facilities, and they
almost left the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons treaty to keep inspectors
out of those sites.

In _2006_ they tested a nuclear device for the first time, although it likely
failed.

[https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north-
korea/nuclear/](https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north-korea/nuclear/)

------
c0nsumer
It's kinda interesting (although probably more of a simple slippery slope) to
consider the intersection of this and the classic Reflections On Trusting
Trust[1].

[1]:
[https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...](https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_ReflectionsonTrustingTrust.pdf)

------
MockObject
> With explosions taking place virtually, how much harder will it be for
> weapons scientists to confront the destructive power of their work and its
> ethical implications?

What exactly is her hoped response, once a physicist realizes by watching a
live atomic bomb explosion, that these things actually hurt? They'll quit
working there? That didn't occur with the first few generations of bomb
physicists. Enough stuck around to produce bomb after bomb, both here and
abroad.

If anyone needs to learn this lesson, it's the proliferators -- except they'd
just be overjoyed at the fearsome might, not terrified. Tehran and Pyongyang
won't be deterred by feeling the dreadful rumble of a live test. (I'd pay to
watch one, though.)

There may be dark side effects of virtualization, but this article's premise
is weak.

------
tribune
I think it was Dan Carlin who suggested it might be a good idea to (every
decade or so) conduct a live nuclear test above ground and publicize it
widely. Not to make sure the bomb worked - but to remind everyone of the
destructive power of these devices

~~~
fsiefken
a good idea, but would that not be significantly harmful for the environment,
or is the radiation temporary?

~~~
gambiting
Bombs can be "tuned" to burn nearly all or very little of their fissable
material. Radiation from the blast dissipiates nearly immediately, but the
bomb would need to be designed to provide little fallout(it's doable is what
I'm trying to say).

~~~
posix_me_less
Amount of fallout depends on more things, not just settings of the bomb.
Mainly on where the bomb detonates. If close to ground/water, then it's bad,
lots of fallout. If in stratosphere, very little fallout.

------
cm2187
My first intuition is how much confidence do you have that a new device that
no one has ever used will behave the way the computer says it will.

~~~
everyone
Nuclear weapons are deterrents.. The goal is for them _never_ to be used. If
they didnt actually work at all that would be great. That would just be a
layer of safety in case in some catastrophic turn of events they accidentally
got used.

~~~
gambiting
>> That would just be a layer of safety in case in some catastrophic turn of
events they accidentally got used.

Well, not really, if one of the superpowers sees ICBMs flying their way, they
will retaliate immediately, no one will wait around to see if they actually
explode or not.

~~~
benplumley
I think the point was that if the retaliation ICBMs fail in the same way, we
as a species get a second chance to resolve the conflict without extinction.

------
mirimir
I must be missing something about this.

I mean, we have a bunch of designs that _were tested_ and then mass produced.
Many thousands of them, altogether.

They do need regular maintenance, of course. Such as replacing stuff that
decayed, and stuff that got damaged by the radiation, or just air oxidation
and whatever.

So what's the "designing" for? I find it hard to imagine that they'd be making
substantive changes without any actual testing. Because they'd have no way to
really know.

And conversely, I find it hard to imagine why we need to improve them. They're
already too powerful to actually use on the Earth.

So doesn't the increased uncertainty outweigh some marginal increase in
efficiency or power or whatever?

~~~
iofiiiiiiiii
You might want to improve the designs to lengthen the shelf-life, to enable
the use of smaller amounts of nuclear and conventional explosives, to increase
efficiency and reduce the fallout created and so on. There are many more
attributes to nuclear weapons than just how big of a bang they make.

~~~
mirimir
Sure, I get that.

But wouldn't folks feel pretty stupid if they'd tweaked their weapons enough
that they no longer worked?

------
rini17
The point of article isn't so much about physical vs. virtual testing, but
about blindly trusting inherited code.

Some people freak out when they are unable to examine and understand internal
working of used libraries, while others don't get it at all and just trust
them. For me it is a mystery.

------
toss1
> “physical intuition is a skill you want to keep" (or build if necessary)

In whatever field of work, THIS is most critical.

Grounding in the hard reality.

Without it, you literally don't know what you are missing

With it, you can easily see things that others miss, simply because you stand
at a better point of view.

------
siliconunit
I find the idea that today we still have to worry about an en masse invasion
from a random blob of the same planet and specie population quite an
aberration... And more disturbing it all starts usually from single
individuals....you want to start a war? Good luck! Good for you! should be the
answer of the rest of the population, why it doesn't happen? Lack of
education, and the perception of unlawfulness? Armed enforcement? It's beyond
me...

