First 3D Simulations of Complete Nuclear Detonations

jhiv writes: "The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) reports that 'Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories have completed the first full-system three-dimensional simulations of a nuclear weapon's explosion'. The simulations are two of the largest computer simulations ever attempted, each taking weeks to complete on the ASCI White supercomputer. The Los Alamos team used the ASCI Blue Mountain supercomputer to visualize the results. Additional coverage can be found in this story in the Albuquerque Journal."

Comments

will this work?

[quinto2000]

i remember a great article in Science about 4 years ago that heralded the coming of age of computer simulations as a replacement for nuclear testing. Instead today, the US is trying to back out of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, nuclear weapons are proliferating instead of being disarmed, and if I recall correctly we still test nuclear weapons underground. When will we realize that nuclear weapons are a menace? When will we accept that we need to take the lead in ending their use?

As an American citizen, I am sometimes disgusted by our government. I really hope that computer simulations can replace the war games, but right now I'm not so certain.

Re:will this work?

[Henry V .009]

We do not test nuclear weapons underground, or above ground for that matter. America is confident in its computer simulations. But our confidence in our simulations is not the only factor. Nuclear weapons are never meant to be used. They are meant to deter (threaten). Therefore what is paramount is our enemies' confidence in our simulations.

Re:will this work?

[IsaacW]

This is an important result, if only because it simulates the physics of an event in 3-D for a rather complex situation. Many major improvements in technology have come about simply because someone needed a better way to kill someone, and these technologies often find peaceful applications as well. Remember that the early work with nuclear reactions was solely to create a bomb, and from that research we now have safe nuclear reactors that produce very cheap power.

At the very least, this simulation shows that computers can be used to predict the results of very complex interactions between matter and energy. Surely these same supercomputers can be used to simulate other equally complex phenomena, and these tests break the ice for simulations to come.

On another note, the United States does not test any physical nuclear devices anymore, underground or otherwise.

Re:will this work?

[Combuchan]

The United States is withdrawing from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because the language in it prevents the signer nations from developing missile-defense anti-nuke shields. The theory was back in 1973 that if one nation had this technology, they could fire their nukes on another nation and be spared from the concept of mutually assured destruction, (MAD) the idea that if you fire one nuke, you essentially end the world.

The problem with the Test Ban Treaty is that it was written in a different era. Hopefully the events of 11 September indicates to you that there are more than enough people more than willing to kill themselves to inflict as much destruction on the United States as possible.

MAD doesn't work as an effective deterrent when your enemy is willing to die to kill you.

I saw a History Channel tagline that referenced nuclear weapons in the most relevant way: "Weapons so powerful, their mere existence implies 'Peace, or else.'"

This may be straying a bit off-topic here, but what if we hadn't developed the nuke? How many allied and Japanese forces would have died in the invasion of Japan had we not dropped the bomb? 125,000 civillian casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki pales in comparison to the amount of possible casualties. The USA estimates 1,000,000 allied casulties in such an invasion, maybe times that by 5 to get the number of Japanese killed.

Remember. Nukes suck. But they're the better than the alternative. However, straying back on topic ... how do they know this simulation is accurate?

P.S. If you disagree, don't moderate, reply.

Re:will this work?

[FrostedChaos]

No, the point doesn't stand.

When the first atomic bomb was used, few people had any idea of how destructive it would be. The full potential of nuclear weapons only became evident after WWII. When the Allies told Stalin about the bomb, he responded with indifference, at least initially. President Truman authorized its use without much debate. He believed, and probably rightly so, that it would save lives by shortening the war.

It's easy to see how they could have underestimated "The Bomb." The first atomic bomb wasn't an H-Bomb, or a cluster bomb. It wasn't even housed in a missile. More people died in the firebombing of Dresden than at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The significance of nuclear weapons only became clear during the cold war, when both sides created massive stockpiles of bombs. The world could have ended then, at least for the U.S. and Russia. Whether or not humanity would have survived in some form is an open question.

So think before you condemn the U.S. for inventing the atomic bomb. Almost every country involved in WWII had a nuclear weapons program. America just happened to get there first. Unfortunately, we cannot unilaterally disarm now, although we should probably reduce the size of our stockpile.

In fact, from what I can tell, America is not "trigger-happy" at all. The last war, against Afghanistan, was fought with almost no loss of life on either side.

What exacly are they trying to learn?

[one9nine]

This may sound like a stupid question, but what are the physicits trying to learn by these tests? For example, let's say they do simulations on the bunker buster bombs being dropped on caves. One would hope to learn from the simulations how to make a bomb penetrate the cave further or how to create a more effective expolsion once the bomb has penetrated. But what about a nuclear detonation? Are they trying to find the range of the shockwave? How hot will it get from x miles away from ground zero? I can understand doing missile tests because you need to make sure a nuclear missile gets to it's target but once it detonates, isn't it no big secret what happens; you have a massive explosion that takes out a city. Maybe I have too much of a layman's view of nuclear weapons.

Re:Definately not the first

[beta21]

NO this is a first. Maybe simulations into the effects of a nuke were done but never and actual simulation of one going off.

Just think about how much physics is needed for this. Hudge temperature gradients, wavefronts the list is endless. This all has to be simulated.

We can't even simulate weather properly yet becasue of lack of computing power.

Peter Kropotkin Quotes

[Commienst]

"If you reason instead of repeating what is taught you; if you analyze the law and strip off those cloudy fictions with which it has been draped in order to conceal its real origin, which is the right of the stronger, and its substance, which has ever been the consecration of all the tyrannies handed down to mankind through its long and bloody history; when you have comprehended this, your contempt for the law will be profound indeed."

"Darwin pointed out how, in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears, how struggle is replaced by co-operation, and how that substitution results in the developement of intellectual and moral faculties which secure to the species the best conditions for survival. He intimated that in such cases the fittest are not the physically strongest, nor the cunningest, but those who learn to combine so as mutually to support each other, strong and weak alike, for the welfare of the community."

"When we have but the will to do it, that very moment will Justice be done: that very instant the tyrants of the Earth shall bite the dust."

"But owing to our wage system, this increase of wealth -- due to the combined efforts of men of science, of managers, and workmen as well -- has resulted only in an unprecedented accumulation of
wealth in the hands of the owners of capital; while an increase of misery for the great numbers, and an insecurity of life for all, have been the lot of the workmen; the unskilled labourers, in continuous search for labour, are falling into an unheard-of destitution. And even the best paid artisans and skilled workmen labour under the permanent menace of being thrown, in their turn, into the same conditions as the unskilled paupers, in consequence of some of the continuous and unavoidable fluctuations of industry and caprices of capital."

Obviously you dont keep up with technology

[HanzoSan]

Mind control weapons do exsist, and are used even b y low level forces such as swat teams. Mind Altering sounds and noises are the low tech mind control weapons, altering brain wave patterns with sound is easy, Mind control is easy using holographic technologies and altering brain waves you could convince small groups of people that god is speaking to them, and do all kinds of other tactics, yes our government DOES have alot of mind control technologies and holographic technologies.

Do you keep up with science? Its not fantasy, its in the labs, and if its in the labs, our government has weapons based on it.

Weapons which destroy building kill people in them yes, but the reason for having these weapons is to destroy entire cities and cripple an economy, imagine someone destroying all of the towers in new york in the middle of the night and everyone waking up and finding that all the buildings are crumbled.

Electronic warfare, we can easily take out an entire military force with this.

Germ warfare is far more dangerous than a nuke, a germ virus could kill every mammal on this planet, did you ever watch the movie the blob? You think something like that couldnt easily happen? An unstoppable virus or a bacteria could easily wipe out entire countries or even the world and only the people with the cure can stop it, even with all our weapons we'd die.

Armies have food, water, and weapons, and they have enough to last for years. Armies can grow their own food underground, water isnt difficult to get either its just hard to purify. Bomb Shelters that are for us arent very efficient, government quality bomb shelters are almost indestructable, we cant even nuke bin ladens cheap cave shelters. You try nuking Iraq, you think you'd kill saddam? No you'd just kill all his people and piss off the whole arab world.

You can have allthe nukes you want, you nuke, they nuke you back, now both of you lose, both your countries destroyed. This is not a very smart military strategy, its suicide.

This is why nuke is a suicide weapon, something a terrorist would use not a military.

Militaries of say Iraqs level are most likely to use germ warfare like antrax or perhaps something even worse.

Militaries like China,hey would use sophisticated electronics, destroy our electronics with stuff like EMP, and destroy our buildings all over night.

Militaries on our level would and maybe have used mind control warfare if we know the people we are using it on dont know about it yet, I think we'd use something like that in the middle east, would it work? At most it would drive them insane, at least it would confuse them on the battlefield, keep them from being able to think straight, and give us a psychhological advantage.

Yes its proven that sounds can do this, example? Scratch a chalkboard and listen to that sound, imagine a sound thats as bad or worse than that which is constant, you wouldnt be able to sleep, you wouldnt be able to think right, you'd be disoriented, theres sounds which can completely alter your brainwave patterns, and make you tired, even make you dizzy and pass out.

This stuff would be useless against a fairly intelligent military, but against some guys who just have basic weapons like machine guns and the like, who are backed into a corner or hiding in a cave, it would be useful, not to mention these techinques can be used to turn them against each other and keep them from being organized, remember the papers we passed out to afganastan about bin laden turning against them?

I'd say mind control would be one of the most dangerous weapons because you wouldnt know you are being manipulated.

As far as Nuke being the most powerful weapon? Not even close! Nuke can do alot of destruction which lasts a long timee and harms the enviornment, but nuke is not something any government is going to use, terrorists may use it, governments would never use nuke,heres why.

Out of all of these other ways to attack, nuke allows your enemy to know you attacked them.

How would your enemy know you used germ warfare against them? They'd just have a weird virus pop up out of no where.

How would they know you destroyed their electronics, all they'd know is a bomb destroyed it all, all of these other things can be made from within the enemies country and launched, nuke however you'd have to launch a missle, which means if you mess up you are being nuked, if you hit on target you are still going to be nuked, so you cant win.

The only thing we have to do is make sure no one can nuke us from within our own country. Nuke is no where near as easy to make as a virus or an EMP bomb, nuke requires gathering alot of things which are very difficult to get or create, and trying to smuggle nuke in is going to be almost impossiblew if the borders are properly monitored.

While nuke is dangerous, I think we have other more dangerous and pretty much unstopable technologies to worry about,

I think i'd have a better chance surviving a nukee than surviving the black plague.

oh and dont forget the fact that there could be genetic warfare, what would stop a government from changing the gene in say paracites, mosquitos etc which have a virus which spreads accross the USA and at a set period of time everyone in the USA dies. or paracites in the water.

Face it we all could drop dead tomorrow if some virus did get into all of our systems or some paracite did get into the water, if the virus was around for the last 20 years spreading then i'd say most of the population would be infected. If it were an airborn virus then everyone could be infected, and if its a virus thats set to kill a person after a set amount of time
how could you stop it?

I think germ warfare, all the genetics technologies, and biological stuff is more dangerous than nuke by far because we all could be dying and not even know it.