Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: prudent or hasty?

[Travis]

The people wetting themselves over at the BA blog over Starfish Prime has gotten me wondering: was the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty a prudent measure or a hasty overreaction? Certainly a nuclear test done badly was potentially extremely dangerous but, then again, so is TNT. But TNT is useful and so, potentially, are nuclear explosives. In fact we may not have TNT if we had just decided, way back when, that because nitroglycerin is so dangerous that no more use of it would be tolerated.

So, what are we missing out on with nukes? What empirical data and potentially useful applications have we deprived ourselves of by banning their detonation under any circumstances short of war? Might this come back to bite us if we suddenly need to use nukes...like to deflect a comet?

 

[dtugg]

Well, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty is not in force yet nor has the United States ratified it. So underground nuclear tests are still permitted although the US hasn't done one in nearly 20 years. I don't think any further testing is necessary though. The United States alone had conducted over a thousand tests so there is plenty of data. If it needed to build more weapons for some reason, there are already proven designs, and if it was felt that it was needed to test them, it could still be done underground.

 

[Travis]

I don't think we should think of this purely in terms of "weapons" as it is possible for a nuclear explosive to have other applications.

 

[MG1962]

I don't think we should think of this purely in terms of "weapons" as it is possible for a nuclear explosive to have other applications.

As a person who grew up not to far from a series of these 'applications' I would prefer we didn't bother

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moruroa#Nuclear_testing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga

 

[Crossbow]

The people wetting themselves over at the BA blog over Starfish Prime has gotten me wondering: was the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty a prudent measure or a hasty overreaction? Certainly a nuclear test done badly was potentially extremely dangerous but, then again, so is TNT. But TNT is useful and so, potentially, are nuclear explosives. In fact we may not have TNT if we had just decided, way back when, that because nitroglycerin is so dangerous that no more use of it would be tolerated.

So, what are we missing out on with nukes? What empirical data and potentially useful applications have we deprived ourselves of by banning their detonation under any circumstances short of war? Might this come back to bite us if we suddenly need to use nukes...like to deflect a comet?

This treaty is long overdue!

It was first proposed by the Kennedy Administration and has had several starts and fits since then.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

This treaty is long overdue!

It was first proposed by the Kennedy Administration and has had several starts and fits since then.

while you are correct ideologically, it doesnt seem to matter in the real world

all the countries that are signatories (even those such as the US and china who have not ratified the treaty) have not conducted any tests since the treaty was signed, even though its not in force

on the other hand, the countries who you really worry about with regards to nuclear testing (india, pakistan, and north korea for me at least) have not even signed the treaty

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The only ones who need to do any testing are the ones who are not sure they have a reliable device ..

What are we going to do if they refuse to stop testing ?

 

[geni]

So, what are we missing out on with nukes? What empirical data and potentially useful applications have we deprived ourselves of by banning their detonation under any circumstances short of war?

The treaty allows for Peaceful nuclear explosions. For example if you wanted to use nuclear weapons to dig a canal to the Qattara Depression that would be legal.

Might this come back to bite us if we suddenly need to use nukes...like to deflect a comet?

No. We know how to scale fussion bombs to any arbitrar yield and the Davy Crockett program covers miniturisation.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The treaty allows for Peaceful nuclear explosions. For example if you wanted to use nuclear weapons to dig a canal to the Qattara Depression that would be legal.

not quite:

ARTICLE I

BASIC OBLIGATIONS

1. Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any
nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear
explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear
explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

2. Each State Party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain
from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the
carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any
other nuclear explosion.

http://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/content/treaty/treaty_text.pdf

it would seem the treaty bans all nuclear explosions for any purpose by any party

 

[theprestige]

Personally, I think the U.S. should detonate one test nuke every year, beginning ten years from now.

Assemble a team of qualified professionals, and give them a ten year grant (or five years, or three years, or seven years, or whatever) to design and build the best possible nuke they can. In year ten, detonate it.

The definition of "best possible nuke" would vary from grant to grant. Maybe Year One would see a bomb that meets military requirements for a smaller, more efficient bomb that meets key mission objectives with greatly reduced side effects.

Year Two might be not so much about the bomb itself, but about the numerous innovations in safety and efficiency in the manufacturing process.

Year Three might focus on a novel and productive telemetry system for gathering and recording data about nuclear detonations.

And so on. Each year, a new bomb. Each year, the product of ten year's worth of the best and the brightest efforts in this field. Each year, an advancement of the state of the art. Each year, a demonstration of mastery and resolve in a field few other nations can afford to enter, let alone excel in.

I think other nations should do the same, or similar, if they can afford it. And I think the U.S. should have similar programs in as many scientific and engineering fields as possible: rocketry, bioscience, nuclear power, medicine, agriculture, deepwater oil drilling, etc.

But above all nuclear weapons. In a world where the nuclear genie is already out of the bottle, it is in any nation's best interest to have the best possible nuclear weapons, and the most possible knowledge of the subject. I think that any nation that can afford such an asset should invest in it.

 

[Travis]

I should just point out that I'm a believer that you should use empirical data whenever possible. Modeling in computers is nice but it will never give us everything we want....and further testing might allow us to refine them so that they aren't nearly as dangerous for peaceful applications.

 

[theprestige]

...and further testing might allow us to refine them so that they aren't nearly as dangerous for peaceful applications.

... or for military applications, either.

 

[geni]

not quite:

http://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/content/treaty/treaty_text.pdf

it would seem the treaty bans all nuclear explosions for any purpose by any party

Check the 10 year review clause.

 

[geni]

Maybe Year One would see a bomb that meets military requirements for a smaller, more efficient bomb that meets key mission objectives with greatly reduced side effects.

Already in the inventory. Politics means that if you want to use the thing you end up with the likes of the MOAB.

Year Two might be not so much about the bomb itself, but about the numerous innovations in safety and efficiency in the manufacturing process.

1)You don't need to test a weapon to do that and 2)We don't want innovations in safety and efficiency in the manufacturing process. It's already become too efficienct and too safe.

Year Three might focus on a novel and productive telemetry system for gathering and recording data about nuclear detonations.

You don't need a nulcear explosion for that. See the Minor Scale test.

And so on. Each year, a new bomb. Each year, the product of ten year's worth of the best and the brightest efforts in this field. Each year, an advancement of the state of the art. Each year, a demonstration of mastery and resolve in a field few other nations can afford to enter, let alone excel in.

Apartheid south africa was able to build nuclear weapons. In practical terms any industrialised nation has the technical capacity to build them.

But above all nuclear weapons. In a world where the nuclear genie is already out of the bottle, it is in any nation's best interest to have the best possible nuclear weapons, and the most possible knowledge of the subject. I think that any nation that can afford such an asset should invest in it.

The best posible are likely a waste of resources. In practical terms US european and Russian weapons are already well beyond the point of good enough.

 

[geni]

I should just point out that I'm a believer that you should use empirical data whenever possible. Modeling in computers is nice but it will never give us everything we want....and further testing might allow us to refine them so that they aren't nearly as dangerous for peaceful applications.

If you really need empirical data it can be obtained though sub critical testing. Which is perhaps fortunate because have you any idea how much it would cost to say aquire a critical mass of californium?

 

[Roboramma]

Travis' point here seems to be more about using nuclear weapons for engineering projects than anything else. I half agree with him: it's certainly something that should be on the table when it makes sense.

On the other hand I think that the situations in which is makes sense are, at the moment, so few as to be nearly non-existent. I think the engineering uses that the russians put them to tended to bite them in the ass. Nuclear weapons are just too big to give much use, and the radiation tends to be a bit of a problem as well.

 

[Travis]

Sure, but think of how dangerous nitroglycerin was. It was stupidly dangerous to the point many wanted it banned outright. However with over a century of refinement we now use high explosive derivatives all the time with very good results. Just imagine some of the huge projects that would have been basically impossible without all the modern high explosives that are now ubiquitous.

 

[geni]

Sure, but think of how dangerous nitroglycerin was. It was stupidly dangerous to the point many wanted it banned outright. However with over a century of refinement we now use high explosive derivatives all the time with very good results. Just imagine some of the huge projects that would have been basically impossible without all the modern high explosives that are now ubiquitous.

However more stable high explosives turned up withing a couple of decades of nitroglycerin while we've got 40 years of nuclear testing and about the only thing we've got to show for it are ways to make the things even more radioactive. It's doubtful we've learnt anything from nuclear testing since at best the mid 80s with the early 90s shots looking very much to have been done to provide the traditional proof that the thing works.

further development of nuclear physics is covered by related field that are able to provide far more data without blowing anything up.

 

[Soapy Sam]

They work.
We already know they work.
Their primary function is to scare hell out of rational people.
They do that very nicely.

Only a loony with a microscopic penis feels any need to own one of these things.
It's not the right to bear arms we're talking about here, it's the ability to fry millions of people because you feel like it.

Enough, already.