Long-term robustness of Soviet and Russian nuclear armaments - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:07:35 am
content: Hi all,first of all, I do not wish to make a political topic here. This is purely a technical question that I hope people will answer based on facts they can present.I was wondering recently how probable it is that Russian nuclear ICBM warheads are in fact functional. Assumedly like in any arsenal some percentage will be duds, but the question is what percentage. I soon figured that I don't know anything at all about those systems:- What sort of technology is used for the warhead and detonation device? What sort of assembly? I don't even know details like is it vacuum tube, magnetic, or mechanic; and are they using wires or boards; are they soldering, crimping, wire wrapping, brazing, using screw terminals, springs, ... Are there any documents on what such a device looks like in Russia's armament? What were the general manufacturing techniques used by the Soviet union in those days? I honestly don't even know during what years those things were all produced.- What sort of maintenance is necessary for the items to continue to function - and what is the manpower needed to do that? Are there any reports of the maintenance being especially good or bad?- I understand that nuclear tests of any sort of size can be sensed from anywhere in the world. And of course you don't know if a weapon works until you fire it. When's the last time such a test has been carried out by the Soviet or Russian Government?- What sort of knowledge is necessary to continue maintaining the items? Is it conceivable that very few people really know how to confidently work on those things in the first place?- Other than the explosives themselves, what other systems are necessary for a successful delivery of such a payload? Does the ground site have to be special in some way, does it have to have special equipment? How difficult to operate or maintain could this equipment be?I would ask that everyonekeep politics out of this thread. Of course we know what's going on and everyone is grown up and knows who's right or wrong. However if stuff like that happens this thread will be derailed and there will be no knowledge to be gained from it. We all know we can go to Twitter or Facebook to talk about politics.Please avoid reductionist arguments, or bad faith arguments. Stuff like "Oh it's Russia with their kleptocracy, of course things don't work" just doesn't cut it. Saying "I saw Russian trucks weren't turned so the tires on them broke" doesn't cut it as well. Keep it to what you specifically know either of the devices themselves or of Russian manufacturing industry from the time the devices were built.Please avoid arguments such as "even one working is bad enough". We know it's bad. We're trying to learn here, not make geopolitical decisions. I am not the head of NATO, I'm just a guy who doesn't know how a type of device works, and just like a toaster or a VCR, I'd like to understand what is involved in keeping it in function.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:24:50 am
content: Good question I was wondering the same thing the other day. I guess because of the state of affairs. But it must be something akin to say having a FM radio and making sure it would actually make sound from the speaker without turning the audio stage on. You can make visual tests and applying power to certain parts of the system. But in the end if all the tests you can do (without actually firing it off) pass, the you assume it has to work, because it can't do anything else but work, if it passes all the tests up to a certain point. According to the laws of physics it would have no other outcome other than than to blow up ...Of course all that presumes it is delivered properly by some other system that might fail ... Yea so a certain % of the systems are not even going to make it to the target anyway. Who knows how many?

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:29:13 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on March 21, 2022, 02:24:50 amRight, that's the point! I'm sure there are nuclear engineers or physicists who are able to answer this question better than you or I.

author: exmadscientist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:53:38 am
content: So I know just enough about this stuff to be dangerous... may as well have a go. (Disclaimer, DoE has in the past paid my salary, but not NNSA... I actively preferred not to work for them.)Quote from: cheater on March 21, 2022, 02:07:35 amInitiator is probably plastic explosives. I don't know the mechanical construction or how they age over time.This is the most sensitive bit, at least on a fission weapon. Fusion adds complications of its own. The fusion physics packages are remarkable objects. They definitely go bad over time; I think at least one component of US designs is volatile. But the initiators are even worse, so they're still a major bottleneck.QuoteThere are test ban treaties in place. The major powers have actually respected these, so it's been a while. Those treaties were a major driver of supercomputer development by the US DoE.QuoteThe physics packages areVERYspecialized. (DoE has in the past lost information on how to work on one fusion design. That was a problem.) The rest of it, not so much.QuoteThe rest of it is not special. Obviously an ICBM has its own skills needed, but the physics package doesn't make it any easier or harder to build one of those.In the past, Soviet design tended to favor making bigger versions of crude, inefficient, reliable designs. So that suggests most warheads and delivery systems are probably quite functional. But the fanciest warheads will be the most complex and most subject to needing maintenance or periodic refresh. I imagine they have done these things, or why else would Mayak be so busy? It isn't every day you get to botch an order for a neutrino experiment source, and they have to stay busy....

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 03:25:12 am
content: Take a look atCarey Sublette's Nuclear Weapon Archiveprobably the largest single repository of non-secret information on nuclear weapons design and deployment.Probably best to start at the FAQs (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html) and work outwards.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 03:39:50 am
content: @exmadscientist thanks, what do you make of this info? (Found on the page kindly provided by Cerebus)http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwarhead.htmlThere isn't much to go on...But let's talk about the "usual" stuff. Even a perfectly working radio, if you just leave it sitting for 50-70 years, it'll stop working due to progressing tarnish/corrosion, chemical incompatibilities, etc. Probably way worse if it's next to a radiation source for those 70 years... I heard even metal changes its properties. In what ways could such old electronics be affected?

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 03:46:43 am
content: I doubt anyone could give you a good estimate of the percentage of decades-old Soviet nuclear warheads that are going to function, but I'd guess from what public analysis there is that any problems in delivering a nuclear detonation are more likely to be due to some other cause. You actually can test a nuke without violating any treaties--you just remove the plutonium pit and install a bunch of sensors and cameras and see how the timers and explosives perform. A uranium gun-fired design would not be as easily tested, but those are considered very reliable. A multi-stage device also could only be tested for the operation of the primary compression explosives, but there probably isn't much need. As far as I know (which probably isn't much) everything beyond the initial stage is pretty stable except of course for the tritium, which can be measured and monitored separately.

author: exmadscientist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 04:31:16 am
content: Quote from: cheater on March 21, 2022, 03:39:50 amThese things aren'tthatradioactive. Not pleasant, sure, but not so bad. And they're not 70 years old. Perhaps the Russians still have those in service (I hear they don't throw things away?) but the antiques are not the ones to worry about. Also, there shouldn't be any electronics in the physics package itself. Nearby, to time things, but not inside it. Warheads don't need much smarts to operate. They are not fly-by-wire devices!Quote from: bdunham7 on March 21, 2022, 03:46:43 amAgreed.QuoteFission weapons, yes. Fusion weapons, no. Those things have secondaries initiated by radiation pressure. This is the sort of thing you'd like to test out, rather than trust your simulator on, but that's not allowed anymore. The RIPPLE design is an example of this. It supposedly yields a lot more efficiently than a Teller-Ulam device, but could not be made reliable before tests were banned. Is it in the field now? Who knows. Certainly not me.QuoteSo the US design I mentioned being "lost" involved a very special material codenamed FOGBANK. The methods of production were lost, partly due to classification mistakes, and so they had to figure out what that stuff was and how to make more, or the warheads can't go splodey anymore. It is now generally believed that FOGBANK was a lithium deuteride aerogel that relied on acetonitrile impurities to actually be manufacturable. I submit that lithium deuteride aerogel is pretty bloody weird stuff, and if you've got to maintain the likes of that, you had best be alert for anything!

author: AndrewBCN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 05:12:06 am
content: Just have joesmith test them...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 05:20:54 am
content: Quote from: cheater on March 21, 2022, 02:07:35 am100% chance enough are functional to be a real threat.There are stories coming out about how they didn't have the budget and/or systems to maintain the trucks which have failed in the field, but whether that's the same for the nukes no one knows.Still, 100% chance enough are functional.

author: AndrewBCN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 06:24:04 am
content: Quote from: cheater on March 21, 2022, 02:07:35 amHow admirably modest of you!

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 06:51:48 am
content: They are likely built to pretty high quality standards so they do have a good chance of being pretty reliable.Failures tend to be more statistical rather than just black and white. If they make enough of these, it is inevitable that eventually one would end up faulty even when brand new. Then there might be some that do work but die early due to a manufacturing fault, then way on there might be some that die of old age once the slower deteriorating factors kick in. But even those factors are not uniform as they might have been stored in different conditions. You might also not get full failures, it is possible for it to be good enough to go off, but produce a much worse yield. Even one that completely fails to start the reaction is not a nice thing to deal with, it still gets blown to bits by the initiating explosive, spewing radioactive stuff around the area.But that being said even if 3/4 of them have become duds by now, this still leaves a lot of working ones due to the sheer number of them.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 07:05:14 am
content: Quote from: Berni on March 21, 2022, 06:51:48 amIt also depends on the type.If we are talking short/medium/long range ICBM missles, either land or sub based, then you have the added layers of reliability of the missle itself and the missle launch systems etc.But there are simpler nukes like the 2S7M based battlefield nuke artilery, or the old school gravity bombs which you could be pretty confident are still almost 100% reliable and could be carried and dropped by any capable warplane.Like I said, 100% guaranteed capability in some form.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 09:41:39 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 21, 2022, 07:05:14 amNot only that, but the western arsenal is likely significantly above 0% capability. Even if the first strike is all duds, our retaliation devastates not just untold miles of noncombatants and wilderness, but carries fallout over much of the entire hemisphere. You can't win a nuclear battle; at best, you survive it.Tim

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 11:09:08 am
content: Quote from: Berni on March 21, 2022, 06:51:48 amWhat is the sheer number?

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 11:26:00 am
content: Quote from: cheater on March 21, 2022, 11:09:08 amNot many people are privileged to know the actual numbers of that, but they are guessing it at being around 6000 for Russia and same for the UShttps://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/NuclearweaponswhohaswhatSafe to say that only a small percentage of those is already enough to blow up entire nations. Hence why it is still bad even if a lot of those don't actually work.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 11:33:36 am
content: If you want to see how military electronics of their time were built, take a look at these channels:https://www.youtube.com/user/msylvain59/videoshttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4Kz0sEXSqNkfi7W1PBKyMg/videosMind you, this tells you nothing about the way that the current big stuff is manufactured and on the level of build quality.As to how much of the arsenal is fully functional and would work as intended, provided it's even 1% it's still a problem.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 11:39:00 am
content: To my experience, most russian electronics is very simple and robust, but outdated by at least a decade.So I'd assume most of the electronics will just work, even after decades, unless they have completely abandoned maintenance.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 11:41:02 am
content: During WWII, a hundred year old fortification (manned by raw recruits and pensioners), armed with a handful of 40- to 50-year-old torpedoes designed in 1866 of Austro-Hungarian manufacture, destroyed a heavy cruiser so new, its crew was still finishing training... the last known operational use of a Whitehead torpedo.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dr%C3%B8bak_Soundhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehead_torpedoThe moral of the story is that discounting old weaponry can be an expensive mistake...

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 11:44:02 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 21, 2022, 07:05:14 amFirst off I'm guessing you can completely exclude airplane based gravity devices completely. Here's what I understood reading up on nuclear defense initiatives and SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) a good 10-15 years ago: once nuclear strike becomes a threat, anything flying in your direction gets shot down immediately from land, no questions asked. In this scenario, NATO will have moved their troops onto Ukraine and every country bordering with Russia or Belarus to minimize response time. So that really only leaves ICBMs and (for strikes on Europe or Asia) very fast cruise missiles. However a military expert will have actual competence on the topic which I don't have.Regarding the remaining items. How do we know they wouldn't all suffer a mechanical failure before then? Say, using screw terminals, and they didn't use thread locker? What sort of construction methods were being used in missiles and warheads during those times? They certainly did it in /some/ way.Here's the thing though. It's by now well know that the Russian organized crime, allegedly led by the government itself, has been extorting the Russian military, and that includes the RVSN, theStrategic Rocket Forces of the Russian Federation, the separate branch of Russian military that manages the ICBMs. Look at the second headline here:https://mobile.twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1502682176848027658You can see they're talking about the "РВСН", which is cyrillic for RVSN. The full headline says that personnel of the RVSN is being extorted by the Russian mafia and they have to pay them tribute, which is a recurrent payment.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Rocket_ForcesExtortion money comes from the budget... the same budget necessary to maintain the missiles and warheads. So let's think about it, you're a Russian official, you are being extorted, where will you embezzle the money from? Probably not pay some of the conscripts, and also probably some general maintenance across the board. Some things need to work - conventional missiles that you'll be using in Chechenya or Georgia need to work because they're going to be fired. However you've got those nuclear payloads and they haven't been used in decades. There's no nuclear war on the horizon. That looks like a pretty good target for embezzlement. No one's checking, no one will find out, and if they do they try, that's an end of the world scenario and you're probably dead anyways, so you don't care.So let's think about it together, how much moneyis requiredto keep a nuke alive and working? And would they be using their own delivery methods not interchangeable with normal ICBMs and cruise missiles? My guess is yes, but I can'tknow. If yes, then what's necessary to keep those delivery methods alive?Agreed, no one can give us a definite percentage (not even the owners of those nukes know), but we can try and figure some things out to better understand the situation.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 11:46:54 am
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on March 21, 2022, 11:41:02 amRight, but that's in Norway, where budget embezzlement isn't a daily thing that's proven and reported on widely by press, like it is in Russia. So that gives at least reason to suspect and investigate how involved the upkeep is and whether it's probable that someone's been signing the inspection sheet and not doing it.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 11:59:10 am
content: Quote from: cheater on March 21, 2022, 11:46:54 amA wise man once said, "Stuff like "Oh it's Russia with their kleptocracy, of course things don't work" just doesn't cut it."Enough of their stuff will probably work to be a real problem, especially if used in a surprising / unexpected way.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 12:10:14 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on March 21, 2022, 11:41:02 amOf course. Even if the thing was controlled by clockwork and ran on steam it's still a formidable weapon.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 12:12:47 pm
content: yeah, I too was wondering the other day, about those ~100 Russian 1 kiloton suitcase nukes that were lost/misplaced.If any of them are still around if they would actually still function.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 12:17:22 pm
content: It's wishful thinking to assume Russian nuclear weapons won't work. Nobody wants a proof.Radioactive materials used in those warheads decay at a certain rate. Even thermonuclear warheads include fission bombs as starters. To my understanding that means you can not have a stock of warheads for let's say 10 years and expect to unpack and use it. Let's assume each one of those weapons is under tight monitoring and maintainance.And those lost bombs probably won't work very well anymore.Regards, Dieter

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 12:18:28 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on March 21, 2022, 11:41:02 amFun fact: Then Fiume, today Rijeka, is my home town.There is a preserved pier with a torpedo tube where they test fired torpedos in Whitehead time....

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 12:27:00 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on March 21, 2022, 11:59:10 amThe point of this was that you should notstopat this statement as an argument proving anything, and should insteadcontinue to investigatewhat the actual truth is. As I said in the later post, it'sgrounds for investigating, notproofof anything.QuoteWe don't have any actual empirical data to support that claim and this is what I'm fishing for here. Not even an iota. Only allegories to torpedoes that function on completely different principles: they use a tactile detonator that uses a very stable explosive. Even that part has already been mentioned to be very different - the explosives used in fission devices specifically have been said to be very unstable. It was said that fusion devices might well not work at all and no one would know.On the other hand even if fusion devices don't work and only fission devices work then we know that:1. the bombs that were fired on Japan were 10 kiloton devices2. fission bombs can be built up to a yield of 500 KT3. many tactical weapons are less than 1 KTThat's still a formidable amount of explosive power, and we should try to learn more about this.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 12:29:43 pm
content: Quote from: dietert1 on March 21, 2022, 12:17:22 pmWould you mind explaining this a little further? What mechanism would make the bomb not explode? The simplest way to think about it would be "there's less explosive material so the explosion would be proportionally less severe", but from what you say it's not like that.QuoteWe have direct proof to the opposite: proof that budget embezzlement happens in the specific units doing the monitoring and maintenance. So that assumption is fraught with caveats.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 12:51:58 pm
content: Quote from: cheater on March 21, 2022, 12:29:43 pmIt sounds like you are trying to argue that we shouldn't worry about Russian nukes, because they might not work?I agree with you that they may not be well maintained - but we don't know that, and it is not the safe way to bet.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 01:10:28 pm
content: After some time there won't be enough radioactive substance left to get a critical mass and there won't be any chain reaction. On the way there the chain reaction could be slower and the bomb would turn into something like an exploding fission reactor that produces a lot of radiation with little impact otherwise ("dirty bomb").Many scientists died from radiation although they were aware of the risk. The first US thermonuclear test "castle bravo" was 2.5 times stronger than expected. You can find all you want to know at Wikipedia.Regards, Dieter

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 01:18:43 pm
content: The part that makes a nuclear bomb complicated is that the radioactive material inside has to pass the point of criticality as quickly as possible. If done too slowly the reaction blows the bomb apart before much of the radioactive material can do its thing.So the final energy yield out of it is heavily dependent on how well this process works. This is why some of the nuclear experiments gave pretty unexpected results. From underwhelming flops to hefty bangs quite a bit larger than expected.The popular modern method of doing this is creating a spherical explosion around the core to squeeze it down into critical mass (also nice for hydrogen bombs). This only works if all the many charges placed around it fire with a precise timing to make the shockwave meet in the middle. This makes the bomb a lot more safe since even an accidental detonation of a few of these charges will not set off any nuclear reaction at all (tho still blow the core to bits and scatter it around the area). But you see how unevenly aging unstable high explosive around the core could mess this up. Resulting in a kaboom with a lot less energy yield or even no reaction at all.None the less there is no way the huge number of bombs on stockpile would all be dead, even if they do have reliability problems. Especially since they are not all made from the same blueprint, so they might not all share the same design fault that turned some of them into a dud.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 01:21:25 pm
content: I guess this discussion is pointless.If there is only one working warhead left, dropping it will start a global war, and that will be the last war on earth (or what is left of it then).

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 01:31:56 pm
content: How about a more epistemological angle instead?1. What kind of information would you find satisfactory / convincing?2. What kind of information are you likely to find, or even very unlikely to find, say in event of massive leaks of military records?3. What kind of information is even reasonable to expect exists? Or, put another way: do they even know what their real operational capability is?To be sure, #1 would require authenticated, highly classified documents. #3 notwithstanding. These documents could be from western sources (intelligence) or from within Russia itself; either way, such information would be classified for strategic purposes.You're extremely unlikely to find such information.Information you're more likely to see, might include general military movements, well known installations (missile silos etc.), certain extents of budgeting (but, notwithstanding outflows due to graft/corruption), etc. And more circumstantial evidence, hearsay, etc. Or even outright fabrications (e.g. you probably can't trust much from localnewspropaganda outlets).3 is really the interesting one. Given the general structure of the state of Russia -- an extremely unequal economy*, with minimal oversight at each level, and most in the power structure struggling to maintain their positions, while conducting their own extortions -- we can expect that these effects generalize, i.e. not only are state and corporate organizations riddled with corruption, but they are obligated to lie to their higher-ups, misrepresenting their capability in order to retain their positions (...or heads). So, we have the expectation that, even the state's own self-knowledge, is limited, and likely overly optimistic.So, even if you were to obtain the best possible such documents -- would they really be honest indicators of the true state of things?Well, given western intelligence documents, an assessment of this is probably included. Such documents might be more accurate than the direct sources, perhaps as close to the actual error bars as possible (and including the extents of those error bars).*Note that, for broad purposes, in the steady state: political, economic and military power are equivalent and fungible. These can become imbalanced in unusual (transient) circumstances, and then you can get anything from democratic reforms (economy buoys the people?) to military coup d'état (e.g. state unable to pay military?, a very dire economic state indeed). We aren't looking at this, at least not just yet (the sanctions have had swift impact, but time will tell if it causes a substantial power shift).Anyway, above all, there is one conclusion that is easy to reach, regardless of the general nature of available information:4. None of us is likely to have any more than casual knowledge or understanding of the subject in question.So I can in turn ask -- what do you really expect, by asking this question of us? Did you expect to get a non-answer? Did you just want to drive discussion on the topic? (Perhaps. We all need to do something, to help us understand current events -- or to distract ourselves from it as the case may be.) Did you realize this, and post the troll anyway? (Possible, but I'll grant, quite unlikely for an old mostly lurker account.)And as for use of this information -- would you stake your life on a >99.995% failure rate, even given information to support such a strict limit? Even given all the issues (age, probable lack of maintenance, probable lack of manpower/preparedness/will to actually arm/launch?, etc.), do you really think none would launch? Let alone explode; any confirmed launch already begets retaliation. Or, let alone your own life -- would you stake the hundreds of millions of lives in New York, Paris, Moscow, etc., on the same chances as well? Perhaps lives, whether your own or others, are not a motivating factor to you; would you then accept the trillions in lost economic progress? The collapse of the western way of luxury as we know it? I'm not sure what else would be convincing; you might just be a radical nihilist and wish for this to happen regardless of weapons accuracy. Which is a pretty strange thing to believe in, but I'm sure there are people who do. (?)And, that's just perspectives; there's almost nothing actionable about such knowledge, for the average person anywhere on Earth. Perhaps moving away from large cities, or building a bomb shelter if you can afford to, would be a wise precaution. Perhaps you can convey such information to the higher-ups, who can actually make actionable decisions; granted, the chance that anyone of consequence will hear you out, is small. But you don't need information to do that, anyway; call up or write to your representatives and let them know how you feel about this. Ask for deescalation, ask for increased foreign aid, ask to put pressure on allies; etc.Anyway, I digress. This is, pretty fair, I think? Granted I've called you a troll---hey, just conditionally!But yeh, no new information, nothing worse than anything else I'd expect to see in this thread. Just rampant speculation, pay it no meaning, talk is cheap, etc. I mean, you've been here long enough, you must know my penchant for baroque replies...Cheers,Tim

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:26:11 pm
content: Quote from: dietert1 on March 21, 2022, 01:10:28 pmUnlikely considering the half-lifes of the two principal isotopes used in fission weapons:239Pu 24,100 years,235U 704,000,000 years.The radioactive materials that decay on short time scales are associated with either boosting the yield or prompt initiation of the chain reaction.Tritium (3H) is used to boost the explosive yield of fission bombs and has a half-life of 12.32 years. In boosted fission weapons it has to be replaced on a regular basis as it decays. Too much tritium, too high a yield, too little, too low a yield, but a fission weapon has to have enough of the primary fission fuel to function in the first place and that fuel is very slow decaying. So a boosted fission weapon might have a lower yield if all/most of its tritium had decayed but it would still have a significant nuclear yield, on the order of 10s of kilotonnes for a typical small weapon.Most (all?) contemporary fission weapons include an initiator that produces a burst of neutrons to initiate the chain reaction rapidly when the core is fully assembled/compressed. The commonest type rely on a polonium/beryllium initiator to provide this burst of neutrons, using210Po.210Po only has a half-life of 138 days, but it's possible to have an initiator with excess210Po so the quantity isn't critical like the case with tritium in a boosted weapon. Again, most fission bombs will still have a significant yield without the initiator operating correctly but it won't be as great (the bomb won't be asefficient) as a properly initiated explosion. We are however still talking in kilotonnes minimum. There are initiator designs that use a separate 'neutron gun' that don't rely on materials with short half-lifes.Whether there are designs in which the initiator is critical to obtaining a high order explosion (as opposed to a 'fizzle' of a few tonnes TNT equivalent ) is probably not something one can find from the open literature.Bottom line - if there had been duplicates of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs manufactured at the same time and "left on the shelf" until today then the nuclear components of them would still work if used tomorrow (even allowing for the235U bomb having had a210Po initiator that would have decayed away to nothing). Whether the chemical explosives and electronics would is a different question.

author: AndrewBCN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:31:25 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on March 21, 2022, 12:51:58 pmAh, so I wasn't the only one to notice that!There arepsychopathsweapons experts all over the internet these days arguing that the US / NATO should do an all-out "preemptive nuclear first strike" against Russia, based on the argument that Russia is unlikely to retaliate "because their missiles don't work anyways".Strangely enough one of thesepsychopathsweapons experts has decided that the "Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff" subforum on the EEVblog would be a good place to stir up this kind of discussion.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:40:11 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on March 21, 2022, 12:51:58 pmDefinitely not trying to argue that.Quote from: T3sl4co1l on March 21, 2022, 01:31:56 pmAlso not trying to do that. I'm not trying to get convinced that Russian nukes work or don't work.I'm trying to find out what information is out there, and what sort of opinion can be made. I'm not trying to cherry pick tidbits to prove some specific thesis I'm hell bent on. But so far everyone who's been saying "the nukes do work" is basing it on the fact that "there's so many, duh one works" which as a person who studied statistics and used them at work for years I have to reject.People are scared to talk about this sort of stuff because inevitably at the start of the conversation someone comes along and says "they may not be well maintained - but we don't know that, and it is not the safe way to bet", and that shuts down the conversation. This stops people from actually learning something about the topic at hand, making it better understood.AndrewBCN, your reply was very unkind, and it puts words in my mouth I have not uttered. I am not of the belief someone should perform a nuclear strike on Russia. That's completely thought up and your reply was very inflammatory. Please kindly remove it and refrain from doing that in the future.Meanwhile, as the thread continues, information trickles in. So quotes like...Quote from: Haenk on March 21, 2022, 01:21:25 pm...trying to shut down the conversation are in contradiction to the fact that this conversation keeps yielding useful information from people who seem to know what they're talking about and back up their statements with facts.So let's keep talking about this rather than just falling on our faces to prostrate ourselves beforeThe One Hypothetical Nuke That Couldlike we're some sort of nuclear cult.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:46:30 pm
content: Quote from: AndrewBCN on March 21, 2022, 02:31:25 pmThere's no hint of that in the OPs questions and arguments, and I've just re-read them all to make sure that I didn't miss any. William of Occam would say that the OPs question was raised by the implicit threat of Russia's nuclear forces moving up in alert status and if one is looking for ulterior motive, again William of Occam would say that probably it was driven by thinking along the lines of "Oh God, if the lunatics try it, is there a possibilty that they'll all be duds?".I'll leave it as an open question what kind of mind decides to diagnose understandable curiosity in the circumstances as psychopathy and then choose to air the assertion publicly.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:46:35 pm
content: Quote from: AndrewBCN on March 21, 2022, 02:31:25 pmIf you had read the OP, you'd see that he has specifically discouraged such arguments and avenues of discussion. The issue of the reliability of nuclear devices that may have been sitting in a silo for decades is a technical question, one that I'm sure is not ignored by the people who tend to them. The OP has not claimed to be a weapons expert and there's no foundation for you to impute a specific motive to his post. It might be the opposite of what you claim.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:50:12 pm
content: We, the US, have a program to replace warheads that age out. We don't increase the count beyond treaty limits but we do replace in kind.So, we're probably 100% functional.Here's a paper that addresses this topic and includes references re: Russia. No, I didn't read it (yet).https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernizationWe're planning to spend $634 BILLION on upgrades over 10 years and that was before Russia started acting up.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:51:14 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 21, 2022, 02:26:11 pmThanks, that's some very interesting information on how those fission bombs function.Do Tritium and Polonium 210 have to be specially manufactured, or are they byproducts of nuclear power plant function? If so, would you happen to know what the expected yield is per terawatt hour of energy produced?QuoteWhat are your thoughts on this?------------------bdunham7 and Cerebus, thanks for your assist in your last two posts. I don't want the thread to turn into a flame fest. Let's make sure this isn't about whether someone should be attacking Russia with nukes or something to that effect.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:52:19 pm
content: Quote from: Berni on March 21, 2022, 01:18:43 pmYes, just because it's explosive, doesn't mean it's... EXPLOSIVE. I forget what the most popular kind is these days; probably the ellipsoidal (egg-like) two point system? This goes something like: the pit is wrapped in explosives of two types, differing in velocity of detonation (VoD). Each end is ignited at a single point, axial to the core. As the blast waves propagate through the material, the explosive layers are shaped in such a way (explosive lens) that the expanding spherical wavefront is refracted into an imploding ellipsoidal wavefront, crushing the pit from both ends, but also from all sides, to an extremely high density at its peak.This must be very carefully tuned indeed, as the pit is very high density material, while the shock wave is much lower density. The core starts around ~20 g/mm^3, rising to, what, I think like more than double that by the point of initiation? These are extreme forces indeed, able to compress solid metal to such an extent! Meanwhile, explosives are typically in the ~2 g/mm^3 range (plus whatever gain is due to propagation?). There's absolutely no such thing as strength at these force and time scales, everything can be treated as liquid -- Rayleigh-Taylor instability applies here, where the crushed object will effectively squirt out through any tiny nonuniformity in the incident blast wave. Even a perfectly symmetrical wave, will eventually find a source of noise and not crush perfectly spherically (or whatever symmetry as the case may be), breaking into a spiky-ball sort of pattern somewhere in the middle.Which, as an aside, is a bit of the problem with inertial confinement, e.g. Farnsworth Fusor. You can attract particles to a central (spherically symmetric) focus, but they're not going to come in perfectly symmetrically, and more importantly, there'll be a population of gas molecules in there already, scattering even the most carefully focused plasma. Perhaps if it were done in extremely short pulses (~ps), so that a spherical shell can approach all at once, much as in the bomb -- but that's far more difficult to generate, too! Finally, typical operation of a Fusor isn't even pulsed at all, but continuous, so that there is simply a population of gas and plasma in the center, at slightly elevated pressure and temperature, and the incoming particles merely heat it -- it's an entirely thermalized population, completely breaking the assumption of radially accelerated individual particles. So it's no surprise that these devices have never worked*, and a bit of a surprise that they can achieve fusionat all!(Indeed they do; they're sometimes used as a low-level source of neutrons, safer to handle than a neutron howitzer** and easily (and rapidly) pulsed.)*There are some more promising (more complex) developments, but I mean the basic original idea.**Usually something like, alpha source mixed with beryllium; 4He + 9Be --> 12C + n. I once used one of these in a physics class (neutron activation, counting with gamma spectrometer). We calculated, based on the nameplate rating (authentic Los Alamos!), it contained about 50g of plutonium.Anyways, if the reaction doesn't initiate before the core loses, uh... configuration, shall we say -- it literally just blows to pieces. A few kg of plutonium and assorted friends turned to dust in the immediate area, and that's it. If it's only very slightly asymmetrical, the crush doesn't reach maximum density or duration, and a fizzle results -- reduced yield, but still a nuclear reaction.So that's just one of many ways they can guard a device: if neither detonator is allowed to fire, the device is safe. If just one is allowed to fire, it's a dirty bomb, but not a devastating one. If both are allowed to fire, but the timing is off by some microseconds, same again. Only when they are perfectly synchronized, does it go big-bang.Symmetry is extremely important -- another way that cores were armed was placing a loose chain inside the pit: this blocks the initiator from being assembled for one, but also provides enough mass asymmetry to blow the thing apart, rather than entirely up.(My above diversion is only slightly diversionary, by the way; such neutron sources are commonly employed as the "spark plug" inside these devices. So you might expect to find additional species in such remains -- maybe Po or Ra as part of a neutron source, or D and T compounds (never pure, except for the one Ivy Mike shot) for a fusion-boosted fission design. Of which, lithium hydride (and isotopes) is an excellent source, the lithium being active as well. Granted, LiH is extremely flammable in air, so you wouldn't see it in that form, but Li2O, LiOH or Li2CO3 scattered around, and raised levels of D or T in moisture at the site.)There's plenty of information out there about arming and fusing devices, e.g.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_LinkAnd yeah, they're all made of various mechanisms and electronics, so are subject to all the usual failures of equipment: metals corrode, paints oxidize, lubricants deteriorate, etc. Especially accelerated by the radiation environment -- not that these are hot to be around, they're fairly cool, and well enough shielded, of course -- but given enough time, sure!I don't think something like a Pu-Be or Ra-Be neutron source would decay all that quickly, but Po certainly (half life under a year, would need a fresh rotating stock to support).Radiation damage, is mostly like photodegradation by the way, but higher energy and deeper penetration (and depending on type, of course; alpha and beta being relevant inside the physics package, gamma and to some extent neutron, over a wider area). Higher energy basically means anything that gets hit, will suffer ionization, dislocation, etc. So, even metals are prone to damage (mainly by particles heavy enough to dislodge actual nuclei, i.e. neutrons). Ionization generally scrambles molecular bonds, so plastics accumulate damage, darkening in color, turning weaker and brittle, etc. Volatiles might be produced (cleaved monomers or decomposition products?), causing loss of mass, and perhaps also contamination of nearby surfaces. Lots of weird chemical changes in play here.And so, add on top of that, all the usual things that affect electronics: tin and silver whiskering, moisture ingress, excessive cross-linking, oxidation or depolymerization of resins; oxidation and contamination of contacts (connectors, relays, switches); etc. Some thermal stress perhaps, as equipment is moved around; although probably most of these devices are stored inside or underground, so they'd mostly be subject to cycling during transportation rather than storage. (But again, who knows, there's probably some that've had a harder lot over there.)Acute radiation dosage doesn't do much to electronics, by the way; well, it depends? Of course. If it's unpowered, the free charges don't matter (p/n carriers will be drawn across junctions, generating small voltages -- same mechanism as a solar cell, just a more penetrating source of radiation!), and accumulation of defects (particularly neutron damage, also causing neutron activation doping) is the main hazard. Eventually leading to failure, probably due to excessive leakage current / power consumption, or hot-spotting (ionization track --> conductive channel formation?), or just general malfunction due to shifted threshold voltages (charges deposited in gate oxide, etc.?). If operational, SEU (single event upsets) can scramble bits, excessive free charges can increase power consumption, shift thresholds, etc. Oh, or if it's got EEPROM/Flash, it's subject to SEU even when off, of course; and also, freed charges can scramble the bit levels as well.And regarding explosives, remember they need to be extremely precisely formulated -- exact composition, and homogeneous, so that the explosive lenses create the required converging wavefront. Explosives aren't very happy chemicals, themselves. They're subject to spontaneous degradation, many of them, or due to impurities acting catalytically, and certainly due to radiation induced damage. The nitrate groups can be reduced to amines, or bonded to other chemicals in the environment; other sites, ranging from aromatic (carbon ring) positions (when applicable, e.g. TNT), to amine or other sites (several high-VoD explosives use nitrogen in multiple forms, like tetrazoles, increasing chemical energy and resulting gas pressure), are susceptible as well. And it doesn't take much; it can be trace amounts of some compound in the air, over decades of exposure, that happens to do it. Like tarnishing of metal: there's not a lot of sulfide around in the air, and yet silver inevitably turns black because of it. Imagine the same sort of rate of reaction, but due to other trace molecules, causing degradation of, basically anything in the equipment really, and you have a suitable explanation for a lot of kinds of equipment going bad over time.Tim

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:54:21 pm
content: Quote from: Berni on March 21, 2022, 01:18:43 pmThat was a very good description, thank you very much. I remember reading something about the spherical detonation ages ago, it really takes me back. What explosives are used for the spherical detonation - and how do we know they age differently?

author: Fflint
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 02:56:18 pm
content: It is an interesting topic.I have been interested in procuring and using in my various "hobbies" lots of old Soviet (and Polish/Czech/East German) high end tech. From mechanical measuring devices that 60 years later still reliably measure down to 10 nanometers, through diamond and CBN cutting wheels(factory in Lithuania) and various precision tools, high power vibration resistant vacuum tubes that were made to last 8 years in storage, but now 40 years later I managed to easily restore vacuum and get 150% of spec'ed power to various semiconductor microwave devices that work with up to 300GHz made in the 80's. I also have lots of very reliable passives like resistors (both normal, vacuum and non-inductive), capacitors (mostly mica, but also others) the oldest made in the 60s and still are very reliable.So, in short, there was a lot of high quality Russian stuff made in the USSR, however a lot of it (semiconductors, guidance systems) were made in places that ended up outside Russia after the fall of USSR (Belarus, Ukraine, even Poland).They were definitely capable of making stuff that lasts a long time, but especially with advanced semiconductors (not just digital, analog microwave too) they are now using their "stockpiles". When they run out, that's it IMO.Also, the corruption meant a lot of the best stuff got stolen and now ends up in hands of collectors and hobbyists (well up to now, because I'm not going to be buying anything from Russia any time soon and I guess many others do the same).Today, their domestic digital tech is at 1990s level, all thermovision cameras in military equipment use French chips (Ulis etc). Automotive parts use German Bosh. Even their main military OS is based on a (mostly) Western made Linux.Consumer equipment is a very different story. The quality often sucked, but better made versions of the same goods were made too for special purposes.So there you have it. Based on my experience do I think their ICBMs work? Yes, I do

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 03:04:48 pm
content: I'd be more concerned about aging nuclear weapons. They have a limited lifetime as any other technical product and need to be dismantled plus disposed of before they become instable. For example, the explosives decompose chemically over time (explosives are used to trigger the nuclear reaction). That's one of many reasons to closely monitor nuclear weapons. Otherwise one would blow up himself instead of scaring off possible enemies.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 03:13:40 pm
content: Quote from: cheater on March 21, 2022, 02:51:14 pmBoth are byproducts or products of running a nuclear reactor. Polonium 210 is made by bathing Bismuth 209 with neutrons so is a deliberate product. Tritium can be either a deliberate product by neutron irradiation of lithium or a byproduct of a heavy water moderated reactor. I've no clues as to yields.QuoteI don't really have much. I'm unfamiliar with modern explosives chemistry (and vehemently deny the rumours about any schooldays experiments with old fashioned explosives chemistry).On the electronics side all I can say is that from what little I've seen military electronics tend towards simplicity, reliability and robustness; so much so that what is in service often seems old fashioned and crude to modern electronics sensibilities. I would imagine that wherever possible the electronics are kept as conservative in construction as possible and probably rely on prior experience with what remains reliable under battlefield conditions. I do know that as of a few years ago (1980s) the high voltage pulse exploding bridge wire detonators used to fire the conventional explosives in nuclear warheads still relied on vacuum/gas tube technology (the export restrictions on some of these devices e.g. Krytons speaks to this); whether this is still true I don't know.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 03:20:39 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on March 21, 2022, 02:52:19 pmYou're out by a factor of about 1000 there, that would be 20kg/cm^3 - the densest material known to man, Osmium is 22.59 g/cm^3.Compression factors as high as 4 have been reported, the peculiar metallurgy of Pu assists in achieving this.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 03:30:00 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on March 21, 2022, 02:52:19 pmThat's all true, but not applicable here. I'm fairly certain no one will be using EEPROMs or Flash in a nuclear ICBM. So the question is: what *would* they be using? Similar to what Cerebus says, I would expect them to not be using any semiconductors at all.QuoteDue to the risk of radiation damage that you mention, could it be sensible to expect that the compression explosives are stored in a location remote from the nuclear payload, and have to be assembled before firing?Quote from: Fflint on March 21, 2022, 02:56:18 pmWhat makes you think that semiconductor production hasn't been happening in the Russian Federation?Bear in mind you mention Belarus, which is on Russia's side now. Do they have advanced semiconductor manufacturing capabilities?Quote from: madires on March 21, 2022, 03:04:48 pmHmm, others seem to be of the opinion that the explosives going bad would with certainty _prevent_ the nuclear payload from exploding in a nuclear explosion.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 03:33:18 pm
content: Quote from: Fflint on March 21, 2022, 02:56:18 pmSaw a video analysing their chip industry history; currently, it's lagging behind almost 2 decades, technology-wise. I seriously doubt this will improve in the next years, as ASML equipment is extremely high in demand and certainly won't end up in the USSR. So far, they have been using TSMC to manufacture their own more modern developments (lagging behind many years as well), certainly not any more. China might jump in, but that might provoke hefty sanctions, so - probably not.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 03:38:49 pm
content: Quote from: Haenk on March 21, 2022, 03:33:18 pmThe recent reviews of the Elbrus cpu seem to be saying that it's absolutely terrible.Note that Elbrus is not a specific cpu, it's more like some research project that has existed for decades. I remember reading of an Elbrus cpu being shown on trade shows in the early 00s, and nothing came out of that either.However this is irrelevant to the topic at hand - I'm betting they're not using semiconductors at all in nuclear delivery methods.

author: AndrewBCN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 03:43:27 pm
content: Quote from: cheater on March 21, 2022, 02:40:11 pmYes, I am certain you are, and I am also certain you have come to the right place to "find out what information is out there". Lots of(armchair)experts about everything here in the "Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff" subforum... and quite a few specialize in the "Long-term robustness of Soviet and Russian nuclear armaments", I am sure. Don't mind me, keep going with yourinvestigation.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 03:48:45 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 21, 2022, 03:20:39 pmOops, yes cm.And yeah, Pu is truly strange stuff; it's been said to have the most remarkable metallurgy. Density of the phases (pure material, transformation with temperature) varies from 16 to 19.86 g/cm^3!Tim

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 03:49:09 pm
content: The fact that those weapons have to undergo extreme accelerations leads me to believe that they don't use mechanical logic to steer them - but I'd love to be proven wrong. Bear in mind modern delivery methods have to be so fast that they'll out run any counter measures, and strike before the counter measures can be deployed, which during nuclear readiness was on the order of minutes when I was reading about it ages ago.So that leaves us with electronics. Semiconductors seem to be out... but again, do prove me wrong. Relays also (mechanical). That leaves us with tubes or magnetics. Are magnetic circuits (transformers and especially mag amps) able to withstand latent radiation from the payload well? Basically, my question is, radiation + magnetics =. Glass tubes are obviously not going to be used, but metal tubes might be.What happens to core memory that's exposed to radiation?Is there any other sort of control logic I might be forgetting? Something chemical based maybe? Like a chemical delay timer that's able to withstand high acceleration?

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 04:18:35 pm
content: Quote from: AndrewBCN on March 21, 2022, 03:43:27 pmKaren, stop trolling.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 04:23:32 pm
content: Quote from: cheater on March 21, 2022, 03:30:00 pmSure they would; no one's flown magnetic amplifiers since the V2 (uh, that I know of -- don't know if any  missile systems have tho!), or core/rope since the Shuttle! This wouldn't be specific to nuclear exposure though; guidance systems will be well away from that, subject merely to the usual degradation mechanisms. And at that, much of that stuff is likely hermetically sealed under pressurized N2 -- a good way to avoid atmospheric contamination. Or sealed, in oil or potting compound; which might still be subject to some degradation, but also might be fine. (Tested-working Apollo modules (potted) still exist today!)The fuze* and detonator will have some amount of semiconductors in them, but basic and low-level stuff, yeah.*A fuse is a dumb thing that just delays, usually chemically or mechanically; a fuze is a proximity or altitude triggered device. Or wait, not sure about altitude, maybe that's still a "fuse" fuse. But the original "fuze" was a crude sort of omnidirectional Doppler radar, thus able to sense distance and intercept by the strength and rate of the interference wave. They might employ something a bit more advanced for a nuke; a proper ranging radar set wouldn't be unreasonable. The ground is a pretty wide target. Or targeting, though that was one of the "advantages" of them, not needing such accurate targeting. Another reason they're obsolete; precision munitions are simply more useful. (Not that we'd really get a chance to use nukes strategically, in general, being, well, what they are...)QuoteI don't think so, any seam is a problem.Not sure how they're molded in place, anyway; it's not gonna be wadded-up C4, that's for sure.Even pour casting could be difficult, due to shrinkage, crystal growth, voids, etc. Maybe it's powdered and pressed? Could use a little binder (gum or resin) to stick it together. Yeah, probably something like that. Composition could also be varied in more controlled ways, with more layers, allowing tighter refinement of the wavefront.I mean, it still needs to be accessible somehow, there has to be a trap door to get to the initiator/spark plug, arming mechanism etc. Could be made in two hemispherical faces to fit around the core. Also, doesn't have to be solid explosive right up to the core, once the wavefront is ready, it's whatever. Could be in a metal housing, which improves dimensional stability. Could also be made of a light metal like beryllium, as a neutron reflector, or that could be part of the core assembly.QuoteYes, most likely. Also, plenty of nuclear weapons have been lost (broken arrows), including accidental detonation without nuclear initiation.Tim

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 04:29:43 pm
content: Ballistic missiles are 'ballistic'. Their trajectory is determined at launch like a bullet out of a rifle. ICBMs are ballistic missiles.Cruise missiles are controllable but they aren't as fast and they don't travel as far. But they are controllable in flight and they have a trunk full of electronics for navigation using multiple sources along with vision terrain matching. We got some amazing video during the Iraq conflict in 1991.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidancehttps://www.britannica.com/technology/Tomahawk-cruise-missileThe Minuteman III is accurate to 200m Circular Error Probable (CEP) while the Tomahawk Cruise Missile is accurate to about 5m CEP.All in, accuracy doesn't seem that important - 200m is probably close enough.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 04:35:25 pm
content: Control logic is separate, typically shielded from the actual warhead, so it can be easily replaced when it fails, and also so it can be kept separate and tested regularly. The actual warhead only has the core, the explosives and the triggers for it, typically classified, but all now based on ultra fast rise time high current pulses vapourising thick film metal film devices to initiate the explosives, with timing controlled so as to compensate for cable length, and also to try to get as even a detonation as possible. Touchy stuff, and all still classified on Need to Know basis, but the basics are in any public library. Also all the electronics are export restricted, so the USSR did develop their own versions, which at least for them do work.Electronics is reliable, though it relies on primary batteries for operation, and these last 6 months before being replaced, but likely will last longer, simply because short cycle means almost no problems. Weapon itself needs maintenance, basically remove from the CA enclosure, remove the explosive packs, remove the core and replace whatever is degraded. No real long term reliability issues, very likely that, so long as the cores have been serviced, the electronics maintained, that the thing likely will do something when required. Might not give the Marvin the Martian result, but it will likely be nasty.Yes SALT has limited number, so now only enough to kill the planet 10 times over, instead of the 100 times over, before SALT and SALT II cut down numbers, making a lot of fuel for reactors to burn through, likely enough for another century or ten, with decent recycling of spent fuel, instead of the current single pass and dump in a pond of current use, where you spend the next century making hot water.But likely that at least half the rockets will work, and at least half the weapons on top as well, so only around 25% will make slag piles at destination, instead of slag piles at launch site.Remember the US has been using those old ICBM rocket stages as space launch vehicles, and pretty much every one used in that made it to orbit, proving that the remaining stock still in active readiness will work. USSR not too sure, no data, and they have not been officially using them as launch vehicles, preferring to use the old proven and reliable designs instead as they know, from decades of slow improvements, how to build them and have them mostly work, upside down gyro assemblies notwithstanding. But the solid rockets are very likely to work, and the electronics on them as well, might not be able to hit a designated window on a building, but at least will be in the same city.Remember the launcher is separate from the warhead at all times, until the launch order is given, when the warhead will receive an arming code for those in a ready hot state, but most will be separate, needing perhaps an hour or two to mate the warhead to the bus, which contains the guidance, old inertial references and then newer GLONASS system on top, but the IMU is plenty good enough to get it there, and do the required corrections along the way.Note, the US arming code for decades was 00000, simply because, to get to the terminal that was able to enter it, needed 15 people to vet you physically and positively identify you, and 10 layers of security first, plus at least 2 people, on far separate bolted down terminals, to enter them and press enter within 0.1 seconds of each other.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 04:41:00 pm
content: Last week i talked to a Russian who moved to Germany 30 years ago. When i mentioned that next month Macron might lose to some rightwing adventurists he explained to me that one of the latest Russian ICBMs can erase all major French cities in one strike, as it contains 10 or more warheads, each one with its own target coordinates.Probably they won't need the old ones, so it's not at all about long-term robustness...Regards, Dieter

author: Fflint
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 05:29:41 pm
content: Quote from: cheater on March 21, 2022, 03:30:00 pmTheir best factory is in Belarus and their densest consistently performing process is 350nm (1995 tech). The same fab makes lots of stuff that doesn't require tiny feature sizes like bipolar power and signal transistors etc.There are "factories" that made multiple announcements of being able to produce 65nm chips and even "working on" a 14nm process, but there is a long path between being able to produce a 65nm chip in a lab and making a high yield production line.Based on both, the great recent Asianomics YouTube video and the fact there has been nothing Russian made that is better I think it is true they have to rely on TSMC for today's tech. And now when sanctions are in place they will ask China to help. China has the technology that is only few generations behind TSMC, but they have a massive military and civilian requirement of their own so why would they give Russia their precious manufacturing capability? From Chinese point of view it is much better if Russia buys their tech and becomes locked into using it instead of using Chinese nodes to fab their own.Separately from the current war.I wish technology is created that allows normal people (or small factories) to make chips even if they are 1990's (or even 80s) tech. I think, for our technological resilience as humans we need a way to maintain technology without needing a rich nation-state resources to make chips.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 06:37:46 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 21, 2022, 05:20:54 amThis.They have how many thousands of them? It only takes one or two to result in some massive global chaos. I would guess at least half of the ones they would choose to launch are fully functional, a portion of the remaining nukes could end up being dirty bombs in effect. Either way all hell is gonna break loose if any get launched.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 08:17:12 pm
content: Quote from: Fflint on March 21, 2022, 05:29:41 pmI spent quite a few years working on semiconductor facilities and the thing is, the process, process equipment and environment for a given feature size are known. Sure, it's hard but only for the first guy. After that it is as simple as building a building to certain requirements using components from proven suppliers and outfitting it with production equipment built by those who have already proven their capability. And everybody knows who they are.I'm not saying it's easy but it is doable. Except... Most of the production equipment is built in the US and subject to export restrictions. I'm not sure where TSMC buys their equipment, maybe they have a deal with the US.The real problem is cost and profitability. We're talking multiple billions of dollars to build a sizeable wafer fab and it takes a while to get a return on investment. That's why production is primarily in foundries like TSMC. They build chips for everybody and, AFAIK, they don't design them. That part of the magic happens here.Due to antitrust regulations it probably isn't possible for the US chip makers to band together and build a foundry in the US. From a national security standpoint, we need to be making all defense oriented components inside the US. Although that is probably a current requirement, I don't see the chip makers moving away from the overseas foundries.When I was in the business the only projects that got approved were those with a 100% return on investment in two years. That's a challenge!Considering the size of wafers and the number of die per wafer (I wonder what the yield is on a 300 mm wafer) plus increases in automation, I wonder if wages are even a significant part of the cost of making chips. If not, we should move the production back to the US.Note the comment under "450 cm Wafer":Quotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafer_(electronics)#Historical_increases_of_wafer_sizeIt's all about 'return on investment' and that's what I look for in a stock.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 08:53:41 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 21, 2022, 02:26:11 pmAlso the tritium decays into helium-3 which will poison the fission reaction by absorbing neutrons. The way I understand it is that the tritium is injected after activation but before detonation; maybe that is done to keep the helium-3 decay product out of the core.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 08:54:30 pm
content: They have regular schedules I am sure to rotate weapons out of service before there would be any issue. Insane amounts of money are spent on these weapons and there may even be a "dead hand" system that detonates a particularly poisonous and huge bomb in the case of nuclear war to to make sure that everybody concerned very greatly regrets having entered into war.See this US documentary on nuclear deterrence.In the early 1960s the British director Stanley Kubrick made a film, "Dr Strangelove, or How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", starring Peter Sellers, Sterling Hayden, George C Scott and others.. that lampooned the dead serious world of thermonuclear war planning.Its one of my favorite films and its as timely now,perhaps more so, than when it was made. One should also watch another film that was made about the making of the film, it seems that Kubrick, who had to guess about many of the details of the process, got so much right that there was suspicion that secrets were leaked to the filmmakers but an investigation determined that that had not happened, they had simply made good guessesThis is a segment of the film,

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 09:30:31 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on March 21, 2022, 08:53:41 pmYes, all the boosted weapons I've seen non-secret details of have a separate tritium reservoir. Also the quantity injected is used to alter the yield in variable yieldfissionweapons (nominally fission weapons, but the tritium makes them into fusion weapons too).

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2022, 10:33:59 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 21, 2022, 09:30:31 pmThese are boosted fission weapons meaning that a majority of the energy comes from fission of the U235 or Pu238. Tritium boosts the reaction by providing additional neutrons to make better use of the fissionable material, which I suspect is why they do not use lithium-6 deuteride like in a hydrogen bomb; lithium-6 deuteride would avoid the 12 year half-life decay problem of tritium, but only provides 1 extra neutron while tritium provides 2.A hydrogen bomb gets most of its energy from the lithium-6 deuteride secondary which also produces an excess of neutrons, so the yield can be further increased with a fast fission reaction involving U238.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 01:49:35 am
content: Twicethe world came very close to nuclear war and smart Soviet-era military folk determined they were false alarms and prevented nuclear war.They saved all of the human race's lives..This happened twice..

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 08:29:33 am
content: Quote from: Fflint on March 21, 2022, 05:29:41 pmI suspect that even manufacturing in old tech is expensive. You "just" need similar equipment to what is used now, not exactly the sort of thing an enthusiast puts in their garage.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 09:23:05 am
content: Quote from: cheater on March 21, 2022, 03:38:49 pmI tend to disagree. I would assume the tech (electronics) to be pretty discrete however. Check the "Soyuz clock"-videos, this is likely the same tech level (used from the mid 70s to end of 80s):That's plenty enough technology for simple guidance computers etc.; of course, this tech level will not be suffice for modern guidance with waymark recognition.That old tech also is really robust and tolerant against radiation and particles.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 10:29:05 am
content: The electronics part is the least to worry about with aging of nuclear weapons. Keeping the ICMBs active / in sevice is a somewhat different topic and as they are mostly old they don't need very new electronics. For space use and radiation tolerance older slightly larger structes even have some advantage.For the Russian semiconductor fabs the question is more if they can do silicon on isolator. For the use in military and space chances are they can.With the nuclear weapons there are other parts to worry about for aging: Tritium in boosted bombs, the explosives and the plutonium core.Radiation damage and helium build up can alter the plutonium and this does change the mechanical properties. So after some time (more like 10s of years) they have to recycle the cores and cast new ones.When money is short for maintaining all nukes in active state, the usualy way is to maintain only a smaller fraction of the war heads. The number of actually usable ones is only a fraction of those they have on paper. This applies to Russia, but also the US, UK, France and likely also China. The US and Russia have produces way more weapons than they are willing (or capable of) to keep in a ready state.

author: MegaVolt
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 03:19:39 pm
content: Unfortunately, the military equipment of the USSR is very reliableIt is made simply and very beautifully.To aggravate my words, here is the linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepr_(rocket)These are missiles already taken off duty. Out of 22, 21 successfully flew away. 95% are still able to deliver their charge. Keep in mind that "Satan" carries up to 20 warheads + a large number of decoys + maneuvering ......Therefore, I really hope that they will not be launched.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 03:30:43 pm
content: The very powerful bombs (like Tsar Bomba which was so big due to a arithmetic miscalculation according to Sakharov)... run a risk of pushing too much air into space above escape velocity (escape of the Earth's gravity which means its gone for good).Maybe thats what happened to Mars, something like that? Seems there was more both air and water there in the past.Anyway, intelligence is knowing the limits of your own knowledge and behaving accordingly.Pray!

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 03:34:51 pm
content: Maybe the thing the political-obsessives hate is that people in all the countries of the world are getting to know one another, having relationships with one another, even having kids together.Which changes everything.. We are becoming all one family. You have to treat your own family well.. This means they hopefully just cant do lots of what they thought is their right to do any more.War has just gotten so bad that its not permissible. That doesnt mean they can get away with doing whatever they want, it means they can't any more.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 04:11:43 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 21, 2022, 04:18:35 pmYeah, like there was not enough propaganda, hate and fearmongering on TV and social networks. Let's have some here, too, with nonsense offtopics leading to calling names to each other.Cerebus, you should apologize toAndrewBCN.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 05:57:22 pm
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on March 22, 2022, 04:11:43 pmI might point out that he was the one namecalling, accusing the OP of being a psychopath with no justification, and continued to do so after it had been pointed out quite reasonably by more than one person that it was wrong and unfair. He only stopped after I started being rude, so no, I feel no need to apologise and you need to read the whole thread before you start pointing fingers.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 05:59:49 pm
content: Quote from: Haenk on March 22, 2022, 09:23:05 amHave a look at episode 4. Roughly in the middle of that video you will see how bad is the quartz oscillator of that clock.Another interesting detail in one of the earlier episodes: The digital circuitry resembles the space shuttles control computer.Regards, Dieter

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 06:12:41 pm
content: This thread is a perfect discussion for a bunch of people with nothing better to do. No chance of a meaningful outcome, some chance of interesting tidbits to pop up and so on.Think of rephrasing this question to something like "What do you think the chances of forty to fifty year old test equipment will work?" And then focusing on the technology of the test equipment. Sure you can point out that electrolytic caps are prone to fail over time, but it ends up being just wild speculation.If the answer were really important one would focus more on the operational and maintenance history of the test equipment involved. Was it regularly tested and serviced? When was it last serviced? Were updates performed? And in the case of an ongoing test operation, is any of the original equipment still in use? What are the oldest in service types? And so on.The same would apply to a nuclear arsenal. I know in the US the original types have all been retired, and the current stuff is pretty actively maintained, but don't have anything like the knowledge that would be required to estimate reliability. And my knowledge of Soviet/Russian practices in this area is orders of magnitude less than that already inadequate base.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 06:34:15 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on March 22, 2022, 06:12:41 pmYours is, mine is, same for probably most people.Still there might be a forum member deeply interested in this topic, or it might have even been his job to do maintenance on these.And: There are members from all over the world on this forum.So I don't think this topic is absurd; due to probably being top secret info, it's just rather speculative (based on some related knowledge).

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 07:08:44 pm
content: Bonjour à tousJust joined this interesting thread nowWas at LBL and LLNL in 1960s, not in the weapons area, but become interested in nuclear technology and history.1/ some confusion here on nuclear vs thermonucléaire....every thermonucléaire device inclues a nuclear device, the Teller Ulam configuration2/ Nuclear stockpile maintaince involves disassemble and checking components for deterioration, or corrosion.Either type of weapons include batteries, explosives and initiators that deteriorate over the year.The core and neutron generator "pit" has isotopes with half life rather short, eg tritium.Thus those parts have a definite useable life.3/ I have no knowledge of Russia or any other country stockpile maintaince. I can say various past USA administrations have greatly reduced our funds for stockpile service. (see congressional testimony and Pentagon documents)Many fine technical books and history biographies are available.Finally see the heavily redacted declassified 1951 LANL paper of Edward Teller and Stanislaus Ulam.On Hetrocatylic detonations 1: Hydrodynamique Lenses and Radiation Mirrorshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Teller%E2%80%93Ulam_designFrom an optimist in the nuclear ageJon

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 08:10:01 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on March 22, 2022, 03:34:51 pmcdev, as much as I share your view and appreciate you wanting to contribute, please keep politics and sociological polemics out of this thread, thanks for understanding

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 08:11:37 pm
content: Quote from: jonpaul on March 22, 2022, 07:08:44 pmThanks a lot for your contribution. If you have any other thoughts, please feel free to add.

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 09:41:37 pm
content: The mentioned Fogbank is a classified aerogel material used as the interstage formed materia in certain warheads e W76,W78, W88.The material is irradiated by the primary nuclear device, in the first nS after ignition.The x-rays emitted by primary flash the interstage material into plasmaThe resulting compression / implosion raised the secondary thermonucléaire core, to fusion.The first prototypes of thermonucléaire devices used a plastic (Styrofoam?). I believe the Fogbank was developed at LLNL oe Sandia Laboratoires div Western Electric.As the interstage materials are plastic, they can deteriorate over time.NOTICE... this note has no classified information! It is just my memories and from open source research!Bon courageJon

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 10:16:39 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 22, 2022, 05:57:22 pmMy bad for not reading the previous pages, though you were quoting something else, and that quoted text happened to be correct: there won't be any pertinent answers here, only speculations and wild guesses.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2022, 10:42:22 pm
content: Hmm, a big topic. One thing I know a LITTLE about is delivery systems. The US tests two Minuteman III missiles every year. Due to the current Russia/Ukraine situation the most recent scheduled test has been postponed. But, generally, they select one missile and crew at random, pack the missile (minus warhead) off to Vandenburg air force base and then the crew associated with that missile will be given the complete launch drill (Emergency Action Notification message sent to Launch Control Complex) and launch the missile to Kwajalein island, where the accuracy of the impact will be judged. The warhead is replaced by a data package in the reentry vehicle.As for warheads, the technology in them is fairly simple. There is a Plutonium "pit" that in modern designs is a hollow sphere, with several layers of drivers and tampers to crush the hollow shell into a solid ball when the explosive lenses deliver a spherical imploding shock wave to it. modern designs use a two-point initiation, rather than the old "fat man" scheme with a huge number of initiators. To get the required simultaneity, these are direct-acting initiators that use a high voltage to cause a fine wire to explode, producing the shock wave that directly initiates the high explosive. I think the explosive is called "RDX" rapid detonation explosive. At the right time, some neutrons need to be supplied for the chain reaction to begin right at the moment of maximum density of the Plutonium. This is done with a small linear accelerator that fires some protons at a target. Once the chain reaction is started, it completes within about one microsecond.The tricky part is to get a symmetrical implosion of the Plutonium, and start the chain reaction at the right time. That's what all those tests in the 1950's and 60's were all about.As for aging, the Plutonium gives off heat and neutrons, that degrade everything around it. So, the explosives need to be periodically replaced, the Plutonium needs to be purified and re-cast into the right shape, etc. This is done on a continuing basis, although there have been several incidents and near-misses where improper procedures could have caused a BIG mess, and some of this work had to be stopped for a number of years.As for the fusion part, there really is no "Hydrogen Bomb". Actually, there was ONE, ONCE, called Ivy Mike. But, later, deliverable devices generally used Tritium as a booster to achieve better burn-up of the Plutonium, by providing a supply of neutrons to keep the chain reaction going.Any devices with yield greater than about 15 KT are two-stage fission devices. Large fission devices are dangerous, as accidents such as weapon self-destruct or airplane crashes, fires, etc. could lead to a partial chain reaction. So, the idea is to keep the primary device small, and then boost it with a device of very different geometry. It seems a Plutonium pipe is how it is done, and a small amount of duterium-tritium containing material is stuffed in the center of the pipe.The secondary is at one focus of a peanut-shaped radiation shell, while the primary is at the other focus.So, at least the US is still renewing the arsenal, using the same methods to rebuild them the same way as original. That's the only way to be sure they will work.Who knows how the Russians are doing theirs? BUT, the performance of their Army does make one wonder!Jon

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2022, 12:08:45 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on March 22, 2022, 06:12:41 pmYou can't really make that comparison. Test equipment and nuclear weapons and their launch systems are two entirely different beasts.If you want any worthwhile disucsison on this at all, then you have to talk specifics of the actual systems and their specific design, maintence and testing. At the very least, other military grade equipment.The US spends around $50BN per year just modernising and maintaing the nuclear arsenal.https://www.defensenews.com/space/2019/01/24/heres-how-many-billions-the-us-will-spend-on-nuclear-weapons-over-the-next-decade/They don't just have this stuff sitting around for 30-40 years hoping it'll work. They would have complex and expensive programs in place to ensure that they will work when needed.Based on current evidence, it's a safe bet to say that Russia is likely vastly behind the US on this spending and the effectiveness of the maintenance spending that is done.But like I said, it's practically 100% guaranteed that some perecentage of the Russian nuclear arsenal works, and that's all that really matters.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2022, 12:26:07 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 23, 2022, 12:08:45 amWe agree totally.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2022, 12:40:25 am
content: Thanks for the great contributions again, guys.Quote from: jonpaul on March 22, 2022, 09:41:37 pmOK, so am I right to understand the primary nuclear device creates X-Rays, this then hits a polymer, which is turned into plasma, and that exerts such pressure and heat on the secondary that in presence of additional neutrons it will initiate a fusion reaction?Quote from: jmelson on March 22, 2022, 10:42:22 pmI wonder if that inspired the name Kwejian in Star Trek, a planet that has a rich natural ecosystem that gets completely destroyed by an unknown force.Quote from: jmelson on March 22, 2022, 10:42:22 pmQuote from: PartialDischarge on March 22, 2022, 11:06:17 pmAm I right to understand the scheme here is to detonate the primary explosive which will then detonate the triamnonitrobenzene?Is triamnotrinitrobenzene the RDX explosive?Quote from: jmelson on March 22, 2022, 10:42:22 pmThat's interesting... no one mentioned that before. Am I right to think this is basically something like a cathode ray tube with a target that creates protons when an electric beam hits it?Quote from: jmelsonWhat could have happened? I wonder if similar things might have happened in Russia. Maybe someone knows of reports of such accidents in Russia, either in English, or maybe Russian. (or any other language, really - just noting that it's likely to be in a language other than English)Quote from: jmelsonSorry, how would that work?Quote from: jmelsonJust curious - would this work require the release of some sort of radiation or specific pollution into the atmosphere, eg during the re-forging of plutonium? Are there any other things that would indicate this work is being done?I'll assume that there's at most one functioning factory doing that sort of stuff per nuclear military power. So I'll guess there are going to be vehicles that 1. pick up the warhead where it is 2. drop it off at the factory for recycling. I assume those would need to be very special vehicles. I wonder what they would look like? Would my guess be right that it would need to be screened (eg with lead?), wide wheel base, very soft suspension? Am I right to think that such a vehicle, even if heavily screened, would emit detectable radiation along its route?Would someone conducting satellite or on-site surveillance - either visual, or with some measurement equipment - be able to measure those things happening?There's one thing that I am missing that no one mentioned yet. How are the conventional explosive and the linear accelerator fuzed, as in, how are they triggered to the on state? What sort of technology is used for the altitude sensor / timer / whatever - vacuum tubes inside tube sockets and turret boards? Semiconductors? What is used as the switch - a relay? A tube? Solenoid?Quote from: EEVblog on March 23, 2022, 12:08:45 amI wasn't going to bring this up, but yeah, that's precisely it :-)QuoteI'd like to submit the fact that "100% of some percentage works" is a tautology that is true even if the percentage is 0%One of the reasons I started the thread was because at the start of the invasion everyone started throwing around the nuclear threat. Parallel fact: I'm an information security professional and when the initial invasion into Ukraine happened, I was monitoring Russian disinformation ("Russian bots") on Twitter and what sort of messages they were spreading. Among other demonstrably false messages, all of which were discernible from each other as separate "talking points", one of those talking points (whether false or true) was that Russia has a nuclear arsenal, so WWIII would lead to nuclear holocaust. (Those are popularly known as "Putin talking points"). Soon after, various country leaders picked up that talking point.So everyone's initial reaction is just like that: "Is there a nuclear threat? Obviously, yes, there is." But I take a step back and ask, "just how obvious is it? What's involved?" Rather than immediately assume it as a true fact and abandon any sort of thought process, I came here to ask about the details. For now, there is no consensus forming that proves things either way. On the one hand we have good evidence that army equipment is in disrepair and there's embezzlement etc. On the other hand we have delivery methods that even after being demobilized still have a very high success rate. The safe side is to assume there is a threat. But of course, one has tothinkabout those things rather than justassumethem.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 23, 2022, 01:43:28 am
content: Quote from: cheater on March 23, 2022, 12:40:25 amIt's not just a safe bet, it's a 100% guaranteed bet.Even if you assume that 100% of their (more technically complex) nuclear missile systems fail, including silo, mobile land, plane based, and submarine based missles, an already absurdly stupid thing to posit. You still have the technically much simpler gravity based bombs that can drop from almost any of their bombers or jets, not to mention the tactical battlefield artially nukes.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2022, 01:57:54 am
content: Quote from: cheater on March 23, 2022, 12:40:25 amNo, the filament is likely dosed with hydrogen, so when it heats up it releases the gas which is accelerated toward a target. The ionized Hydrogen is just protons, when that hits certain metals, it produces neutrons. The process is called spallation.Quote from: jmelsonWhat could have happened? I wonder if similar things might have happened in Russia. Maybe someone knows of reports of such accidents in Russia, either in English, or maybe Russian. (or any other language, really - just noting that it's likely to be in a language other than English)Wow the Russians have had some truly MASSIVE radiation accidents in the Sovie era, that they just buried.Quote from: jmelsonQuoteMelt the Plutonium and you can get a critical mass, or nearly so. Melt a really big primary and you would certainly get a critical mass if it all ended up in one blob.Quote from: jmelsonQuoteNot by satellite, but closer up you can DEFINTELY detect a weapon. NNSA has done tests where they detected naval craft that had weapons on board from thousands of yards away.QuoteThey have a thing called the permissive action link, that requires codes to be entered on most warheads, and then requires other special things to happen. For instance, the ICBM warheads need to sense acceleration of launch, then zero G of flight, then vacuum, then heat of re-entry to arm the warhead.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2022, 03:17:13 am
content: Curious about the Russia's Poseidon drone, as one of the launch option is to make it stays dormant under the sea floor until it gets the launch signal, wonder how long they allow it to stay at the bottom of the sea before next maintenance ? Or they just let it rot and forget them.Btw, it supposed to carry few hundreds of megatons of nuke punch, for more than the legendary Tsar Bomba (60 megatons).

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2022, 06:45:42 am
content: Statements above about Russion web bots and trolls should make everybody think a little about western reality. Maybe our media and politics are under an even tighter grip. Who knows.Russion reality seems to be a modernization effort after 2014. Before that, there was cooperation and dependence on Ukrainian technology, but no longer. New nuclear weapon systems were demonstrated in 2018 .. 2021."Climate change is not real", "Covid19 is not real" and "Russian nuclear weapons are not real". Please stop that nonsense.Regards, Dieter

author: MegaVolt
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2022, 09:12:41 am
content: Here is a lot of information from an open source on the topic of how atomic weapons work and the tricks used in them. Text in Russian. translate.google.com should help.http://worldcrisis.ru/crisis/3884753P.S. Более полный вариант текста:http://photo.kuban.ru/34/3021.html

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2022, 10:43:07 am
content: Quote from: cheater on March 23, 2022, 12:40:25 amNo primary is needed because the EBW (exploding bridgewire, or slapper if in sheet form) produces a shock wave.A shockwave is a wavefront of very high pressure, thus causing adiabatic heating ahead of it, which increases the local speed of sound, allowing the bulk of the wave to speed up, surging ahead (shock) to the head of the wavefront. Hence it propagates with a sharp risetime, much faster than the (STP) speed of sound in the material, until its amplitude decays to such a point that the degree of heating and consequent temp rise is negligible.This is visible in blast waves from large explosions, from conventional bombs to nukes. The sudden change in temperature and density causes a pronounced change in refractive index; the wave is visible as a moving warpage of the scene around the explosion. Also in the immediate trail behind the shockwave, a rarefaction wave follows, with corresponding adiabatic cooling, which can cause water to suddenly condense -- hence the blast wave also often becoming visible as a vapor cloud.Well, for explosives, it's the transient heating which causes immediate material decomposition. And thus the shockwave is amplified and accelerated, up to some limit for the material (VoD).RDX is one of many high-performance explosives; likely they are using a mixture of several that are: highly stable, chemically compatible, highly energetic with high velocities, and either a range of materials to get the range in velocity (some lower energy / velocity materials might be used after all), or with fillers to effectively dilute the explosive, reducing its VoD and manipulating density.Stable explosives are preferred in general, for military purposes. For example you can swing a hammer at a lump of TNT, as hard as you can, and it won't go off. Given a fast enough hammer, it can still be initiated (the hammer drop test is a key part of explosives testing), but suffice to say it's very stable stuff. Likewise if lit on fire, it burns with a sooty flame, unnervingly fast yes, but only prone to explosion in a huge pile.So, these would not be unusual materials. They would choose from military standards, both for availability, reliability and efficacy. Their method of preparation, with the blended and layered or gradient construction, and precision dimensions, are what's unusual (and particularly secret).QuoteExample:https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/tokaimura-criticality-accident.aspxDoesn't have to be in aqueous solution, any bulk large enough will do the job. These concerns are nothing new; during the Manhattan project, when he toured the Oak Ridge facility, Richard Feynman noted many egregious storage and processing conditions -- barrels of fuel stacked close together, large vats, etc.QuoteSame idea as above. If the material is just assembled together close enough, a chain reaction of corresponding magnitude results. The consequent flash of radiation produces, well, intense radiation of course, but also rapid heating, and can have enough neutron flux to physically separate the assembly, or melt it (igniting the metal in ordinary combustion, as U and Pu are quite reactive in air). Remember, neutrons have substantial mass (as particles go), and velocity; they carry momentum that stresses the assembly. It can literally blow itself apart!Example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godiva_deviceThey don't talk about the dynamic forces so much here, but there's another story from Feynman about a similar device where they dropped a rod in the top, which fell through a core, bringing it prompt critical. Sometimes the momentum was so great, the rod was kicked back up out of the assembly, or something like that.Many of these early apparatus resemble medieval torture devices in their construction and safety... it's a wonder they got anything done at all. (Some didn't anymore, e.g. Slotin and related fatalities.)Hm, see also the Windscale Fire, an example of burning U.QuoteNothing unusual with respect to other reprocessing facilities, and at that, much less purification needed.The amounts are small enough that volatiles could be absorbed in activated charcoal, for example. This includes I, Kr and Xe.QuoteI would assume some mix of semiconductor and tube hardware, soldered or welded construction, a preference for metal and ceramic packages, and either hermetic or potted modules. Hermetically sealed modules are metal cans, soldered shut, filled with pure N2; ceramic feedthrus permit connection. Potting will be necessary particularly around high voltages (in turn necessary for any sort of accelerators, or charging caps for pulse discharge). IIRC, krytrons need fairly modest voltages (some kV), so that would be the kind of thing needed for the detonator.Vacuum tubes might be preferred for robustness, especially with respect to external connections where EMC is a concern (i.e. nuclear EMP). Once signal levels are brought down to reasonable levels, semiconductors can handle the core signal processing and logical functions. For example, tubes can be used for the transmitter final and receiver preamp/mixer, and, in combination with whatever mixing or detection is done at that stage, the dynamic range will be limited. That is, devices simply can't transmit full field strength of the EMP, they saturate or break down, thus limiting the signal level. Also as bandwidth is reduced, more conventional protective means can be employed i.e. TVS or MOV: these are not something you can place directly on an antenna, but baseband signals, power supplies, sure.Tim

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2022, 11:15:05 am
content: Since the first Trinity shot 16 July 1945, trigger of the molded two,components shaped explosive segments was an embedded exploding bridge wire EBW.Précis timing achieved by careful coax cables legnth equally from pulse trigger source to every segment's initiators.For each, A high voltage capacitor is dischargeed by a specialized three terminal triggered gas tube or spark gap. Those were designed by EGG, and later called Sprytrons and Krytrons, (?) ceramic envelope noble gas filled radio doped tungstène electrodes.Such triggered devices are still considered restricted military and not in général circulation.See the iconique photo of Dr Serber (?) with the "Gadget" at top of the Trinité shot tower. Note the coax cables and BNC to.each segments intitator.Finally the segments are molded,précision shaped charges of a slow and fast explosive like RDX and Comp BThe implosion technology was developed and industrialized by the physicists at Los Alamos.NO CLASSIFIED INFO IN THIS POSTComment and feedback appreciatedJon

author: Terry Bites
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2022, 01:47:38 pm
content: Us Brits test ours out in Austalia

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2022, 02:03:47 pm
content: Quote from: Terry Bites on March 23, 2022, 01:47:38 pmThe last UK full nuclear weapon test in Australian territory was operation Grapple in 1958. The UK conducted some nuclear weapons safety tests in Australian territory up until 1963 but these weren't intended to produce a nuclear yield. So, the British haven't detonated a nuclear weapon in Australia for 64 years and won't in the foreseeable future unless something goes very wrong with theothertest series.All UK tests since were conducted at the Nevada Test Site in the US between 1962 and 1991 until testing ceased after Britain ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2022, 07:28:34 pm
content: Quote from: MegaVolt on March 23, 2022, 09:12:41 amThanks so much!!! Finally some information about the devices we're talking about.

author: bson
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 05:48:44 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 21, 2022, 07:05:14 amIn fact, somewhat tangentially to the subject, the only nuclear weapon the U.S. still has in Europe is the B-61 gravity bomb, a small thermonuclear device (500-700 kt if I recall). All missiles and other devices are French or British. The reason we still stockpile those in Europe (I think the authorized count is 150, by treaty) is neither the French or British have a comparable weapon and the Russians want to keep theirs. Perhaps they want them for reliability reasons, plus of course you can move them around and hide them easily, unlike short/mid range and ICBMs. Obviously a weapon like this has no tactical battlefield use, it's purely a deterrent designed to pulverize cities.Edit: I looked it up and it's more like 100-300 kt, although technically could be much smaller. And maybe there is some tactical use for it, though I still suspect its main purpose is deterrence.

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 08:52:45 am
content: Rebonjour: Seems like some are very interested in bomb device engineering and physics,1/ A bomb: classic notes of Robert Serber from 1941 LANLThe Los Alamos Primer: The First Lectures on How To Build an Atomic Bombhttps://www.amazon.com/Los-Alamos-Primer-Lectures-Atomic/dp/05200757652/ H-Bomb: fine article about Thermonuclear theory and practical devices (eg role of initiator, primary and secondary, spark plug, etc)THE H-BOMB SECRET Howard Morland: To know how is to ask why. Progressive magazine,https://progressive.org/downloads/2722/download/1179.pdfAfter the US tried to stop publication, claiming classified information, the H bomb design secrets were finally revealed in the 1979 notorious SCOTUS case of US vs Progressivehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Progressive,_Inc.From an optimist in the Nuclear Age!Jon

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 02:05:43 pm
content: One thing not to overlook is command and control.A few years ago there was an article published on line with a visit to a hardened phone switch in Russia dedicated to missile launch. The site manager was proud of his still working microwave relay system and buried coaxial cable. There were working teletypes in the background. The actual switch looked very 1970s. The US phone system abandoned coax by 1995 and remaining Long Lines microwave by 2005 for fiber.Coax needs an underground repeater every few miles and power injection , active equalization, and signal regeneration sites at 100 mile or so intervals. A typical US system might have had between ten to twenty cables in a lead sheathed bundle and 6 Mhz of bandwidth per cable. One cable in the bundle , using FDM and SSB modulation gets you 1 TV signal or 6000 phone calls in one direction.Depending on terrain and tower height, microwave needs repeater sites evey 35 miles or so.The same site was handling civil traffic.One wonders how running 1940s to 1960s technology is working for them.While he did not mention fiber, one wonders if it is in the ground along the coax route.Must cost a fortune to maintain. Not to mention vulnerable to a first strike or "Backhoe fade"Steve

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 07:35:43 pm
content: Well there were at least two false alarms that I know of, one was the one described in The Man Who Saved the World film and the other was during the Cuban Missile Crisis on a submarine. Both times, Soviet commanders averted a nuclear disaster.I think its good that they did.I think nuclear war is insanity and also its my understanding that science which emerged in the 80s showed that a nuclear war as most think it would play out is unwinnable. The situation we saw due to the September 2001 World Trade Center disaster illustrated what would happen in cities.A big problem is caused by the extensive use of plastics in modern buildings and products. They produce very toxic materials when they burn, such as multiwall and single wall carbon nanotubes.. Nanomaterials such as MWCNTs and SWCNTs (in addition to having a great many interesting properties when it comes to electronics, also are potentially very dangerous to human health. They are extremely dangerous environmental contaminants. They cause illnesses much like mesothelioma as caused by asbestos, except worse.. This means that cities would burn in such a way as might make them dangerous to re-occupy. The chemicals released by plastics in these fires might also contain endocrine disrupting chemicals.. (which are used in the manufacturing of many plastics) These chemicals pose dangers to human reproduction in ways that sometimes, span generations. They might impact both the exposed, and the offspring of those exposed, far in the future. This has emerged in the debate overobesogens.Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) pose a new danger. Any nuclear war woud be guaranteed to set cities aburn in ways that caused lots of plastics toi be incinerated. These plastics were nonexistent or rare during World War II and so did not figure in its cleanup. But they very much do now.I am reminded of the bombing in Kharkiv recently of a mall containing thousands of tiny shops. The smoke emerging from the mall while it was burning was awfully black. I am pretty sure that it can be demonstrated that the black residue from certain kinds of fire contaions so much carbon thats its conductive. These residues may contain fairly high amounts of many problematic contaiminants. In fact this property is being investigated as a way to make use of plastics in a useful manner. Both carbon nanotubes and graphene have very promising possible uses in electronics. But its important that this be done in a safe and well controlled manner.I should say that its still unclear to what degree these materials, if they were found to be present would or even could cause environmental problems and, if they do, how long and to what degree they might persist.Here in the US Our national laboratories are attempting to do the responsible thing and sound out this new landscape, particularly when it comes to the precautions to be taken while researching them. A preliminary approach is "control banding".How are these materials to be regulated in the workplace? How are they to be disposed of safely. And so on.We have to be very careful we don't cause problems we may not be ready to handle in our rush to use these materials which might see very widespread use in, for example, our attempts to save energy.For example, in tires. Cutting edge elastomers containing carbon nanotubes hold out the promise of substantial improvements in tire wear and efficiency. But they also might contaminate the environment in ways that might significantly decrease the health of those exposed to the dust and recycled rubber products made from this rubber. For example, artificial turf,But we are just at the beginning of this process. ENMs can sometimes be very useful, its true. However they represent a potentially horrendous new kind of pollutant whose implications for human life might be extremely dangerous and far reaching.They also represent a huge regulatory challenge to mankind. One where the dangers might not be at all clear, at the beginning. Businesses are always eager to get an advantage over their competition and often don't recognize what a sane path might be (or choose the path of willful ignorance, intending to dump burdens that might occur onto society and governments no matter what their cost.In the case of ENMs many nanomaterials hold promise of saving money in new ways but they also could cause health problems in exposed populations due to their sizes and behavior at the nano level.A survey several years ago of disclosures in MSDS by companies incorporating ENMs into products revealed that manufacturers typically disclose the presence of ENMS only as the conventianally sized materials. Despite the fact that its known that these materials behave far diferently in their nano forms, the materials safety disclosures by manufacturers almost universally failed to disclose that all important fact.Despite the fact that its known that the large scale burning of a number of plastics produces carbon nanotubes and that carbon nanotubes are dangerous when released into the environment, and, for example, inhaled, no regulatory agency to my knowledge has taken it upon themselves to regulate situations that might result in their creation. For example, a great many soldiers in recent wars complain of burn pits in the military where large amounts of fairly recently manufactured hardware was disposed of by burning, in close proximity to residential housing. Many complained that their health took a rapid turn for the worst when exposed to these fires. In a number of cases unexplained illnesses seemed to follow these exposures.This can definitely be said to have happened to people who were exposed to the dust produced by the aftermath of the 2001 terror attack. Examination of the tissues biopsied and recovered post mortem of victims of the WTC terror attack as well as survivors found carbon nanotubes throughout their bodies. This is one of many lesser known reasons we cannot view nuclear war as survivable in the conventional sense. Its entirely possible that these contaminants might render large areas toxic to inhabit or useless for the production of food.EDCs threaten human reproduction in a great many ways, also. We are profoundly ignorant, it seems to me, far too often of the possible implications of things we do. Its also inadequate to allow corporations and standard constructs of liability to be trusted. Many of these problems could be so large as to overwhelm any government tasked with fixing them, but not fixing them might not be an option. It almost seems like engaging in warfare is asking for endless trouble whose costs could not be controlled. I am reminded of the astronomical cost to clean up a section of the US's (WIPP) hot nuclear waste storage facility in the Southwest after.. imagine this.. a contractor at the high security facility used the wrong brand of kitty litter in one of the waste containers, resulting in a breach of the nuclear waste storage containment..Cost $2 billion extra..During the Cold War era, and above ground nuclear testing, two mistakes were made that resulted in the yield of nuclear test explosions being far larger than was intended. A TV documentary went deeply into the specifics, The tests that were mistakes were the Tsar Bomba test (Arctic Ocean, near Siberia) and the Castle Bravo test.. (On an isolated island in the South Pacific Ocean)Both detonations it was determined were too powerful in the sense that they had the effect of pushing significant amounts of the Earth's atmosphere into space at a velocity such that that air would not return to Earth, it would be lost to eventually be captured by other objects gravitational forces or even end up in interstellar space. This is another unanticipated risk that nuclear war planners had not anticipated. We cannot live normal lives without our planet's atmosphere.If we rendered Earth uninhabitable to all life, Would we even deserve to remain in charge?

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 08:05:34 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on March 24, 2022, 07:35:43 pmUh... sure, I guess? CNTs have been around since, what... forest fires? Evidently, they're not much of a problem overall. Concentrated in an urban environment? Sure. But so is the actual, y'know,asbestos and shit. Still quite a lot of that packed into buildings these days (especially in places like Russia where it's still in active use and celebrated as a miracle mineral(!)).I'll be much more concerned about the dioxins from burning PVC and related materials. And, well, the fallout, if that's what we're saying the cause will be!Also don't see a reference that CNTs are unequivocally worse. I see one on NCBI that says they're likely to have similar effects, but it stops short of making any claims. I expect this is a matter of ongoing research. We might not even have any good data until industrial adoption ramps up and we have real occupational exposures (unfortunate though that will be for the affected workers).QuoteYou know how big the atmosphere is, right...?Tim

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2022, 09:28:58 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on March 24, 2022, 08:05:34 pmThere's a subset of the "woo-woo" crowd who actually promote carbon nano tubes as good for you. I don't normally go to the sort of sources that promote such quackery but in one of my occasional forays into "I wonder what happened to <insert name of old colleague>" I discovered that a former CEO had, while on the run from the German authorities after being convicted for being the first company CEO to seriously misbehave on the Neuermarkt, taken to selling CNTs suspended in virgin olive oil for a living. From CEO of the first dot com company to list on the Neuermarkt to snake oil salesman in one fell swoop, you couldn't make this stuff up.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 12:49:59 am
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on March 24, 2022, 08:05:34 pmHuh?? Forest Fires dont produce CNTs.. (most) Trees arent made of plastics.. The fear right now is that the war in Ukraine may produce forest fires that send large amounts of radioisotopes sequestered by trees that have grown since the Chernobyl accident airborne,and thats legitimate concern. For this reason, windy.com the weather site recently added a layer that shows radiation monitored at hundreds of sites in Eurasia..Alongside the wind velocity, pressure and other weather related parameters.. Also PM 2.5 is monitored.. Thats very useful.Trees arent plastic, thank God.. yet.. LOL..Except the cellular decoy towers.. (fake trees we see along highways here in the US sometimes bedecked with panel antennas for cell site use)If youre saying CNTs arent hazardous.. well,I dont think thats an accurate characterization of the science.. at all..It seems from all that Ive read that carbon nanotubes represent a substantial risk to human health if they gain acceptance and wider use..Which is likely to happen.. soon.I have a friend who is a scientist who works with cutting edge elastomers, incuding ones that have been doped with CNTS. Which makes them tremendously strong. Currently this additive has mostly found use in the aircraft industry. But within a few years it will be in automobile tires..Plastic and Rubber waste is being converted into carbon nanotubes commercially already too. (Recycled)If your comment was true people at places that are conducting this kind of research wouldnt be concerned as they are about their safety..But they are..Nanomaterials are less of a big unknown than they were 20 years ago when I first saw them.. Now they are being incorporated into all kinds of products.. many of them are targeted at the military..Also sports..They are high margin items..See, for example..https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5635148/"Results: In animal studies, exposure to CNTs induced sustained inflammation, fibrosis, lung cancer following long-term inhalation, and gene damage in the lung. CNTs also showed high biopersistence in animal studies. Fetal malformations after intravenous and intraperitoneal injections and intratracheal instillation, fetal loss after intravenous injection, behavioral changes in offsprings after intraperitoneal injection, and a delay in the delivery of the first litter after intratracheal instillation were reported in mice-administered multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). Single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) appeared to be embryolethal and teratogenic in mice when given by intravenous injection; moreover, the tubes induced death and growth retardation in chicken embryos.Conclusion: CNTs are considered to have carcinogenicity and can cause lung tumors. However, the carcinogenicity of CNTs may attenuate if the fiber length is shorter. The available data provide initial information on the potential reproductive and developmental toxicity of CNTs."I have a huge mount of stuff saved on the environmental implications of ENM use..A club near me has an air pressurized athletic facility, an inflatable building. Its coated with a special paint that is advertised as self cleaning. That fabric uses ENMs.. How safe is it? I dont know. I know that I personally have no intention of using that building.Maybe I'm wrong to be so cautious.. but I think its prudent.Quote from: T3sl4co1l on March 24, 2022, 08:05:34 pmIt was difficult getting it banned in the EU due to attitudes like that. Luckily the evidence was strong enough to make a compelling case.Its the aspect ratio of CNTS that makes them dangerous. Its sort of similar to asbestos fibers but in the case of CNTs the nano size means that the nanotubes have bizarre and little-understood immune system effects. They also act as an immune reaction adjuvant. There is a new problem called Toxicant Induced Loss of Tolerance that seems to be influenced by several kinds of immune system priming.. The immune system bases its (learned) reaction on the shapes of molecules and pathogens that it encounters and the context it encounters them in..Toxicants that are encountered in combination with an adjuvant are imprinted on as many as ten times more, creating more subsequent problems for the immune system as well as potential immune system exhaustion. And it lasts a lifetime, it cant be unlearned easily..Some potential adjuvants.. (this is from memory so I may have left a lot out)brown water which contains LPS (endotoxin) (fecal bacteria) dramatically increases the toxic effects from some mycotoxins. Thats what happened in NOLA after Hurricane Katrina..petroleum VOCssome engineered nanomaterials act as adjuvants (cause problematic lifetime increases in imprinted immune reactions to substances encountered at the same time)Numerous VOCS, perfumes, etc. can act as adjuvant. (fumes from fracking are among them)Substances that stimulate the aryl hydrocarbon receptor.. (formerly dioxin receptor)These substances (for me) include freshly printed newsprint, new blue jeans (indigo?) and some other common environmental materials..>I'll be much more concerned about the dioxins from burning PVC and related materials. And, well, the fallout, if that's what we're saying the cause will be!Unrelated but important - related to dioxins. SOme toxic substances (mercury) interact with clays in riverine/riparian environments creating complexes that contain the highly toxic methylmercury.. A form of mercury that becomes a strong neurotoxinThe priming has nothing tod o with radiation, if anything strong radiation might reduce it.. I don't know.. (Radiation acts to suppress the immune system) Which we need, we cant do without it.>Also don't see a reference that CNTs are unequivocally worse.Read what I have posted and follow its related links.. You'll find lots.. More all the time.Its my understanding that they dangerous and biopersistant and also that this explains why why the 9-11 first responders gotsosick..They (CNTs)mayalso explain the burn pit illnesses..We were nuts to do that given what we know about nanocomposites release into the environment.They may be strong, they may be tough, they may add a lot of value to plastics.. but they may also be toxic disposal hazards too.I dont think there are CNTS in wood fires.. Untrafine carbon black is problematic to health, like diesel exhaust is and for similar reasions.. but CNTS take it to another higher level because of the transmigration and immune system priming effect..A number of years ago I did extensive reading on the practical aspects of using ENMS for a number of things.. it led me to read that CNTS were similar to but worse than asbestos when released into the environment. Because they seem to be able to transmigrate throughout the body kind of like low molecular weight molecules can.. As I said its the aspect ratio that makes them problematic. See, for example this paper..https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29960000/PDF link"The asbestos-carbon nanotube analogy: An updateAgnes B Kane 1 , Robert H Hurt 2 , Huajian Gao 2Affiliations expandPMID: 29960000 PMCID: PMC6298811 DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2018.06.027Free PMC articleAbstractNanotechnology is an emerging industry based on commercialization of materials with one or more dimensions of 100 nm or less. Engineered nanomaterials are currently incorporated into thin films, porous materials, liquid suspensions, or filler/matrix nanocomposites with future applications predicted in energy and catalysis, microelectronics, environmental sensing and remediation, and nanomedicine. Carbon nanotubes are one-dimensional fibrous nanomaterials that physically resemble asbestos fibers. Toxicologic studies in rodents demonstrated that some types of carbon nanotubes can induce mesothelioma, and the World Health Organization evaluated long, rigid multiwall carbon nanotubes as possibly carcinogenic for humans in 2014. This review summarizes key physicochemical similarities and differences between asbestos fibers and carbon nanotubes. The "fiber pathogenicity paradigm" has been extended to include carbon nanotubes as well as other high-aspect-ratio fibrous nanomaterials including metallic nanowires. This paradigm identifies width, length, and biopersistence of high-aspect-ratio fibrous nanomaterials as critical determinants of lung disease, including mesothelioma, following inhalation. Based on recent theoretical modeling studies, a fourth factor, mechanical bending stiffness, will be considered as predictive of potential carcinogenicity. Novel three-dimensional lung tissue platforms provide an opportunity for in vitro screening of a wide range of high aspect ratio fibrous nanomaterials for potential lung toxicity prior to commercialization.Keywords: Asbestos fibers; Carbon nanotubes; Fiber pathogenicity paradigm; High aspect ratio nanomaterials."Now on the nuclear miscalculation. It showed the risks we wre taking by nuclear testing above ground were quite real and terrifying..That a nuclear bomb could be so much stronger than what they had thought it would be should be a wake up call..It happened twice, both in Russia with Tsar Bomba and with the US in the Pacific with Castle Bravo..Not many are aware of the story..QuoteYou know how big the atmosphere is, right...?Much smaller than Jupiter or Saturn's..In space what matters is escape velocity.. which for Earth is 11.2 km (6.96 miles) per secondPropel something out into space at higher than that velocity and it departs our planet. IOn a vaccum its density or lack of it doesnt matter just the velocity..

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 01:30:13 am
content: Its my understanding thatthey do represent a potentially large problem. I think there is a robust consensus on that.I have a medium level knowledge of nanotechnology..I used to maintain an early web page on it as a personal project at a previous job. This was quite some time ago. (more than two decades)One of my friends is quite knowledgeable about aspects of it, has worked with computational modeling of nanomachines for decades and knows quite a bit about the nanomachines that are implemented by nature..He explains this better than almost anybody Ive ever seen attempt to do so. He should do it professionally, IMHO.Viruses are nanomachines, by the way.. A deep understanding brings people to that.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 07:56:04 pm
content: Quote from: jmelson on March 23, 2022, 01:57:54 amFor close in detection and direction finding, I think they rely on scintillation detectors to pick up the low level of emitted gamma rays, which to me implies that a bomb made with purified materials would be much more difficult to detect. Aren't naval weapons made this way to lower exposure to the crew?Quote from: T3sl4co1l on March 23, 2022, 10:43:07 amRDX mixed with TNT is one of them and I assume they still use it since it is dimensionally and otherwise stable. At least two different propagation velocities are required to construct the explosive lenses which convert the imploding shock wave into a spherical shape. The math for the geometry is not difficult but I always wondered about the physical construction.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2022, 08:44:14 pm
content: Not related to nuclear weapons but guided missiles: Exclusive: U.S. assesses up to 60% failure rate for some Russian missiles, officials say (https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive-us-assesses-up-60-failure-rate-some-russian-missiles-officials-say-2022-03-24/)

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 01:27:23 am
content: I'm behind on replies, but for those who missed it, Thunderf00t just made a video that looks like he's been reading this thread. If you're reading this, hi Phil!"Does Russia even have functioning Nuclear Weapons? - YouTube"

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 01:31:09 am
content: And here's Dave's obligatory comment. Almost a copy-paste of what Dave said here, but in case someone's curious.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 02:50:31 am
content: Quote from: cheater on March 26, 2022, 01:27:23 amEvery time I read something like that, I remember a comment from a photographic analyst who said, "You count the tanks and assume that they work."

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 04:26:50 am
content: First of all CNTs in the environment are nowhere as worrying as silver nano materials are. Story for another day.I found the Primer and other released declassified LANL library documents in a private open library on the web.Ok, Assuming a "49" based device. 49 was US DOE code for Element 94.1. 49 decays to form microscopic helium filled voids in the thin shell of the core. This can lead to cracking of the nickle plating on the core, cracking of the core, and aberrant behavior during explodive compression. Reduces yield and in extreme cases a fizzle happens.2. If using Krytrons or Sprytrons the radioactive Ni-65 or Kr-86 used in some cases to speed ionization can decay, reducing the odds of function or creating a timing error.3. Forty-nine self anneals over long decay periods, resulting in phase changes in the core. As it decays other PU isotopes form and act like adding more gallium to the alloy or changes the density of the core.4. Tritium used in boosting the fission primary decays. Tritium that may be used in the neutron generator (Zipper) for starting the reaction may have decayed, changing it's timing and yield.5, If the Urchin / initiator is polonium/ beryllium based, Polonium will decay, reducing it's yield.6. RtGs used for powering the Permissive Action Link can grow weak from decay. Batteries die too.5.Various forms of decay happen with the explosives.6 Mechanical parts in the PAL can get sticky.7. We all know what happens to unused capacitors.are more items on the list. ALL information sourced from released documents. Nothing classified was used in this response.Edit:From reading the "Primer" it was evident that I would never have the math skills to pull this off.It was also evident that Cary Sublette either deliberately or unknowingly left a few things out of his FAQ.There was a brilliant but difficult way to make the rapid assembly step i would have never thought of.Nor had I seen it elsewhere.Steve

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 04:41:49 am
content: Thanks a lot for your reply Steve.Quote from: LaserSteve on March 26, 2022, 04:26:50 amIndeed.cdevcan we please keep further discussion of carbon nanotubes and other nanomaterials off this thread, as it's not the topic of discussion? If you start a new thread I'm sure people will contribute. You have a lot to say about this and your knowledge seems to be very thorough.Quote from: LaserSteveSorry, what's an Urchin?One more thing that was mentioned could go bad: insulation can go bad when exposed to radiation.However, earlier in the thread it was posited that the pit might be located separately from the actual electronics, and only inserted when the warhead is being armed.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 04:54:14 am
content: Quote from: madires on March 25, 2022, 08:44:14 pmDoes it really matter if only 40% of Russia’s 1,550 thermonuclear warheads will not fail?

author: not1xor1
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 09:19:36 am
content: Quote from: vad on March 26, 2022, 04:54:14 amIt depends on the kind of failure... if they exploded on the launch pad then the attack would be over before even starting...In any case it looks like the dictator has changed his target and hopefully all this will result in a defeat and later a coupe d'etat (even an oligarchy is better than a dictatorship)An UNO reform without any country entitled to veto right or pretending to refuse international investigation for war crimes (yes USA ones too) would be the best solution... probably just a dream.I apologize for my digressions into politics or any offence. May be I dared too much...

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 12:02:37 pm
content: Quote from: vad on March 26, 2022, 04:54:14 amWell that's been several people's point, and it's a valid one. Only a handful, perhaps even a single, warhead has to get delivered and function correctly for the excrement to hit the fan, hard. I think everybody realises that, and onecouldargue from that point that this thread is moot; but the discussion is about the technicalities, not the realpolitik.

author: AndrewBCN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 12:31:07 pm
content: Quote from: BravoV on March 26, 2022, 07:24:13 amWhich is exactly the purpose of this completely off-topic thread*.During the 44 years of the Cold War, the only thing preventing a global thermonuclear war which would have annihilated humanity and the vast majority of living species on the planet was the concept ofMAD or Mutual Assured Destruction, seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction.Now of course if either side is thoroughly convinced that the other side is unable to retaliate, there is a clear incentive to execute afirst strikeat the earliest time possible.This purpose of this thread as the OP already admitted is to"investigate"how much or what percentage of the Russian thermonuclear arsenal would be able to launch and inflict damage on the other party's infrastructure and cities. And the OP specifically discouraged any comment of the kind "even x% would be enough to inflict catastrophic damage" - which is exactly what any sane person would think.I will end my comment by posting a link to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, which collects and displays belongings left by the victims, photos, and other materials that convey the horror of the atomic bombing on 6 August 1945.https://hpmmuseum.jp/?lang=engJust as a reminder, "Little Boy" used in Hiroshima was a 15kt nuclear bomb. The thermonuclear bombs in the arsenals of the US, Russia, France, China and the UK are 15MT bombs - 1000x more destructive.*: BTW I am frankly shocked that Dave/EEVblog allowed such a thread to go on in the "Projects, Designs and Technical Stuff" subforum, and actually participated in it. Any person with a tiny bit of common sense would realize that "Long-term robustness of Soviet and Russian nuclear armaments" is not a topic related to hobbyist electronics in any way, shape or form. What kind of sick person would initiate such a thread in this forum, I am left to wonder.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 01:11:22 pm
content: Quote from: not1xor1 on March 26, 2022, 09:19:36 amThis is a valid point for nuclear subs. Such a catastrophic malfunction would evaporate the sub and all its remaining SLBMs. Missiles launched prior to the incident would still have good chance of reaching the target.This is a lesser problem for strategic bombers though. If an explosion on a sub can take down up to a hundred or so warheads (dozens of SLBMs each equipped with multiple warheads), a bomber can only carry a handful of cruise missiles.Silo-based weapons, on the other hand, are more resilient. Silos are designed and spaced the way that a direct hit on one silo will not damage neighboring silos.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 02:47:47 pm
content: Quote from: vad on March 26, 2022, 01:11:22 pmBear in mind that a lot of these might be multi-delivery methods, meaning that one bad warhead that explodes before separation takes all the others with it. So let's say such a warhead has a 20% chance of exploding before separation (just a random small number). Then for RS-28 Sarmat aka "Satan II" which carries 15 warheads, the chance it'll be destroyed by a fault is 1-(0.8^15) = 97%. Statistics are unforgiving to multiple replicated failure points, even though we see there's only 15 warheads, which is a very modest number of parallel systems that can interact with each other. A stockpile will have way more. My guess is every silo will have at least multiple missiles, because silos are insanely expensive to build and operate.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 02:59:08 pm
content: Quote from: cheater on March 26, 2022, 02:47:47 pmI doubt that's very realistic. Most munitions, nuclear or not, are intentionally designed to not detonate until they are supposed to, with a higher 'dud' rate being an acceptable tradeoff. An artillery round that doesn't explode on impact is not a big deal, one that goes off in the gun barrel is quite spectacular. Some early nukes did have accidental explosions, but fortunately the pits weren't installed or they were otherwise prevented from causing a nuclear detonation.

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 03:25:29 pm
content: how about delivery systems. From a brief read of the net I gather that ballistic missiles rely on the accuracy of sensors for course correction to null out unforeseen flight variables.Put simply might a significant number of the missiles miss their targets?Yes it would still be bad but missing the major cities and hitting rural areas would be better.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 04:14:19 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on March 26, 2022, 02:59:08 pmGood point

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 04:40:45 pm
content: Greetings LANL IT. Thanks for hitting the LinkedIn page of a fellow who was fascinated by things nuclear because 1. It was forbidden to him, and 2. Some of his better teachers were ex Nukes. 3. That was how recruiting was done back then,I'd have never made it past the interview with the K.O.G...Or his sucessors in DC. Poor math skills.Steve

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 06:11:04 pm
content: While I don't share the horror of some at the content of this thread, I will continue to point out the pointlessness of it. A few have questioned my prior bringing up the comparison with old test equipment. The point is that even in that much simpler environment, in a knowledge domain well understood by members of this forum, and with detail design information publicly available it is difficult or impossible to answer the question. NASA when analyzing the space shuttle with complete detail on the design and huge teams of experts missed by multiple orders of magnitude on this prediction. They predicted less than one chance in ten thousand of a loss of life accident. Operationally the number turned out to be about 2%.Would you get any comfort or take any action on an estimate of Russian nuclear force reliability that has a confidence interval covering from 0% to 100%?

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 07:48:16 pm
content: Looks like Putin discovered a way to drive nuts our friends of the only remaining global super power. Currently they are the ones talking a lot about ABC weapons. Today Biden said Putin must go. I'd rather expect Putin and Xi stay when Biden will go.Regards, Dieter

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2022, 07:49:23 pm
content: This thread might do three good things:One: Teach Engineers, Technicians, and Hobbyists to think about the reliability of things they design or copy. Then to realize the models in our head about safety and environmental impact can be drastically wrong. If we care about the others around us, or the users of what we create, we need to realize that testing, safety precautions, obedience, forethought, law, civility, and peer review are important. It might give some viewers an idea of when they need to speak up and prevent an accident. Don't be a "Radioactive Boyscout". See book of same title or Wikipedia. Who would have thought that putting the backup generators near sea level  or in the basement [New York City law, see Hurricane Flooding] was a bad idea.Two: Educate about the perils and practices of systems design. Create insight into how to do things not covered by the textbook/ cookbook.Three:HELP others to realize when it is time to NOT tell so called Thought Leaders, Social Influencers, the Media, Politicians, Criminals, Dictators, Sociopaths, Drug Dealers, Thrill Seekers and Movie producers about your latest dual purposed widget/gadget/virus/ compound/software/ banking/ finance idea etc. Some things that can do great harm are best left in the mind. That "Dirty" nuclear powered, recently rediscovered , cruise missile engine should be a good example of what never to tell the boss about. Financial Derivatives based on selling loan defaults? That made sense for one and only ONE really big bank.On the other hand, appointing a few Sailors with poor supervision to oversee the shoddy cleanup of an oceanside spent fuel site is something the public needs to know how to prevent. Did the sailor who fell through the hole in the improvised lid really need to die of Cancer months later before funding and supervision was found? Was there really a criticality incident from handling fuel pellets with a shovel, or is that just a wild Wiki tale. [Andreeva Storage site]I personally cringe about the one time I taught a so called inventor about geometrically disposed phased arrays, but that too, is a story for another time. I was young.This thread is as much about learning ethics, responsibility, and foresight as it is about "Hidden Secrets of Nuclear Nightmares."That is probably why it has not been closed.For some reason I can not resist adding "Just don't be the next Meredith".Steve

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 04:58:52 am
content: Quote from: AndrewBCN on March 26, 2022, 12:31:07 pmI think that question is kinda moot, because it comes down to politics of responses.There is not going to be any "first strike" by either side. i.e. nuclear power trying a decapitation strike on another nuclear power.But if you are talking what happens if someone uses a tactical battlefield nuke on a non-nuclear power, what happens? It's all politics, not technical.The important and more interesting technical question is as raised by Thunderf00t, do any of the nukes work at all? Even the OP's thread title implies this question.Once again, I think the answer is 100% guaranteed that some work. Ifeveryrussian nuke is 30-40 years old and has had zero maintenance, then the answer might be very close to zero.But I can't see how it's feasible thatnonehave been maintained in at least the last say 20 years. In which case the answer has to non-zero.Perhaps the key question is how long does a nuke stay functional without any maintenance? Assuming the simplest type available.5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? More?And there would of course be different levels of maintenance. Short medium and long term components.Batteries for example, trititum has a 12 year half life etc.My guess would be for absolutelyzeromaintance, at least a few years with 100% guarantee. 5 years probable for the vast majority. 10 years you might start pushing half of them. But with simple basic maintenance I think you'd bring that to the vast majority lasting 10 or maybe even 20 years. After that major mainteance would be needed.

author: not1xor1
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 07:43:32 am
content: Quote from: LaserSteve on March 26, 2022, 07:49:23 pm"Just don't be the next Meredith"...? What does that mean in plain English ?

author: not1xor1
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 08:08:30 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 27, 2022, 04:58:52 amaccording to wikipedia (I just had a quick look at the nuclear weapon page, so may have missed some relevant information) today most nuclear weapons are various kinds of fusion bombs so they are likely to need constant maintenance...on the other hand they may take into account the half-life of tritium and just install at start much more than needed (I have no idea if that is feasible) just to increase the useful life of the weapons

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 08:17:52 am
content: This thread reminds me of this ...

author: AndrewBCN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 09:36:05 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 27, 2022, 04:58:52 amYou are very badly informed."The United States has refused to adopt a no first use policy and says that it "reserves the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict."from Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_useQuote from: EEVblog on March 27, 2022, 04:58:52 amAgain, you are very badly informed. What you call "tactical battlefield nukes" have long been retired from the Soviet/Russian nuclear arsenal because they have concluded that the use of such weapons would automatically lead to an expansion of the conflict and a global nuclear war involving strategic intercontinental multiple thermonuclear warhead missiles, in other words, the "Mutual Assured Destruction" scenario.Oh and"Thunderf00t"or Philip E. Mason (his true name) may be a well-known YouTuber and a reasonably good chemist, but as usual when an intelligent person talks about something outside her/his domain of competence, he says wildly inaccurate and dumb things. In particular,his latest YouTube video related to the subject of this thread is a stinking load of crap, but hey, it's still going to earn him a few $ thousands in revenue - which as far as I can see, he hasnotpledged to donate to Ukrainian refugees.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 09:53:17 am
content: Quote from: AndrewBCN on March 27, 2022, 09:36:05 amLOL, you actually think that having such a policy means they won't do it if they needed to. The formal policy in place doesn't matter a rats arse.Russia formally guaranteed never to invade Ukraine when they gave up their nukes, that worked out well.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_AssurancesBut that's enough of the poltics here.QuoteWrong. They have a ton of tactical nukes. 1912 of them non-strategic last count .https://thebulletin.org/premium/2022-02/nuclear-notebook-how-many-nuclear-weapons-does-russia-have-in-2022/The US in 2019 even increased its low yield tactical nukes to counteract the russian ones:https://www.forbes.com/sites/hanskristensen/2019/05/07/russian-tactical-nuclear-weapons/?sh=7cf78edc2d79

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 10:08:17 am
content: For those who doubt that there are working nukes, here is a current list with year of deployment.https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/nuclearnotebook-March2022-russia-table1.pdfThe most recent ICBM's are 2019 and 2014SLBM's are 2014Bombers are 2021Nonstrategic are as late as 2018.Does anyone seriously want to argue that russia has no working nukes?

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 10:33:09 am
content: Quote from: not1xor1 on March 27, 2022, 07:43:32 amPresumably a reference to Meredith Perry and Ubeam. See here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-ubeam-faq/) for the gory details.

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 11:27:02 am
content: More precisely, if the working / non-working devices are not maintained, are not inventoried, are not in clean , dry , and secured bunkers...Well, at that point some other nation(s) who know how to safely do so have to step in and pay for the needed operations. This HAS been done to some extent in the past. Unlike most weapons, smashing these with a sledge hammer or press to render them safe is not recommended.Steve

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 11:46:17 am
content: I would question the reliability of any so calledDead Hand systemthat is designed to detect system failure and automatically activate other systemswithout any human intervention. I would theorise all links in the so calledDead Hand systemchain would be independently removable & serviceable.as a chain of dominos with key links are removed. to prevent accidental activation .so at the time and point of no return when the system would be made activ by human intervention.set waiting to be triggered automatically.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 02:27:25 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 27, 2022, 10:08:17 amRight so the obvious question is, who made that list?Because, here's the thing, the RS-28 Sarmat aka Satan II is mentioned in that list as having been unveiled in 2022. But if you search around (as I did a couple days ago) then you will find thatit's actually been unveiled in 2016 according to fact checkers, and recent reports of it being unveiled in 2022 show footage of a Grad conventional missile launcher. However,when it was unveiled in 2016, on the Russian Ministry of Defense website none the less, they used fake footage as well. The picture of the missile is so clearly, so obviously a scale model made out of plastic. So if they have to lie about the release date, and don't have actual pictures of the thing, maybe it just doesn't exist?Not to say anything bad about our neighbors in the east, because of course, the Russian government would never lie, and fear mongering has never been on their agenda.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 02:30:11 pm
content: Quote from: jonovid on March 27, 2022, 11:46:17 amThat's a good point. By any means, a Dead Hand System like that would mean Putin would have to have a constant link to the central system. You can't make it call-in, because what if the landline goes down? Nuclear war because someone dug out your landline? Putin is a KGB spy first and foremost, there's no way his paranoia would allow him to wear a uniquely identifying tracker at all times. And he's never seen carrying around a case capable of satellite or long range radio communications either. Those things take size especially if they need to be reliable.

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 02:33:25 pm
content: There is a known, publicized, incident of a human over-riding the so called auto launch missile defenses, aka part of Perimeter. He passed away a few years ago. Thank him anyways.That last resort system was probably switched off many years ago. It does serve as a nice bluff either way, ensuring MAD continues.A "Dead Hand" switch comes from the railroad industry. If the engineer does not activate the switch or grip e throttle every N seconds, automatic braking is applied." Dead Hand" is not a great translation for Mutual Auto-Destruct in my opinion.I spent a few years working for a Russian professorwho emigrated to America. His team he brought with him had a cultural distrust of anything automatic This included stripping out many of theautomatic safety shutdowns in the laboratory lasers except for overtemp and coolant flow. They really wanted manual over-ride and manual control of any machine motion. The optional autostart and auto restart systems on the lasers were the first things to go.IThey had similar safety systems on their gear back home, including automatic shorting bars on their capacitor banks if the lid was open. They were not being dumb about this, the 72 hour long experiments were rarely unattended. They did not want anything in the way of human control if not needed.I really doubt with their love of life, and their love for their children, that there is not an inhibit step option on that system if it still exists.Steve

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 02:54:24 pm
content: The US President and at least probably two other persons have the titanium briefcase called "The football". The Russian side has the "Cheget" 《Spelling?).Neither has much more then a handheld radio, a cell phone, planning options and encryption keys.Both call in to a headquarters that handle the actual mechanics and call a second politician or general for confirmation. There is not enough room for fancy electronics in the pictures of both cases that have been released. Nearby will be vehicles or rooms containing the high reliability communications gear at all times.For a visit of a minor cabinet official at work we had two verified temporary lines, a fax, and internet access. The local phone company ensured the pairs went to different local switches. That was long ago.Putin also has a law degree. He likes procedural methods.Steve

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 03:15:42 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 27, 2022, 10:08:17 amOne could even go one step further and argue the Soviets ran out of nukes. I'm not saying it's true or false, but come with me on a journey and look for yourself and make up your own mind.Here's a timeline of bilateral nuclear arsenal reductions. Let's first have a look atSORT, aka the Moscow Treaty. It's a treaty of 2003 signed between Dubya and Putin. You'll notice a few things. First of all,SORT contains only five articles and totals less than 500 words. That's not enough to introduce any sort of third party checking apparatus such that could actually ensure there were warheads and they had been destroyed. They might have been crushing old Ladas for all you know. The Plutonium might have been cottage cheese. In fact,have a look for yourself, the treaty never says that the other side will be checking anything at all. It's more like a leaflet. My garbage disposal contract has more pages than this nuclear warhead disposal agreement. Probably so short because Putin knew George W. Bush wasn't a big reader. Second of all, the US side didn't want to do it, but eventually yielded to, an agreement that wasbilateral and proportional, meaning thatbothsides had to destroy the same amount of warheads. If I was Putin, didn't have any warheads, and I wanted the US to destroy its warheads for free, I'd press for an agreement that doesn't check if I have warheads, and forces the US to destroy its warheads.So let's go back to the very previous treaty.The START III Framework treatywhich started negotiation by Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin in 1997 - but was eventually never signed does not have any verification in place either. In fact, it explicitly states that there is no verification in place, and wants both sides to start working on nuclear stockpile transparency measures. This never happened.A book released in 2003 after SORT was signedwhich talks about the state of things with regards to nuclear anti-proliferation agreements. If you go to "Part II. Technical Dimension" (print page 129 = pdf page 147) and start reading there, you will notice that any sort of verification is merely a theoretical possibility, an academic consideration.The final treaty that's relevant here wasNew START signed in 2010. It includes actual articles on verification and inspection:Verification of treaty limits and conversion or elimination of delivery systems is carried out by NTM and 18 annual short-notice, on-site inspections. The treaty allows ten on-site inspections of deployed warheads and deployed and non-deployed delivery systems at ICBM bases, submarine bases and air bases (“Type One” inspections). It also allows eight on-site inspections at facilities that may hold only non-deployed delivery systems (“Type Two” inspections).The US Gov hasa list of New START inspections performed. The information that it provides is as such: "We've conducted 18 inspections per year since the treaty has been signed". It's up to you to figure out how they made the inspections and whether you trust they saw what they think they saw. Maybe they were just looking for large metal cylinders painted yellow with a specific barcode on them. Maybe they took the pit out of every warhead and checked the exact amount of plutonium in each one. Either case is believable. The international community has been extremely gullible when dealing with the Russian government on countless occasions. However measuring the nuclear material is technically possible - whether accommodated or not. However, even a correct inspection of the amount of fissile material does not ensure the electronics are maintained and working, that the pressure lenses are constructed correctly, or that the delivery methods have readiness. You can make up your own mind if you'd like.From the description, it sounds like they're just counting large metal cylinders:Permitted inspection activities include confirming the number of reentry vehicles on deployed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and deployed Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), confirming numbers related to non-deployed launcher limits, counting nuclear weapons onboard or attached to deployed heavy bombers, confirming weapon system conversions or eliminations, and confirming facility eliminations.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 03:42:27 pm
content: Ina 2020 report on how the stockpile verification works, Rose Gottemoeler talks about verification of nuclear warheads. So what they do is essentially the warhead is opened up in secret by Russia, then they drape a blanket over it so there can be no peeksies to find out how it's made, and then Rose or one of her fellows walks up to it with a radiation probe and sees that it crackles.Inspectors would be given the opportunity to count objects on the front ends of missiles, which would be opened up but covered with a soft or pliable cover so that objects could be counted without revealing their technical characteristicsOne problem was that every object on the front end of a missile is not a nuclear warhead. Both sides deploy penetration aids, chaff dispensers or decoys that are used to spoof missile defenses. They are conventional, not nuclear, objects. To differentiate between them, we came up with an idea: Inspectors would be able to use radiation detection devices to determine that an object was non-nuclear in nature. In other words, an inspector would be able to confirm the number of nuclear objects declared; if there were extras, he would be able to determine that they were not nuclear warheads.It sounds easy, but figuring out the process required complex and difficult discussions. For example, how pliable should the soft cover be that is used during the inspections? There could be no possibility that a warhead was hiding under a cover that did not properly display all of the objects underneath. What kind of radiation detector could be used? Both sides were resolved that the detection equipment should be able to determine that an object is non-nuclear, but not discover any design secrets in the adjacent warheads. Many technical discussions ensued, leading to detailed procedures so that each side could check and accept the other’s detection equipment.Given that it's notdifficult(for a state with nuclear power plants) to produce plutonium, you can assume that's what they'll be having in there. Whether the other things also function is another question. But apparently the Americans believe so, because they keep track of those things, and they know when they've been produced, via an extensive databasing regime.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 04:45:27 pm
content: You mean this works like a poker game? You think the midrange treaty was abandonded by Trump administration in order to see what the Russian really have? "Let them show in Europe."Regards, Dieter

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 05:00:53 pm
content: Interesting report here, who knows if it might translate to nuclear missiles also?Quote

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 05:01:37 pm
content: Keep in mind another plausible strategy. Not to actually threaten the west, but the east. Russia itself. Putin can hold the oligarchs hostage, threatening to blow up everything -- if he fails, he and his assets are dead anyway, but if they betray him, he pulls the trigger and everyone loses.Such a launch doesn't even need to be nuclear, or aimed anywhere in particular. It could be an unannounced silo launch with, as it turns out, no actual warheads, but we wouldn't know that until it's over.Strategy then should be, continue to damage Russia's financial position (which is to say, the oligarchs'), targeting government services (military of course) and Putin more harshly than the others, so that greater costs are incurred in the near term, than the potential resources they are after (their own plus Ukrainian gas reserves). Setting an example, so that no one would want to overthrow Putin because look at how unprofitable it is; they should rather take their money and leave. Though I suppose that might not apply; they would have to have more assets on hand now (plus expected future growth), than as future returns from said resources for that to work.What's terribly annoying about all this is, if we pushed renewable energy, we could become the world leader in it, have a largely electrified energy grid and transport system, become energy independent or a net exporter (say, solar to Canada?), maximize national security, and also export those systems, ready to go, to the entire world. But thing is, that would be a lower recurring cost than selling oil and gas is now. So we're stuck with that, and starting wars over it, while continuing to stuff up the atmosphere.Tim

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 05:05:53 pm
content: Quote from: dietert1 on March 27, 2022, 04:45:27 pmThat's closer to the truth about how international politics and diplomacy work than you ever want to know.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 06:14:42 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on March 27, 2022, 05:01:37 pmThere have been talks of increasing renewables and all the rest you say but these things can't be built over night. What is really annoying is that given the existential threat of climate change we did very little in a hurry. Now that it is politics and money at stake they are shouting about it from the rooftops. It's scary how poor we are at self preservation.The UK dragging it's feet with renewables has been the worse foreign policy ever....

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 08:52:37 pm
content: Quote from: AndrewBCN on March 27, 2022, 09:36:05 amI'm not sure what use such a policy is anyway. It's a bit like a gun-free zone, that never made any sense to me either. Pretty much the entire developed world is already a murder-free zone, it's highly illegal and subject to the most severe punishments we have. Making it illegal to carry a gun into a specific area is absolutely no deterrent to somebody who plans to commit murder so what's the point? Say we adopt such a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons, what are the consequences of ignoring that policy and if it gets to the point that we're launching nuclear weapons what is anybody going to do about it? It's all just a bunch of feel-good nonsense that doesn't actually do anything at all.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 09:08:25 pm
content: Quote from: cheater on March 26, 2022, 04:41:49 amThe urchin is a structure at the center of the core which generates a burst of neutrons at the proper time when the implosion of the core crushes it. The bomb's alpha (1) is the number of doublings of the number of neutrons that the bomb can produce so starting out with as many neutrons as possible improves the yield and efficiency. If too many neutrons are present initially, then the core will not achieve its maximum alpha because it will blow itself apart early making it a fizzle.Alternatively a "zipper" (1) can be used external to the core which shoots a burst of neutrons into the core at the proper time.(1) I am going by memory.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 09:20:31 pm
content: "and if it gets to the point that Russia is launching nuclear weapons what is anybody going to do about it?"The US already did so twice.Take care.Regards, Dieter

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2022, 10:20:52 pm
content: Quote from: cheater on March 27, 2022, 02:27:25 pmIt comes from The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists, a very credible group.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2022, 12:48:38 am
content: Have you seen thevideos about the story of the Demon Corewhich seems to indicate that the answer to how many nuclear devices would remain "effective" after a given amount of time seems to be a function of the decay rate of whatever radiologically active materials in it and the total amount of these materials in a given device as well as the radiation damping properties of said materials or ratio of the emittting and damping properties of the core..Dumping the core into watermightprevent it from going critical, for example, however I'd hate to have to rely on that to avoid a nuclear explosion..The reason I brought up the aforementioned (Tsar Bomba and Castle Bravo) two nuclear tests was because they were the two nuclear tests that went terrifyingly, conspicuously wrong..And THEY should have been a WAKE UP CALL for all humanity.Which is I think nuts and scary..Let me remind us that the entire human race's survival depends on the Earth remaining habitable within certain bounds..So a good argument can be made that nuclear testing and indeed nuclear war of any kind should be criminal.Most of the people and animals of the world are not Americans or Russians and IMHO we in those two countriesneed to be told in no uncertain terms that we have no business doing anything that potentially hurts OTHERS.If I found myself in a position where I was expect6ed to lunch an atomic missile, I wouldnt do it. I view warfare as best as some kind of mental illness.The concept of nuclear deterrence has deep problems to me.. Lets not go there..

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2022, 02:46:07 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 27, 2022, 10:20:52 pmBut clearly, they must be in error, because the missile they list as having been unveiled in 2022 was unveiled in 2016. So how credible are they given that issue?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2022, 02:47:25 am
content: Quote from: cdev on March 28, 2022, 12:48:38 amYou would very likely find yourself facing a firing squad, and someone else would launch the missile.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2022, 06:24:57 am
content: Quote from: cheater on March 28, 2022, 02:46:07 amIf the source is from Western world, especially when it comes to adversaries weaponry information, take with a grain of salt.Remember this ? ...

author: Bicurico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2022, 09:09:28 am
content: I have zero information about nuclear weapons, apart from what I read on available documents online.Putin said that he ordered to "prepare" nuclear weapons (or something similar). At the time I did not really understand what was meant by this. Now I imagine this:Most nuclear weapons are probably not assembled.I now believe this is because some components require maintenance and/or have an expiry date: as already mentioned here, Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. Plutonium has a half-life, which may reduce the available mass to less than critical, the foam used to produce the plasma may deteriorate, etc.So my guess is that they have a maintained stock of components and materials, which gets updated, but the bomb itself is not fully assembled.Only a few bombs will probably be ready to use and those require a more expensive maintenance. Probably they actually rotate them, so that end of expiry bombs are disassembled, it's permanent components go back to stock, while the worn out components get tossed away. The expired bomb is then replaced by a newly assembled.I think such a maintenance plan would be cheaper. If required, many bombs could be assembled in a short period of time.Also, since the goal of nuclear weapons is MAD (Mutual assured destruction), the bombs do not actually be in working order, except for a few.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2022, 12:38:06 pm
content: Quote from: BravoV on March 28, 2022, 06:24:57 amThe credentials of the "Bulletin" are as close to impeccable as you're likely to find. Look at some of their past contributors:Quote from:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_ScientistsI don't know about you, but I'd have a lot of confidence that an organ with J. Robert Oppenheimer ("father of the atomic bomb"), Edward Teller ("father of the hydrogen bomb"), and Albert Einstein (if I have to give Einstein a pithy by-name there's no hope for you) as contributors knew what it was saying when it comes to nuclear weapons.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2022, 09:33:40 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 28, 2022, 12:38:06 pmSo then why do they report a missile as announced as completed in 2022 where clearly, verifiably, there are reports of it being announced as completed in 2016?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2022, 10:40:34 pm
content: Quote from: cheater on March 28, 2022, 09:33:40 pmBecause maybe the latest ones were delivered in 2022? Or the scheduled shipment order was completed then?They'd have their reasons.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2022, 11:25:12 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 28, 2022, 10:40:34 pmMarketing said "It's delivered!" in 2016, the engineers said "Job's a good un!" in 2022.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2022, 11:43:26 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on March 28, 2022, 11:25:12 pmThey probably have a standard for verification that was only met in 2022. Could be a host of reasons.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2022, 12:01:27 am
content: Quote from: cheater on March 28, 2022, 09:33:40 pmYou're fussing over the Bulletin reporting it as "deployed" in (2022) [<- note the brackets, that's exactly how they printed it, all other deployed figures aren't bracketed and the number deployed column is empty], whereas your source, USAtoday, report CNN reporting it asannouncedin 2016, and report two other sources reporting it tested in 2017 and 2018. "Announced" ≠ "Deployed". And we're not certain if it has even actually been deployed, and the brackets in the Bulletin report and absence of a number would support that they are being cautious about what they print.I think you have generated a fuss about them (the Bulletin) being inaccurate without justification. In fact you just didn't read things carefully enough. Heck, even the USAToday article does not say that it was "announced as completed in 2016". Nowhere does it say "completed", just "announce" and even goes on to quote a planned deployment date of "late 2022".Quote from:https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/03/08/fact-check-russias-satan-2-nuclear-missile-unveiled-2016/6983354001/

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2022, 01:57:16 am
content: OK, yeah, that checks out, thanks for correcting me

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2022, 02:31:03 am
content: Quote from: Bicurico on March 28, 2022, 09:09:28 amPutin's statement was in the context of readying his nuclear forces, which does not have much meaning when nuclear forces exist at a higher state of readiness than conventional forces anyway. It means command and control functions are manned instead of being on standby. It had nothing to do with assembling bombs before they can be used.

author: not1xor1
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2022, 09:07:38 am
content: Quote from: james_s on March 28, 2022, 02:47:25 amIt happened before. Those people deserve more credit. They are real heroes.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incidenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

author: serg-el
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2022, 01:48:16 pm
content: https://goo.gl/maps/cHtQh1mcEZRMNXtx7Nothing unusual. Just Topol-M in the local history museum. You can come and touch.

author: Vovk_Z
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2022, 07:09:39 pm
content: As a Ukrainian, I can add info about actual non-nuclear Russian rockets. I don't have an exact statistic about all types of their rockets (we are bombed by about 4? different types of large-range missiles) but a statistic I have seen says that more than 10% (10%-20%) of them have problems (I mean problems when rockets fail at the start or somewhere on a trip).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 12:14:53 pm
content: NOTE: I had to delete half a dozen recent posts because this thread got completely off track into politics. Please don't do it.

author: Bicurico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 03:19:08 pm
content: Another related question:If there are around 14.000 nuclear warheads, how much plutonium, triterium and other highly unavailable materials were needed? Where did they come from? How much is produced by nuclear centrals producing electricity? Where goes the waste (the plutonium, titerium, etc. after the halflife decimated the required amount)?I find the technical aspects of this very interesting and the new information I gathered (also from this thread), makes me wonder how stupid and unnecessary atomic weapons are for human kind.Anyway, I hope this thread can produce technically interesting insights and any political debate is kept out of it.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 05:47:19 pm
content: as an American, I don't feel enough animosity to individual Russians to justify killing them. I see individual Russians as being so far removed from the halls of power and responsibility its likely similar to the situation for us here, or even worse. Peace, however is golden.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 10:47:13 pm
content: One of the motivations for USSR's largely graphite-moderated fleet of reactors  is plutonium production.Wait, is that a thing? I remember that being a thing but I don't actually remember the reason behind it. Well, further reading then.Pu239 is bred from U238, though I don't remember what spectrum of neutrons is required, and I don't recall offhand if graphite or water give different spectra. In any case, fuel needs to be changed frequently, so that the Pu239 doesn't capture additional neutrons up to the dangerously more fissile Pu244 or so. The heavier isotopes are generally considered unsuitable for bombs, due to the high spontaneous fission (SF) rate -- but I also recall reading that simulations have shown it's possible to make bombs including even heavier actinides e.g. americium, curium, so maybe it's more of a design issue than anything.Tritium can be extracted from primary loop coolant, particularly of heavy water type reactors.Plutonium doesn't decay very fast (by itself, when subcritical), so is fine to recycle (melt and recast) for quite a long time. Once in a while it might have to be dissolved and reprocessed, separating lower elements and byproducts. Chemical separation is relatively easy. Over time, the neutron content increases I think (neutrons from SF and short decay chains being absorbed to Pu240, etc.), which may then need to be phased out for new material (since isotopic separation is extremely difficult).Tim

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2022, 11:50:34 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on April 03, 2022, 10:47:13 pmThe issue with isotopes with higher spontaneous fission rates as, or in, bomb materials is their tendency to set the explosion part off before the implosion part has reached the optimum point - predetonation. It's quite easy to forget that the whole explosive chain reaction in a supercritical mass can be set off by asingleneutron from SF if it arrives before the deliberate injection of neutrons intended to initiate the weapon at the time of optimum fuel compression. Rather than waffle on, it's probably easier just to quote a chunk of the Nuclear Weapons FAQ about the effects of240Pu impurities in weapons grade Pu by way of example:Quote

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2022, 12:41:19 am
content: Yeah, something about, if you don't mind suboptimal yields, the other materials can still be used. Or I suppose, not just suboptimal, but a wide variance thereof.Tim

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2022, 11:39:16 pm
content: I found this while researching fizzle fission triggers. It does not cover the subject of fission device design but it has some information.The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices - Friedwardt WinterbergIt confirmed to me why tritium is used as a neutron multiplier in boosted fission weapons despite its difficulties.

author: DavidKo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2022, 09:25:38 am
content: Russians are building the weapons with expectation that there will be poor maintenance. During the discussion about decreasing of amount of nuclear warheads there was an issue that Russian ICBMs had the target locations hard wired inside. Simple, quick and reliable - extremely dangerous if fired incidentally. Some modifications were officially done, but the information that was to it was somehow confusing.During the storage of tactical warheads in Czech (and probably also in Poland, Hungry and NDR were such bunkers) they were stored in pressurized inert gas, in the temperature controlled environment and regularly checked. In case of the conflict (maybe that is the activation of the nuclear forces about which is Putin talking) the warheads had to be delivered and mounted to the rockets in different place. Now it is there a museumJavor 51. Several information about the USSR's ICBMs are in videos about missile silo inUkraine.As mentioned before, the most critical part of the nuclear weapons is the timing of the explosions of the multiple conventional explosives - instead of heated wire for initiation the evaporation of material with high current is used (that is the reason why Krytron exports are embargoed). Rest is not so much critical, since all other components can be redundant. Yes it is important how high it will explode, but the precision of the ICBMs in the range of km is good enough (and not only for Australia).My expectation is that the Russian ICBMs are build to hit the target with 10-100km precision and sending big amount of them should ensure that it will be hit, all of this in favor of reliability. I know that everyone shows how precise their technology is, but I do not expect that it can be extrapolated to the all rockets (even of the same time).

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2022, 04:19:16 am
content: Does any nation still have a "lay-down" delivery device on active inventory? Those were most impressive, dropped from aircraft, they hit the ground with considerable horizontal velocity before a delayed detonation. There is a drag parachute, but still impressive when you consider this was done with massive thermonuclear devices.This is one of the test tracks at Sandia. Awe Inspiring:https://youtu.be/T9xSrnotXxUCheck out one of their Spin Offs, the "Sandia Cooler" if you have time to check out the other videos. More or Less EE related. Pun Intended.Steve

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2022, 04:55:36 pm
content: A topical conversation just erupted on Twitter, and I think a bunch can be learned with regards to what this topic is about. There are photos of 70s-80s cruise missile PCBs and conversation about maintenance.https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1517437129038647296

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2022, 06:22:35 pm
content: Looking at the pictures..I'm not sure the old IMU module and a relay decoder driver board are indicative of what the missile can do. I do know my Dad was helping build TERCOM / DSMAC boards in 1986 that blow that out of the water in terms of size, power consumption, and functionality. (one every five years open house plant tour)There are what appear to be western world parts on that driver board as well. The pinkish brown resistors look very familiar from the 80s. The Tantalum Caps are either western or a very good clone.Perhaps this is just a good way to expend old stock and harass from the Russian viewpoint.Steve

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2022, 07:00:10 pm
content: If it's on Twitter, then it must be reliable.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2022, 07:11:12 pm
content: All USSR made parts, from the relays to the components, to the wiring and the PCB and connectors. A lot are clones of Western technology, like the precision resistors, based off Vishay parts, and the relays are all copies of Western avionics styles, and the wet slug tantalum are really only able to be made that way efficiently, the cheaper USSR made ones are exactly the same as the west ones, just you can see to the right the big green cans of the 1000uF 10V plus massive solid slug tantalum power supply capacitors, exactly copies of the Vishay parts, just green painted instead of transparent.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2022, 07:29:48 pm
content: You must mean meters, not kilometers, am I right? Still, thats pretty scary. At least I am scared.Quote from: DavidKo on April 11, 2022, 09:25:38 am

author: m3vuv
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2022, 09:01:40 pm
content: whats the saying you cant polish a turd.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2022, 10:58:01 pm
content: Quote from: m3vuv on April 22, 2022, 09:01:40 pmThousands of used car salesmen disagree vehemently!

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2022, 02:56:42 pm
content: Quote from: Haenk on March 21, 2022, 03:33:18 pmUkraine really changed everything. maybe they don't even realize yet how much. We're certainly seeing this, though. Many European countries are likely in the line of fire, and still haven't understood the implications.It hadn't been like this in a very long time. NASA is certainly going to have to make some changes.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2022, 02:59:57 pm
content: Quote from: m3vuv on April 22, 2022, 09:01:40 pmNot in their case. Shit, it must really suck to be stuck there. Lots of smart Russian young people now trying to figure out a plan B for their lives right now.

author: virtualparticles
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2022, 03:13:57 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on March 21, 2022, 11:41:02 amTechnology in Russia has come a very long way since the breakup of the Soviet Union and the semi-Westernization of the economy. The technical colleges in Chelyabinsk and Tomsk are top notch. It's hard to tell how much of this modernization has made its way into the military though. I would say at least that their RF and mmWave technology is on par with the US.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2022, 08:21:24 pm
content: Tomsk State Uni is ranked 601-800 in Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2022. Chelyabinsk State Uni is not even mentioned.My alma mater MIPT (the 2nd highest ranked Russian university in that ranking) is 201-250. It used to be “top notch” technological Uni during 1980s (a Soviet MIT), but the quality of education has fallen since Soviet times.I can’t comment much about the quality of Russian RF and millimeter Wave stuff on battlefield. I would not be surprised if most of the comm equipment that Russians use in Ukraine was made in China.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2022, 08:32:10 pm
content: Quote from: vad on April 25, 2022, 08:21:24 pmI think the problem they're having is that it was made in the 1960s, not that it was made in China. But the unsecured phones they use when their comm equipment doesn't work are made in China. So you're right!

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2022, 08:40:24 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on April 25, 2022, 08:32:10 pmThe 1960s Soviet radios required two men to carry and a portable generator to powerRadios that Russian soldiers carry in Ukraine, as seen on YouTube, are walkie-talkie sized.

author: metrologist
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2022, 08:47:44 pm
content: I heard on the radio that their missile tech today could reach anywhere before civilians would even know it's coming. I thought at least the US had some defense system but I guess not.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2022, 09:59:48 pm
content: Quoteits a normal misconception,defense budget actually means attack budget

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2022, 10:11:45 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on April 25, 2022, 09:59:48 pmWell, to be factual, there are ballistic missile defensesthat we know about, including the whole Aegis system, the GMD interceptors in Alaska and California and THAAD where it is available. The known capabilities of these known systems appears limited, but they exist and apparently work to some degree.Then there are the things we don't know about, and the US black defense budget (unidisclosed) is larger than either the entire UK or Russian defense budget. That's if you count the explicit black budget where they acknowledge that it is undisclosed. There are cases of redirection, so the black budget might be even more. Hopefully we're getting something for that money...and defense would be nice.

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2022, 10:52:43 pm
content: There is an Aegis Cruiser parked off the East Coast for a reason. :-)

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 03:49:43 am
content: Quote from: metrologist on April 25, 2022, 08:47:44 pmThere were no major technological breakthroughs or drastic changes in Russian missile capabilities since the late 1980’s. Russia’s strategic forces are still a combination of land-based ICBMs, sub-launched ballistic and cruise missiles, and air-launched missiles (the nuclear triad).There was some hype in the news recently about new Kinjal missiles that Russian propaganda misrepresented as hypersonic missiles. The Kinjal is a modified short-range ballistic missile Iskander that can be launched from a plane. Contrary to the propaganda’s claims, both Kinjal and Iskander are normal ballistic missiles that travel parabolic trajectory, with some added capabilities to perform evasive maneuvers during terminal flight stage. There is nothing novel in such maneuvering reentry vehicles (MARVs). The earliest MARVs were designed in 70s for American Pershing II.A true hypersonic missile does not travel parabolic trajectory by definition.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 03:56:23 am
content: Quote from: LaserSteve on April 25, 2022, 10:52:43 pmI am not sure how good the Cruiser will be in intercepting ballistic missiles traveling along great circle over the North Pole.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 05:02:57 am
content: Quote from: vad on April 26, 2022, 03:56:23 amThe Aegis system is not intended to do that and none if it's known capabilities include that AFAIK. The interceptors intended for over-the-pole missiles are based in Alaska.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 11:50:35 am
content: The problem with rocket defense is low efficiency. Recently Palestinians demonstrated the failure of iron dome when firing hundreds of rockets within a short time. After a recent attack in Odessa it was reported they shot down 2 of 7 Russian cruise missiles. In case of an attack with nuclear weapons this isn't good enough.Regards, Dieter

author: todorp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 12:33:15 pm
content: Quote from: dietert1 on April 26, 2022, 11:50:35 amThese were Kh-101 sub-sonic. Try doing the same with the newer Kalibr super-sonic ones. Just stressing the point...

author: MegaVolt
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 12:35:37 pm
content: Quote from: todorp on April 26, 2022, 12:33:15 pmThe Kalibr(caliber) turned out to be an ordinary rocket. Judging by the fact that they were used against Ukraine.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 01:05:36 pm
content: There are no new methods of nuclear fission products, its still the same dirty old power and dirty old men, just more profitable now.It was going to be about more nukes all along, you all knew that..

author: m3vuv
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 06:13:29 pm
content: We may have the answer to this pretty soon with the way things are going in the ukraine !

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 06:35:50 pm
content: Quote from: dietert1 on April 26, 2022, 11:50:35 amIf your definition of 'success' (Iron Dome) or 'good enough' (ballistic missile intercept) is that the defense should be an impenetrable shield, then you will be always disappointed. Iron Dome is a maximal success IMO and expecting better than that is not realistic. 2 out of 7 for what was expected to be a vastly outgunned Ukrainian military is a morale boosting success, but militarily only marginally helpful. It's still something, especially if you were one of the two targets. The full suite of US missile defenses may score better than 2 in 7, but I don't think even the most optimistic would expect it to do nearly as well against a Russian nuclear attack as the Iron Dome has against the bottle rockets from Gaza.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 07:24:47 pm
content: I really doubt that. The nuclear threats is a bluff to deter Free World from supplying weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. This trick no longer works. See what equipment is being shipped and pledged to Ukraine by many countries.Vladimir Putin is a spoiled rich SOB, who enjoys his splendid life, who controls wealth over $200B, likes to spend his time at billion dollar mansions and aboard of sumptuous yachts with displacements only rivaled by sunken Cruiser “Moskva”. He takes care of his health very well, he is terrified to come closer than 30 feet away from any visitor, many of whom had to quarantine 14 days before each visit.With intelligence CIA and Mi6 proved to have in Kremlin, the very time Vladimir tries to reach out to his launch codes will the last time he saw Kabaeva and their three children, the last time he saw his other three daughters. There will be no more pole dancing in his private harem, no more playing ice hockey with Alex Ovechkin at private underground skate rinks. A cruise missile with a low yield warhead will end this party really fast. He knows that, and therefore he will never use nukes, he will dig in and transform Russia into another North Korea. I would call that country FNNK (Further North from North Korea).Edit: to bluff like that you really need a poker face. With the joy and richness that Putin demonstrated over 20 years nobody takes his bluff seriously.And PS. I am Russian and I am ashamed and angry at what Russia is doing in Ukraine.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 08:50:55 pm
content: To be honest, those things do not depend on a single person. Russia is a nuclear power, and russian military have that option in the end. For military decision makers it is nothing but a strong weapon. Anybody trying to talk this away is a dreamer.The Ukraine conflict isn't ready yet, but in my personal opinion i am afraid US american strategy is faulty. Once i read that the US is the only power able to impose military action at any location on the planet within 24h. But nowadays even North Korea can do it within an hour or so. And the images of the Afghanistan withdrawal are still present.There is no realistic way the US will save Ukraine, Taiwan, South Korea and - last but not least - Europe in case of military conflict. What happens if nuclear weapons fall onto Kiew and Odessa tomorrow, in a similar attempt to terminate the killing as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?Regards, Dieter

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 09:11:01 pm
content: Quote from: dietert1 on April 26, 2022, 08:50:55 pmLots of things can boil down to one person and history shows that they often do. How different would things be if Stalin, Putin or Genghis Khan had died as infants? Who knows. And using nukes is a political decision and threshold that everyone knows has broader consequences. It isn't just a big bomb.QuoteYes, the argument that if you are not infinitely powerful, you are infinitely weak. How a fully involved WWIII will turn out I don't know, but do you want to be the one opposed to the US? As for what happens if Ukraine gets 'test-nuked'--I don't know, you don't know and Putin doesn't know. Keep an eye on Whiteman AFB in Missouri if that happens.

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 10:23:08 pm
content: All i wish as a European is not being opposed to Russia. We do not have a similar problem with the US, i mean as far as i know.One of the problems with nuclear weapons is that afterwards one may not be able to find out where it came from (stealth technology). Two days ago i saw a front page comment (maybe in Die Zeit) demanding national nuclear weapons for Germany. And the fact that the meeting at the US headquarter in Rheinland-Pfalz was not held in the Nato headquarters is another indication how serious the situation is right now. No bluff.Regards, Dieter

author: m3vuv
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 10:34:10 pm
content: at least for me if the brown stuff hits the fan,it will be over in a flash as conningsbe air base is only about 6 miles away,thats our main qra base,there has been a lot more activity the last couple of weeks so imagine the ruskys have been doing a lot more probing of our airspace recently.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2022, 11:27:35 pm
content: The whole MAD thing we did (are doing?) during the cold war presumed that leaders of nuclear powers would make rational decisions. There have been several leaders in the last decade or two that very much call that assumption into question. You don't need to favor any particular political school of thought to agree with this observation, though radicals of one sort or another will say that their guy isn't one of those.These times are way too interesting for me.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2022, 09:58:01 pm
content: Quote from: m3vuv on April 26, 2022, 10:34:10 pm

author: ogoun
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2022, 10:59:56 pm
content: Credit is a sacred trust, it's what our free society is based on. Do you think they give a damn about their bills in Russia? 🤣

author: m3vuv
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2022, 11:01:15 pm
content: In regards to the last post,i realy dont see what that has to do with russias old milatary hardware or new for that matter,thats what i thought this thread was about,not music lyrics,wasnt that what the original post about?,or do you just have itchy fingers??

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 29, 2022, 01:29:10 am
content: I was trying to dramatize the phrase "when the shit hits the fan"I'm currently watching the 1964 film Mondo Africa, which I was surprised to find on YoutubeA historical document..It has all kinds of footage in it.. "Sad"When the shit hits the fan is right

author: ogoun
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 29, 2022, 01:39:17 am
content: just trying to briefly bring some humour to what is a very serious and somber thread... I guess you missed the reference.Cheers,Pete

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 29, 2022, 02:18:44 pm
content: Some people fetishize credit. Many reject it completely, seeing that its a scam. They just pay cash for things.Quote from: m3vuv on April 28, 2022, 11:01:15 pmWhocares if they cant borrow, maybe they dont deserve trust? Thatstheirproblem. Don't trust them!(If they clearly want to steal the world, you shouldnt! IMHO. )

author: MegaVolt
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 29, 2022, 02:32:04 pm
content: Taking loans at 20 percent or more is almost suicidal. Therefore, they take loans in the most difficult situations when it is impossible otherwise.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2022, 09:22:34 pm
content: Quote from: MegaVolt on April 29, 2022, 02:32:04 pmBanks these days reserve the right to adjust the loan rate with almost no notice. And they do it, too!

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2022, 10:37:34 pm
content: Quote from: MegaVolt on April 29, 2022, 02:32:04 pmTheres much more going on right now. Digital payments/enslavement is the FUTURE!We WON. Stop sharing anything.

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2022, 11:12:05 pm
content: At one time the Russians tried the "triplet" MIRV. Three smaller warheads splash down in a triangle around the target with varying degrees of accuracy but nearly the same arrival time. Gets rid of the accuracy and fratricide problem. IF one works, groovey for them. IF all three go full yield then target got nailed by a phased array. Odds are decent if A fires but if B or C timing fails the other ones fire by Fratricide at low yield. . "Quanity has a Quality All is Own" , according to Stalin. The Triplet makes you wonder if at the time they knew they had reliability or accuracy problems or if the phased hit was very attractive for some reason.Oh well..Either way, may all Nukes rust in Peace.Steve

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2022, 11:59:11 pm
content: I suspect that the triplet MIRV tactic was more about missile accuracy than warhead reliability. Early ICBMs were not particularly precise munitions. Picking the R-16 (service period 1961-1976) at random, it had a CEP of 2.7 km necessitating a massive 3-6 Mt warhead to guarantee an effective hit on its target. Several lower yield warheads spread across a small area would be just as destructive, improve the probability of destroying the designated target and be more economical to manufacture.

author: Terry Bites
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 01, 2022, 07:09:58 pm
content: Its a bluff- the prevailing winds are a east and south. So eat sh** Putin!

author: Vovk_Z
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 03, 2022, 01:50:17 pm
content: Quote from: LaserSteve on April 22, 2022, 06:22:35 pmI almost sure they are not western parts. They may be clones of some western parts, but they definitely were made in USSR. E.g. cylinder axial tantalum caps look like oxide-semiconductor К53 type.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 03, 2022, 04:04:02 pm
content: Quote from: Vovk_Z on May 03, 2022, 01:50:17 pmOr any of the hermetically sealed axial dry or wet solid tantalum parts. Besides aerospace, military, and high reliability applications, they were also common in high end commercial and industrial equipment built in the 60s and 70s. I have never seen one fail. I am sure the Soviets made equivalents to them.

author: virtualparticles
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2022, 04:47:11 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on April 25, 2022, 08:32:10 pm

author: Terry Bites
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2022, 05:55:50 pm
content: If it were not for the current Political Situation in the Ukraine, this thread would have never started. So say what you want, itisa political issue. Then so is chipageddon, international shipping costs and alt energy etc.. Anyhow, lets hope their nukes are all cardboard and rust.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2022, 07:03:25 pm
content: Quote from: dietert1 on April 26, 2022, 10:23:08 pmMost Europeans and the Ukrainians just don't get it! Until Russia attacks a NATO country, NATO is NOT going to get involved. PERIOD! END OF DISCUSSION! The Ukrainians are demanding otherwise but it's not going to happen and the Ukrainians are just pissing into the wind if they think that they can use public pressure to force NATO to get involved. But individual NATO countries can, and are getting involved, particularly the U.S. and Germany. That is why that meeting was held at a U.S. base in Germany and not at a NATO base. That VERY PUBLIC press conference that was held right in front of the very large "Ramstein Air Base" sign and was a clear message to everyone, and particularly to Russia and to Ukraine, that the U.S. and Germany are fully supporting Ukraine and that under the current circumstances, NATO is not going to get involved.But the minute that a Russian bomb or missile lands in Poland or one of the other NATO member countries, it's going to look like the Gulf of Tonkin Incident all over again! The U.S. has a long history of putting up with aggressive annoyances from other countries but all it takes is one wrong move to trigger a massive U.S. response.

author: phred01
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2022, 09:05:31 pm
content: Quote from: vad on April 26, 2022, 07:24:47 pmyes agree wholeheartedlyHere are a few insights into Russian attitudes the most notable is the culture is basically feudal in nature ...... no regard for human decency in the face of sheer imperial objectives.1 Safety personal working in hazardous situation on paper they can be very stringent but in practice this goes out the window because of expediency ie working on radars.....the transmitter can be left on2 Decommissioned Nuclear powered vessels are scattered in grave yards around NE arctic just rotting....out of sight out of mind... far away from Moscow & St Petersburg3 At lest 30% of missiles have failed in the Ukrainian war and some never reached the intended targets and failed to detonate4 Russians have buried Nuclear waste in shallow trenches far away urban centers......out of sight out of mind... far away from Moscow & St Petersburg.So if Adolf Putin / little Stalin uses Nukes there will be huge number of self goals before any retaliation by NATO or USMy hope there are some cool heads in the Russian military that prevail

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2022, 09:29:00 pm
content: I was disappointed to learn that the "ancient Chinese curse": "May you live in interesting times!" is not authentic.It works, though.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 13, 2022, 04:20:14 pm
content: So I thought I'd necro this topic because this seems fairly relevant: Asianometry's video on the current state of Russian nuclear ice breakers.What does it tell us about their ability to support other nuclear devices?Here's a nice breakdown of which ones are currently still in service:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreakerIt looks like a lot of "new" nuclear projects are happening in Russia, either started recently or getting started just now. Sarmat missiles, Project 22220 ice breakers, Project 10510 ice breakers. I wonder if the same trend exists with their power plants.This also seems to tell us that weapon designs are for better or worse new and untested designs. Even if everything is done by the book, the device still might just fizz off due to some practicality no one thought about back in the 1950s.

author: Terry Bites
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 13, 2022, 04:47:13 pm
content: It is a political subject, how could it not be? I assume you have been watching the news?WMDs are not objects of technical curiosity.

author: niconiconi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 13, 2022, 07:12:00 pm
content: Quote from: cheater on March 21, 2022, 02:07:35 amThe thread is already 10 pages long, but so far nobody has mentioned this important subject: pulsed power and fusion research facilities. All the world's nuclear superpowers have their pulsed power research institutions, with enormous impulse generators with building-size huge capacitor banks and pulse-forming networks that can delivery nanosecond impulses with huge peak power. 1 gigawatt is the standard (Back To The Future is not just a science fiction), but many terawatts is achievable. Petawatt-class pulsed power machines are now under consideration.The USA has Z Pulsed Power Facility and National Ignition Facility, the UK has MAGPIE (Mega Ampere Generator for Plasma Implosion Experiments).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_Pulsed_Power_Facilityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facilityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAGPIEThese research facilities also have a civilian purpose, for fusion power research and even basic physics research by studying materials under extremely pressure and temperature. But first and foremost, the official mission of these facilities is for "supporting U.S. deterrence policy by helping sustain and secure the nuclear arsenal". In other words, testing materials under extreme conditions to simulate a nuclear bomb detonation, since a real denotation is now a violation of international treaties. These experiments are also performed to gather data to build better physics models for computer simulations of nuclear weapons.

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2022, 10:56:29 am
content: Thanks. A few questions:- are pulse power facilities the same thing as particle beam generators? Can they perform the same role?- does Russia have pulse power facilities? Are they modern? The only information I've been able to find is from the 1960s so I don't know if it's even worth reading throughhttps://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2212.htmlAnd a few comments:- the nuclear test ban comes from the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty. (Acronymized CTBT, they drop the N for no reason)- it was signed by Russia and 38 other states- it was not signed by DPRK, India, or Pakistan, although they were asked- it was signed but not ratified by China, Egypt, Israel, Iran and the United States- if you go to this handy map, you will see that a few regions are neither signed nor not signed nor ratified:https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-ctbt/- the gray zones include Ukraine. My assumption is the UN just ignored the existence of Ukraine as a sovereign nation, but maybe someone else has better insight into that era.- the gray zones also include the Donetsk and Luhansk separatist sham-states aproved by mad vlad- and he also already said he might just run some nuclear tests right up to the border of Ukraine- so if he gets nuclear armaments to one of those states and they just so happen to want to run a nuclear test on their land, or on his land "unbeknownst to him", then he's in the eyes of the public technically not breaking the treaty. I bet the treaty thought of such a case, but he might bet no one cares- mad vlad is suspiciously close to India nowadays- India does have a nuclear program- hopefully he'll be toobusyoccupied to thread all those pearls in one go

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2022, 04:27:55 pm
content: Hate to burst your bubble. No plasma beams. A tiny, very hot plasma is formed as part of the experiment.Pulsed power is all about compressing materials usingmega-amps of current or arrays of intense laser beams.The two facilities I have visited implode very tiny wiresusing a self pinching effect which occurs with massive, fast, currents. The hair fine wire is eventually vaporized.How the imaging is timed is not a subject for this post.Gold is the usual simulation material for the discharge style machines.Steve

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2022, 04:43:48 pm
content: I once attended a meeting of the IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, which includes fusion engineering, but also other topics and applications.https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome/1000597/all-proceedingsAt the time, I was working on pulsed electron linear accelerators for x-ray generation, and went to see what was happening with Marx generators.I reported afterwords to my colleagues that it was cool attending discussions of equipment that was designed to generate one pulse and explode (exploding wire generators).

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2022, 05:35:46 pm
content: Quotesounds like several of my projects

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2022, 06:47:18 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on October 14, 2022, 05:35:46 pmFar from it. These were designed to explode once, you see.Tim

author: cheater
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2022, 10:29:37 pm
content: Let's get back on track and think about what the situation of pulsed power facilities in Russia as well as their status with nuclear ice breakers means for their nuclear armament program.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2022, 10:58:38 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on October 14, 2022, 04:43:48 pmThings designed to generate one pulse and explode not uncommon in safety systems. You probably sit surrounded by several each day while commuting.

author: niconiconi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2022, 11:21:50 pm
content: Quote from: cheater on October 14, 2022, 10:56:29 amI know as much as you. As we have seen, the information available (at least in a quick web search) is very little, first because of the language barrier, next also because the relative openness of the US government is the exception rather than the norm. So the question remains open.P.S: During the search I also found a good review paper on the roles played by these research facilities on nuclear weapon testing. It's written from the perspective of nuclear test ban, outdated but still comprehensive, and it's likely relevant to your interest.Laboratory Testing in a Test Ban / Non-Proliferation RegimeAbove Ground Experiments threaten compliance with article VI of the non-proliferation treaty.http://scipp.ucsc.edu/~haber/UC_CORP/testban.html

author: niconiconi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 14, 2022, 11:30:00 pm
content: Also a short related presentation from Sandia National Laboratories.https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1513514