Slashdot Mirror
New Tech Makes Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Verifiable
Harperdog writes "In 1999, Senate Republicans rejected the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty on the grounds that it wasn't verifiable. The National Academy of Sciences feels this is no longer true, due to new technology. Quoting: 'Technologies for detecting clandestine testing in four environments — underground, underwater, in the atmosphere, and in space — have improved significantly in the past decade. In particular, seismology, the most effective approach for monitoring underground nuclear explosion testing, can now detect underground explosions well below 1 kiloton in most regions. A kiloton is equivalent to 1,000 tons of chemical high explosive. The nuclear weapons that were used in Japan in World War II had yields in the range of 10 to 20 kilotons.'"
They rejected the treaty on the ground that they're the United States, and nobody's forcing them to give up their nukes. They just couldn't say that.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I mean, with the phrase "or any other nuclear explosion" doesn't that imply we're agreeing not to ever use nukes for anything?
Instead of "A kiloton is equivalent to 1,000 tons of chemical high explosive", it would have made more sense, and have been more accurate if instead it was said as "A kiloton is equivalent to 1,000 tons of TNT" which is what the comparison measures.
Specifics and straight facts makes something news and legitimate, generalizations and omissions make it a tabloid article and misleading.
as the country with the greatest number of nuclear weapons, lead by example and scrap them. Its some much needed dreaming from an American whos lived his entire life never really knowing a time when we have not had a war in some permutation.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I'd think we could maintain a working stockpile based on modeling and existing test results.
Never worked in IT, have you? :)
The US very well could and would keep their weapons. Also how much it would actually affect the US weapons is likely not much because it bans physical testing. The US tests its weapons mostly on computers these days. The DoE's supercomputers are powerful enough to simulate the weapons at the atomic level and give really accurate results.
We can benchmark climate models to a good standard...the actual climate.
You do realize that we don't need models to demonstrate global warming, right? That's an actual measurement.
Come back when you have a bare minimum of technical prowess, and have studied something besides humanities, political science, or some other such soft study for right brained types like yourself.
And to get it wrong to boot.
1 kiloton is not equal to 1000 tons of C4, nor is 1 kiloton equal to 1000 tons of HMX.
It's a well known definition and somehow get it wrong.
When the US protested France performing their last tests in the mid 90's, France's rationale was that the US had supercomputer simulations that replaced real testing and no one else had that compute power. This is no longer the case. Any reasonably advanced country can lash together enough cheap gear to build a supercomputer powerful enough to run simulations. Now - do they have the programming expertise sufficient to build models that work well? That's another question but one largely beyond the scope and concern of this issue.
They do that too, component tests, but like I said: They do full blown simulations. Those big DoE supercomputers have a number of uses but what really got them funded was weapons testing. You model everything on that weapon you can, and then simulate it on an atomic scale. As accurate as real testing? No, probably not, but it doesn't generate any nuclear explosion. Also a lot of verification can be done with regards to simulation results vs actual component testing.
1 kiloton [...] It's a well known definition and somehow get it wrong.
I blame the hard drive manufacturers.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I would like to see us send missions to mars, but include a nuke. Once arriving at Mars, send the nuke to the far side and blow it. Yes, I am well aware that we are part of space treaty. However, at some point, we need to test our nukes. It is foolish to not do so.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...and not a "kibiton"?
Yes.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
As an IT professional, I worked on the verification system for the Prototype International Data Centre during 1999 when the Senate Republicans (and Clinton) rejected the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty on the grounds that it wasn't verifiable. I was also working there in 1998 when within 15 minutes of it happening my pager went off when Pakistan and then India did their tests (thank goodness it wasn't data corruption!). While I'm no PhD and pretty much everyone else was (international group represented by all nations involved with the treaty - and a heck of a Wednesday night soccer practice) they know. Squiggly line slowly getting big: earthquake; flat line suddenly turning squiggly: bomb. Really smart people double check by hand before raising flags just as if you subscribe to USGS earthquake warnings (was that really a 4.2 at 2012-Apr-09 21:37:09 in Gulf of California?). They know pretty well what, how much, when and where. It's "just" physics and it's based on the sensitively of the monitoring instruments. And it turns out that the instruments are really sensitive and it takes incredibly advanced technology to make an under 1 kiloton bomb. It won't be a country's first test. Point is we should lead the way in signing this. Cold war mentality is to monitor Russia. If that's not our goal, if our real goal is the "non proliferation" of nuclear bombs then those seeking to acquire the technology must test (sound familiar?) and testing below current detectable levels means they already have the technology and have already tested it on a larger scale. Ban everyone from testing the big stuff and you'll make the small stuff much harder to come by. Politics - not science - is why unfortunately the US has not yet signed this treaty.
Useless. Everyone knows Iran has now stuffed their entire bedrock full of styrofoam packing peanuts.
That theory has a single point of failure due to an even better killing machine than nukes: Religion. Who would willingly make the world burn? Those who believe they will be rewarded in the next.
and unduly constrains the US (and others) in the future. How many tests have there been since the late1990s? Other than NK nothing since the tit for tat Pakistan/India tests in 1998. That was... hmm.. 13+ years ago?
Also you have to remember that a lot of these weapon systems were not exactly reliable or pin point accuracy.
So while yes, if you get a big enough boom, and aim it at a sufficiently large city, odds are you will hit it. However a lot can go wrong between the red button, and actually detonation. It might not fire. It might not navigate to the correct place. It might not detonate. Also if either side has any missile defense it might knock it down. This is a sort of fight that you get exactly one chance. So in those instances you likely target with 2 or 3 depending on the importance of the city.
Also as mentioned, a BIG part of the plan was to disable all or most of the opposing enemies missiles. This meant targeting ships groups, installations, bases, and plenty of stuff that are much harder to hit. Some were probably designated to be just big EMP communications knock out detail. Now target several to all those things.
Then you have the subterfuge on both sides, hiding bases, fake silos, mobile launch platforms. Hey, its probably a fake installation, but it could be real, and targeting NY, are you willing to risk it? Better target them all anyway. For everyone you get you could potentially save millions.
Likely the only thing not targeted would be subs, though certainly their ports and navel bases would be. Anyway after awhile I can see how it would add up. Insane yes, but I can understand the madness.