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?

[PurpleFloyd]

Yes, there is a whole fscking lot of leftover radiation. Mostly from the fission bomb trigger (there's really no other way anyone knows of to get the heat required to start a fusion reaction), but IIRC fusion will also cause a fair amount of radiation, with all the nasty radioisotopes that take anywhere from minutes to centuries to break down.

Re:will this work?

[EnderWiggnz]

i was thinking of a neutron bomb, actually...

its amazing, with this new-fangled internet thing, you can research things really quickly.

someone should try to make a buck off of it, its cool.

Re:will this work?

[vondo]

Of course, the US is the only country to ever use the H-Bomb: and we used it twice.

Uh, no, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atom bombs (U235 and Plutonium). Fission bombs, not Hydrogen-fusion (or H) bombs.

Directly after September 11, I distinctly remember our former Secretary of State advocating the use of Nuclear weapons -- before we had any idea of what an appropriate target would be.

Which "former secretary of state?" I highly doubt this occured. More likely there was some bland statement about not taking any option off the table, the standard U.S. military response when asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Do you have a transcript or something to back up such a claim?

Again, this is use as a deterant. Whether anyone finds this "threat" credible in case like post-Sept. 11 is another matter.

Re:will this work?

[vondo]

If it was just from the trigger, the left over radioactive material would be fairly minimal. Instead, what is usually done is to encase the hydrogen (tritium actually) in additional uranium or plutonium. This increases the yield and produces fall-out. This is a strategic decision, not a technical one, really.

When you hear talk of a "clean bomb," its one without this secondary fissile material.

Re:will this work?

[vondo]

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.

That's the ABM treaty, a treaty between just the U.S. and Russia. The CTBT is signed by nearly every civilized nation on earth, (including the U.S.) but ratified by very few (also not including the U.S.). We wouldn't exactly have to withdraw from it. (It's not binding since it isn't ratified.)

Clinton tried to get it ratified in his last couple of years, but had it tabled in the senate because he was going to loose the battle.

Re:will this work?

[dohnut]

Well, they weren't H-bombs, but yes..

Study: 1950s nuclear fallout worse than thought

Re:will this work?

[AnalogBoy]

Mr. President, We can not afford a supercomputer simulation gap!

Seriously. We haven't detonated a nuclear warhead since September 23rd, 1992, an underground test called "Divider".

And I am disgusted by our government from time to time also. But my political views are.. well, too political, even for slashdot.

Re:will this work?

[HanzoSan]

Our government most likely has been doing sims privately for years, ever since the cold war. Now i guess its no longer classified, kinda like the shadow government is no longer a secret.

As for ending nuclear weapons, we already have better weapons than nuclear, far more dangerous. We have mind control / altering weapons, we have weapons which can destroy all the buildings in an area without harming many people, we have we, weapons which can destroy all the electronics in a city maybe even a small country,we have germ warfare which could kill out millions of our enemies without any of them even noticing we are attacking them, we have the internet which we could use to cause their own people to turn againsnt their governments (if their government lets them on the net)

Nuclear weapons can do alot of damage but most of the damage is done to the enviornment and to the innocent people, not so much damage is done to the actual military enemy we'd be fighting if they have bunkers and caves and tunnels and bomb shelters. What good is nuke to someone who would survive it? Now germ warfare, and taking down all their electronics with one attack, and bombs which are made to destroy all their underground bases.

My point is, Nuke alone isnt useful, the only people interested in nuke are terrorists who want to kill innocent people.

If india were to use nuke on pakistan, lots of innocent people in pakistan would die, the military would launch nuke and many people in india would die, both countries would get absolutely no where.

Real wars are about missions, targets, and just throwing bombs around is not something thats usually done.

We threw a bomb at japan but it was because back then no one knew what nuke was.

Everyone knows about nuke now.

I worry more about the weapons which we dont know much about, or anything about at all, considering all the technology we have today, the weapons could be way more deadly and a country could be destroyed overnight by something like a virus which spreads through the air.

I worry about airborn unstoppable virii which kills people in a matter of hours.

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.

Re:will this work?

[vondo]

You'll notice the last date on this document is September, 1992. The last time we did an underground test.

We haven't tested a device in almost ten years and have no real plans to resume, although to its discredit the Bush administration has begun talking about the possibility.

Re:will this work?

[AnalogBoy]

Honestly i'm surprised bush didn't drop the bomb on Afghanistan. He strikes me as the kind of guy who would do it - he's got his Captain Crunch spy decoder ring on, and enjoys being the drama queen (activating cold war reserve gov't..)

It'll be interesting in 40 years or so when the white house Gee Dubya Shrubya mp3's are released. Perhaps more anti-semetic nuclear-toting hothead "republican" action!

Just my $0.02, Taxed 15 ways.

Re:will this work?

[garcia]

haha, no. they were meant to be used. it was probably sometime during the 1960s that deterence was seen as a viable alternative.

Kennedy played his cards right and set a precedent.

What I am personally afraid of is some smaller
nation obtaining nuclear warfare weapons and using them w/o the understanding of their true results. Not every war could be avoided by ignoring official memos from a drunken leader.

Re:will this work?

[Waffle Iron]

Instead, what is usually done is to encase the hydrogen (tritium actually) in additional uranium or plutonium.

IIRC, tritium is very rare and only a few grams are used to "boost" the fission trigger. The main fusion fuel in most H bombs is a mixture of lithium and deuterium, which conveniently combine to form a solid chemical compound.

At any rate, in many bombs, the fusion is not even the main source of energy. It is used as a massive source of neutrons, instantly converting hundreds or thousands of pounds of dirt cheap unenriched uranium into fissionable fuel (unenriched uranium also avoids worries about dangerous multiple critical masses in one bomb). Many bombs get only about 1/3 of their energy from actual fusion, the rest is from the fast-neutron induced fission of the uranium blanket surrounding the fusion core. The end result orders of magnitude more fallout isotopes than a simple A-bomb.

Re:will this work?

[Dyolf Knip]

Of course, the US is the only country to ever use the H-Bomb: and we used it twice.

Incorrect. The US has tested several H-bombs, but we are not the only ones to do so. For instance, the largest detonation on record was a Soviet device.

The US is the only one to actually use nukes on people (which ended up being far less bloody than the alternative), but then those were purely fission weapons. No fusing hydrogen.

Lastly, nukes are not wholly without practical applications. Pulsedrives would be a space propulsion system vastly superior to anything we use today. The concept is 50 years old. They could be used to move asteroids and comets around. Lots of uses, though the EMP is rather difficult to deal with.

Re:will this work?

[Galvatron]

Stalin responded with indifference because he already knew about the project, had spies in place, and had scientists actively working to copy the American designs. Truman, in his unbelievable ignorance, thought he could secure more favorable peace terms in dividing up Germany by sending Stalin veiled threats about a new superweapon. All he did in reality though was kickstart the cold war and let Stalin know that he was a bit behind in the rush to build the first nuclear weapons.

Also, they knew damn well how powerful the blast would be. What they didn't expect was the radioactive fallout. For decades after radioactive materials were still used for glow in the dark consumer objects (watch faces, for example).

Other than that though, I agree with your points. The nuclear attacks shocked an exceptionally stubborn and prideful country into surrendering, almost certainly reducing loss of life on both sides.

Re:will this work?

[Sakhmet]

Yup, you can kill a lot of the people a lot of the time, but you can't kill all the people all the time.

Reading these comments frightens me. Badly. Does anyone here even think that tactical thermonuclear devices are a good idea? Like, good enough to warrant having one in your backyard for your little sister to play on? Not me, and not my little sister.

Sakhmet.

Re:will this work?

[Jeremi]

The last war, against Afghanistan, was fought with almost no loss of life on either side.

The war against Al-Quaeda isn't over, and thousands of people have been killed. How is that 'almost no loss of life' ?

Re:will this work?

[Jeremi]

The US always has to pay more, do more, etc. than any other country.

(enable rant mode)

Well, cry me a freaking river. Poor little USA has to take on more responsibility than, say, Botswana. How unfair that we are expected to do more than people who can barely feed themselves! We can put a man on the moon, but ask us to clean up our own mess and all of a sudden we turn into a bunch of crybabies, whining about how unfair it is that we (who contribute the most to pollution, and enjoy the best of the fruits that also cause the pollution) are asked to do the most work to stop polluting.

Honestly, was there ever a bigger bunch of spoiled, pampered, arrogant, ignorant prigs? Every time I see an 8 mile per gallon, 6 ton SUV behemoth carrying its lone driver to the mall, it makes me wonder why we haven't been voted off the planet yet. (probably has something to do with those nukes ;^))

(end rant mode)

Re:will this work?

[KodaK]

The last war, against Afghanistan, was fought with almost no loss of life on either side.

It's not over, yet.

Re:will this work?

[ender81b]

My point is, Nuke alone isnt useful, the only people interested in nuke are terrorists who want to kill innocent people.

The nuclear bomb is meant to be a THREAT! not actually used, all this is doing is making sure our stockpile can continue to be a threat.

If india were to use nuke on pakistan, lots of innocent people in pakistan would die, the military would launch nuke and many people in india would die, both countries would get absolutely no where.

Precisely. Which is why the nukes will *never* be used in either case. To do so would mean the destruction of either/both country's and massive world commendation. The bombs are simply deterance, or, again a THREAT against an attack and actually probably will make that area more stable in the long run (neither country wants to risk a nuclear war).

Real wars are about missions, targets, and just throwing bombs around is not something thats usually done.

Real wars are about survival and winning - without firing a shot. Nuclear weapons ensure the safety of many countrys - not a single country on earth would dare attack the U.S. directly b/c of fear of instant annihilation. Note that Taliban continued to protest its innocence until the very end; and since WWII their hasn't been a single convential attack upon the U.S. A span of 51 years.

We threw a bomb at japan but it was because back then no one knew what nuke was.

Ahhh, we knew precisely what the bomb would do - but the japanese didn't. We dropped the bomb to end the war and prevent millions of casulties that would've occured if we had invaded Japan. Even after Hiroshima/Nagasaki the majority of the Japanese war council didn't want to surrender. Only the (supposed) intervention of Emperor Hirohito caused them to surrender.

Re:will this work?

[MullerMn]

IIRC, tritium is very rare and only a few grams..

Tritium is rare as it has a half life of only 12 years, but it can be produced my bombarding Lithium with neutrons. This is how currently designed Tokamak fusion reactors create part of their own fuel.

--
Andy

Re:will this work?

[vondo]

Don't put words in my mouth. He made two assertions, one of which was technically wrong and another which is highly suspect.

How do you go from questioning someone's facts to thinking dropping the bomb was the right thing to do? That's quite a leap.

Re:will this work?

[Kibo]

Those who wish me ill, and those who seek to right percieved injustices by willfully and knowingly killing innocents are no form of life I place any value in.

They seek the glory of Allah, I'm proud to have my tax dollars sending them to it.

Re:will this work?

[technos]

Botswana. How unfair that we are expected to do more than people who can barely feed themselves!

it makes me wonder why we haven't been voted off the planet yet. (probably has something to do with those nukes ;^))

From AP

In three decades, Botswana has moved from being one of the 10 poorest nations to being among the world's upper half in wealth.

and a quick look through the CIA fact-books tells me that over those three decades, we've probably given them almost a billion bucks in foreign aid, not including the one-time bail outs like the 10 million we spent helping them clean up the flood a few years ago, and certainly not adjusting for inflation, I'm too lazy.

There's a reason we ain't been 'voted off' by the 'poor, starving Botswana's, and it sure as hell ain't the nukes.

Re:will this work?

[FFFish]

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

Er, the same can be said for missile-defense anti-nuke shields. The danger to the USA isn't from outside the borders: no one's likely to toss an nuke missle at New York. The danger is from within, when some madmen decide to use a suitcase nuke, mail out smallpox, or use cheap'n'easy fertilizer bombs to blow up a federal building.

The Star Wars shield is just an excuse for funneling endless money to the defense industry; all part of the trend of taking money from the middle-class and give it to the super-rich.

Re:will this work?

[Kupek]

There was debate, and there still is. The Undersecratary of the Navy--I can't remember his first name, but I'm fairly certain his last name was Byrd--was against bombing, and I believe Eisenhower was as well.

Leo Scilzard (I probably spelled that wrong), a physicist who had worked on the Manhattan Project led a petition that many other scientists signed urging Truman not to use the bomb.

Whether or not it was the "right" decision is not a black and white issue, but it is wrong to say it happened "without much debate."

Re:will this work?

[Kupek]

Which may be true, but don't think that in any way exempts the US from being the same. They are completely independent of each other.

The Bush administration has put out feelers to dropping the test-ban treaty. How would you react if we did? Would you have the same conclusions about how much this country cares about the rest of the world? If not, why not?

Re:will this work?

[Kupek]

"Foreign aid." Phhht. Translation: investing. I'd be very skeptical about the nature of that money; was it truly aid (i.e., no financial return expected, and it was used for social means, not just building infastructure for industry), or was it American corporations investing in a potentially profitable market?

Re:will this work?

[Kupek]

There's an eassy in Declarations of Independence by Howard Zinn that I think you would find interesting. The chapter title has Machiavelli in there somewhere; Zinn's thesis is that US foreign policy is Machiavellian, even if we are "democratic" at home.

He goes into the bombing of Hiroshim and Nagasaki quite a bit, and provides arguments against yours (mainly, that the bombing saved lives).

[I'm not entirely sure it's in Declarations of Idependence. If not, I know for sure it's in a compilation book, Howard Zinn on War.]

How accurate were the results?

[Ryu2]

They said they compared the simulation with an actual underground test. How did it measure up? The article didn't say.

Or is that secret?

750 years?

[Erris]

The AJ article had an estimate of 750 years of run time for a good home computer to do the same thing. So, how long would it take for a few thousand home computers, good, bad and ugly? Do you know what that cute little screen saver is really doing? Bwa-ha-ha-haaa!

Re:750 years?

[GigsVT]

Assuming the job is easily distributable, without things like large bandwidth requirements between nodes, then it's just arithmatic. 750 home computer years, 750 home computers take around one year, plus a year or two for efficiency loss. Now you know why the college computer labs freak out when you install things like dnet or seti on them.....

They just don't want to have to comply with the "military grade computer" requirements! :)

Re:750 years?

[blair1q]

Currently, the UD molecule screener uses as much as 375 CPU-years per day.

On that network you could run this nuke simulation twice a week. Without building a billion-dollar computer.

Of course, you're probably not going to get the same amount of participation with ATOM BOMB research as you are with CURING CANCER research (Do you know what that cute little screen saver is really doing? Bwa-ha-ha-haaa! -Erris). But overt ANTHRAX VACCINE research got a decent fraction of the way there, and is closer to the former than the latter, in practical terms.

--Blair

Certification of the stockpile

[T5]

By law, the directors of the nuclear weapons labs (Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore, IIRC) are required to certify annually the readiness of the nuclear stockpile. This has been a problem due to the lack of production of tritium in the US, with the exception of a small amount from Savannah River in South Carolina and just recently at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Tennessee. Without sufficient quantities of tritium, the aging thermonuclear arsenal's decay of tritium puts the existing weapons at risk of not functioning within their design parameters. The only thing more frightening than a nuke that works is one that you can't rely on to work when needed. Thus, the directors have threatened to not certify the arsenal.

With this new computing power, the directors can now verify the status of even degraded weapons whose functionality was up till now a mystery and make better decisions about how to use the still small amounts of tritium being produced.

Re:What exacly are they trying to learn?

[thesupraman]

It's quite simple, they are trying to find out how long the current weapons will keep working, and how the rate of failure changes over time.

These devices contain quite an amount of rather radioactive material, which emits a lot of high energy particles, this causes other materials around them to change over time, therefore then need to know if they will stay safe, and will work if required.

The worked out how to build a 'big enough bomb' quite some time ago, but building new devices is expensive, as it blowing them up from time to time for testing, simulating the 'aging' devices is a much cheaper and simpler option, as well as providing supercomputing power for 'other' work.

FPS If this computer were used to run Quake 3

[Anonymous Coward]

First lets figure out how many times faster this computer is.

One of them they gave statistics that it did the work of 750 years worth of computer time in 39 days.
First lets figure out how many days there are in 750 years
750*365.25(accounting for leap year) ~= 273937

Thats 273,937 days in 750 years (give or take a couple of weeks)

Now 273,937 / 39 gives us are actual ratio which is a factor of 7024.
This means that the los Alsomething is 7024 times as fast.

Now a typical computer now a days can run quake 3 at around an average fps of 60.
7024 * 60 gives us the fps of the super computer.

Which is a grand total of 421,422 FPS!!!!

My only question... When can I buy one?

Re:FPS If this computer were used to run Quake 3

[Hamshrew]

You can't.

As far as I know, the ASCI White system is pretty much "classified" in a way. I know it uses Power3 processors... over 8000 of them, in fact. And it has a mesh-type interconnect... very expensive stuff here. You can see how it compares here

Note that the second most powerful supercomputer peaks at HALF the GigaFlops... there's some serious power there. Though that list is technically innacurate... the #2 machine only has 3000 processors, and 8 on standby in case of hardware failure. That one is an "open" cluster, however. I don't think it's opened quite yet, and I can't even remember the name... something French... LeMue or somesuch.

I did take a look at it once, though. Sweet machine(s) :-) And you can't help but be impressed when you learn that it took 4.5 TONS of cabling to wire that puppy!

Re:FPS If this computer were used to run Quake 3

[jandrese]

I did take a look at it once, though. Sweet machine(s) :-) And you can't help but be impressed when you learn that it took 4.5 TONS of cabling to wire that puppy!

That's less impressive if you've every worked with cabling those high end systems. 4.5 tons of Craylink would only be like 100 feet (at least when you have to carry it around all day. :)

It's not quite that bad, but when you have 500 conductor cables the weight does add up quick.

Definately not the first

[HanzoSan]

I'm sure our government has done it 20-30 years ago but its been classified.

If anyone honestly believes its the first EVER and that our military didnt do this kinda stuff during the cold war they are crazy.

trillions of dollars have been spent over the last serveral years, 10s of trillions over the last 20 years and this is the first sim, in 2002? hahaha a joke right?

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.

Re:Definately not the first

[HanzoSan]

So you have top secret military clearance? how do you know? Oh wait because they said so? you believe everything they said?

You cant believe what the government says, classified means they wont tell you about it or will lie to you until they are read to announce it.

Its announced now, but it could have been simulated in a classified fashion in the past.

Re:Definately not the first

[dvdeug]

You cant believe what the government says, classified means they wont tell you about it or will lie to you until they are read to announce it.

The question is how did they have the computer power? Even for the military, these computer prices are a bit expensive, and with Moore's law, we haven't had the computing power available at any cost until recently.

Re:Definately not the first

[GigsVT]

Not to increase conspiracy paranoia, but it's entirely possible that the government has their own completely seperate design, fab, etc on a whole line of top secret processors that is all top secret. And also, who's to say that the government hasn't approached Intel, and convinced them to lag their releases one generation behind what they make available to the government, all top secret.

That's the thing about secrecy, you never know!

It's not likely, but it is possible. BTW- Moore's law is no more a law than Murphey's law. It's just a prediction that is uncannily true so far.
If we stopped developing all new processors, I guess that would disprove Moore's law? Suppose AMD hadn't made an end run on Intel. do you think processors would be as fast as they are today? My point is, the rate of processor speed (or transistor density for the purist), isn't dictated by any law, it's dictated by how much effort we put into it, which is dictated in part by market forces when you are tlaking about corporations.

Re:Definately not the first

[dvdeug]

Not to increase conspiracy paranoia, but it's entirely possible that the government has their own completely seperate design, fab, etc on a whole line of top secret processors that is all top secret.

A multi-billion dollar project - so we can see how a nuke explodes? It makes much more sense to use that money to keep bases open or build more planes and warships, considering how tight the military budget has been recently.

That's the thing about secrecy, you never know!

Ergo, cognito sum. We truely know almost nothing. Rational deduction from sensory input can lead us far, though.

Re:Innovation...

[jimhill]

"We're lucky 'The National Nuclear Security Administration' even lasted through that mess of 8 years. Thoughts anyone?"

Yeah, here's a thought:

With all due respect, kwishot, like many Slashdot posters you're posting out of your ass and while you might win points among the equally ignorant you turn yourself into a laughingstock for those with a greater understanding.

The nuclear weapons complex is under the purview of the US Department of Energy. Almost since it was created from AEC/ERDA in the mid 1970s, DOE has been under attack for its poor organization, poor administration, and poor security record. Multiple panels and commissions and auditors spent their time submitting final reports and recommendations suggesting that the security aspect of the weapons complex be removed from DOE control or at least placed in the hands of a semi-autonomous agency.

After the _annus horribilis_ that was 2000 for Los Alamos, support both public and Congressional was high for these recommendations to be implemented. New Mexico Republican Senator Pete Domenici introduced legislation which would create the National Nuclear Security Administration as a semi-autonomous agency within DOE and that legislation passed with support from both parties and was signed into law by Democratic President Clinton. (Side note: then Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, former Democratic Congressman from, yep, New Mexico, took a well-publicized pummeling from members of both parties, not least of which was West Virginia's Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, who told Richardson that he could never vote to confirm Richardson for another government position again.)

I'm not a supporter of Clinton's -- his decision to appoint Hazel O'Leary as his first Energy Secretary will be a long, Long, LONG time in overcoming (among her since-revoked brilliant ideas was eliminating the color-coded badges which were used to provide a visual cue of a person's clearance level in favor of a less "discriminatory" monochrome badge). To fall to your knees and give thanks that an agency created in the closing year of his administration survived the eight year Reign of Terror just reveals that you don't have the first clue what you're addressing. Next time you're tempted to fire off a post on a topic to whose table you bring complete ignorance, may I suggest that you instead spend a few moments educating yourself -- and only then, if you feel you have something of value to contribute, should you click on "Submit".

Re:Innovation...

[Mandelbrute]

Would we have these advances in technology if the Democrats were still in office?

I strongly suspect that this is not the sort of thing that can be cobbled together in a few months. The funding would have come from the previous administration and not the current one.

Higher military funding = more technological innovation.

And you can pay for the funding by blocking your military allies out of US trade - or at least that seems to be the plan.

Thoughts anyone?

The new administration hasn't been in long enough to do anything but talk. Effects of budgets don't happen until the money is spent to do stuff.

Hmmm...

[andyring]

Those computers are extremely cool (I want one!), and hey, if they do the job without having to blow things up, it works for me. But, how long until some Microsoft salesweasel comes along and tries to convince them to run NT on it? Brings new meaning to your computer bombing....

Sorry - you're wrong.

[Werelock]

I actually did a paper a year ago on the need for a science court in US governmental decision making. One of the key points I kept running into in my research was that nothing science related a first year president pushes for, or even gets through, will be seen before he leaves office - even if he does two turns. Each project gets re-evaluated by the president, committees, congress, etc repeatedly throughout it's life. Usually the next president either downsizes it, kills it, upsizes it, or ignores it. They rarely say "that's cool as it is, just give them the same amount this year." Most science required 3 or 4 terms before results were truly seen.

So, in all actuallity, Clinton either started this or continued it on from his predecessor. GWB had jack to do with it other than to see the results and maybe a final bill.

-JD

Re:How do you simulate a nuclear explosion?

[T5]

Mostly thermodynamics, plasma dynamics, fluid dynamics, nuclear physics, and about $110M for the iron.

Final Fantasy

[DeadBugs]

Has squaresoft announced a port for Final Fantasy XI on the ASCI White computer yet? Although I guess a simulation of nuclear destruction is about as final a fantasy as you can get

In 20 years we can do it at home

[dmendesf]

First, ASCI White specs: Name: ASCI White Built by: IBM over a period of 5 years for the Department of Energy Price: for $110 million. Power: 1,000 times more powerful than IBM's Deep Blue; capable of roughly 12.3 trillion calculations per second CPU: Made of off-the shelf IBM Power3 processors (well, 8,192 of them altogether) RAM: 16 terabytes Disk space: 160 terabytes Power requirements: 3 megawatts of electricity (would light up 3,000 homes) Now let's say 1 Power3 = 1 domestic processor of today... By Moore's law, in 18 months our computational power will double, so: 2^x = 8192 x = 13 13 * 18 months = 19,5 years conclusion: video games will be very cool in 20 years

Re:In 20 years we can do it at home

[spiro_killglance]

Hans Moravec estimates the human mind
to have the computationial power of around
10 THz, This machine ought to be able to emulate
a human mind in real time. Which to me is more
useful then simulating nuclear weapons.

Time to build a proper X-ray holographic scanner,
and start uploading the worthy.

Re:In 20 years we can do it at home

[fireboy1919]

Eh...when the airplane began its existance everyone thought that by about the year 2000 everyone would own one - that they would be as ubiquitous as cars. That hasn't happened. Why? Because after a decade or two of perfection, the airplane industry leveled off in its ability to improve. They just cost too much to fly.

Why do you expect anything different from any other piece of technology? We already know the physical limits of silicon, and we're close to predicting the limits of protien based chips. We'll hit those limits (within the industry) in between five and ten years. Even then, to make a desktop machine that fast will cost lots of space, electricity, and money.

Conclusion: we can't know much about what video games will be like in 20 years.

Re:In 20 years we can do it at home

[GigsVT]

Deep Blue is a stupid comparison. The ASCI series is built with general purpose processors. ASCI Red was made with Pentium 200s if I recall correctly. Something like 6 or 8 thousand of them.

Deep Blue used ASICs to boost operations that were specific to chess. Anyway, I guess their PR department needed an easy comparison.

Re:What exacly are they trying to learn?

[Bistromat]

They're trying to learn how to improve the efficiency of the weapons. Early nukes, such as the infamous two dropped on Japan, fissioned only about 2% of the nuclear material they contained. By using different detonator explosive configurations, different neutron sources, and different case materials and arrangements scientists can improve the yield of these weapons without increasing the amount of fissionable material going into them. It's on the bleeding edge of physics, so testing is the only way to verify that the new technologies they use will actually work if, say, they need to drop these things on someone.

That said, the early nuclear tests were conducted in such an irresponsible and criminally negligent manner that hundreds of thousands of Americans were radiologically poisoned by iodine fallout from the atmospheric blasts in Nevada. The government sometimes has its own agenda, and that agenda need not involve the people.

addendum...

[Loki_1929]

Several hours later it was discovered that the software used by the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories had a slight flaw, and the corrected simulations show that the nuclear explosions were in fact beige.

In a related story, the updated software was found to contain massive amounts of spyware.

Re:Hmm....

[Stonehand]

...if you ignore the interconnect issues, of course. Which, for spatial situations, you generally *can't* -- I'd think that the dynamics would involve a whole horde of PDEs at different points in space, each of which needs to do a LOT of communication with its neighbors every iteration. That's the sort of thing that needs real computers with real bandwidth, not desktop toys with DSL connections.

Not to mention that you'd be distributing the software to every country on Earth that's interested in nuclear weapons simulation, which would be STUPID.

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.

Re:What exacly are they trying to learn?

[oldzoot]

Actually, they are comparing the simulation with real world physical test results. When the simulation is tuned well enough to match the actual results of a test shot, then they will probably change the device parameters of the simulation code to model a differnt actual test and see if the results are still valid. At some point the simulation code will be deemed first order reliable and can then be used for testing new concepts for weapons designs. As an example of why this might be usefull, consider that there may have been advances in the chemical high explosives used in the systems as well as advances in the command/control and safety systems relative to what was designed into weapons made in the 1950s or 1960s or even later. If it were possible to re-use the nuclear components of old weapons in a new bomb design with modern insensitive high explosive and more reliable detonation/control, denial of use and other safety systems, how could we put such a new weapon design into the stockpile without testing ? Accurate computer simulation may provide enough confidence in such a re-design to allow its certification for stockpile use. The ability to re-use the old nuclear components would eliminate significant hazards of handling these dangerous and exotic nuclear materials in processes such as re-casting and machining. If you are interested in learning more about the physics and history of nuclear weapons, check out the Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions.

Z

We'd have more technology by far if democrats were

[HanzoSan]

Democrates arent the ones who have had these trillion dollar tax cuts which only benifit rich people.

This had nothing to do with bush, bush cuts taxes so that means less funding not more.

Moore's Law

[jbf]

Kinda scary, isn't it, that 750 years of current desktop runtime is one year of desktop runtime in 15 years, according to Moore's law?

Don't let that program get out... especially on a "misplaced" hard disk...

Re:Moore's Law

[GigsVT]

What use would it be to anyone? Even if a rival country got it, it probably would only be useful for simulating OUR bombs, not theirs.

Re:Moore's Law

[jbf]

Seems like its good for simulating any bombs... otherwise how would you validate it?

Slightly OT... is Slashdot supposed to pay $50?

[DoctorYoshi]

As I was reading the details to this story on ABQJournal, I saw this odd link on the bottom of the page.

(PRC# 3.4676.620668)

Wondering what a PRC article was, I followed it, only to discover various ways I couly pay to use this article.

One of the options is "HTML Link : Publisher's permission to link to an article." and they charge $50 for this privledge. Apparently this whole scheme is managed by iCopyright.com

I thought there was some legal precedence in the past allowing deep linking. What happened?

They're here...

[AaronStJ]

Look like the BFAs are here. This is the seond time I've seen one. Not quite time to subscribe, though

They should GPL the code!!!

[Isldeur]

Hey, everyone should email Los Alamos and see if they'll GPL the code. Wouldnt' that be great!? ;)

Re:Nope.

[delcielo]

While the CTBT was never ratified by Congress, the nation is behaving as if it was. We are following the provisions of the treaty. It's a neat little trick of the way it works. Clinton signs the treaty, Congress refuses to ratify it. Everybody gets to say they did their part; but if we decide there's an overriding need to break the provisions of the treaty, we don't get all of that messiness you get when you've actually ratified it.

This is probably the best it could have worked out. Obviously, this computational testing program has the support of both parties. It's very difficult to actually push a single-party agenda that big, and sustain it unilaterally.

And if we need to, we just run a real test. Hell, France did it, and what lasting consequences have they endured? None. The only lasting consequences have been to the ecology.

Re:Mmmmm.

[GigsVT]

Damn dude, less LSD next time.

But since he asked wouldn't it be impolite?

[Kibo]

Aside from the developments of Robert Goddard, as a private individual, under the FDR administrations, the end of world war 2 and the bounty of the german weapons programs. The Atomic bomb. ICBM's under Kennedy. Cruise missles and the B-70 valkyrie (forerunner of the B-1b) to say nothing of stealth technology came of age, and the later started with Carter AFAIK. But most significant weapons programs inception to implimentation tended to last decades, witness the B-52 which is planned to have an 80 year lifespan. In general democrats seem to be fans of new weapons programs, republicans more enamoured with expansion of existing public ones, and intelligence gathering. But I imagine that if I acctually put some effort into researching this I would find that it's very evenly split.

Re:But since he asked wouldn't it be impolite?

[Mandelbrute]

In general democrats seem to be fans of new weapons programs,

Good point - the other odd thing is that Nixon went to China, and GW Bush is finally putting the childish blockade of Cuba to an end. Those that lean towards socialism don't want to look remotely like a communist, and those on the right don't want to look as if they are so far to the right that they meet up with Stalin looping around the circle from the other direction.

Your milage may vary, particularly since I use kilometres.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[GigsVT]

This is great.

It's probably just trolling (not the way slashdot people use trolling).

Icopyrgight.com probably just fishes for suckers to pay the fee. If someone links to the site who is a little guy, they will just pay the $50 rather than try to fight it in court. Inethical business model, hope to see them sued into oblivion. Bastards.

(OT) Aside concerning TRON

[sharkey]

Since /. ran the TRON review yesterday: Livermore Labs is where the "big door" leading to the ENCOM labs is located.

that's nuts

[sedawkgrep]

fast