PDA

View Full Version : Sub Kiloton test



Sumku
24 May 10,, 15:45
To all masters and experts out here is what can be considered a dumb question. If that is the case, please still atleast say Yes or No.

I understand that at some point of time Nuclear testing would again be done by all 5+3 to test the existing stockpiles or to Validate new concepts.

My Question thus is :-
Rather than doing a MT or KT tests, would it be possible to calibrate/collect/generate the expected yields/data/info by conducting Sub KT tests? or is it that MT tests are a necessity for testing certain concepts?

I have 1 more question but think that it would be post to that question depending on that answer to the above question.

Officer of Engineers
24 May 10,, 16:00
Even a sub kiloton test would be a violation of the Test Ban treaty. The only tests allowed are zero yield tests.

Sumku
24 May 10,, 16:16
Even a sub kiloton test would be a violation of the Test Ban treaty. The only tests allowed are zero yield tests.

I understand that Sir, however somewhere around late 1990s-early 2000s offer was made to India to Join CTBT with Permission to do only SUB KT Tests.
I will get you reference links later.

Now can I please Sir, have answer to my original Question:)

zraver
24 May 10,, 16:26
Then info you get wouldn't be any better than what computer modeling could provide.

Officer of Engineers
24 May 10,, 16:45
My Question thus is :-
Rather than doing a MT or KT tests, would it be possible to calibrate/collect/generate the expected yields/data/info by conducting Sub KT tests? or is it that MT tests are a necessity for testing certain concepts?To answer your question, how much confidence do you have in the North Koreans in building a 10+kt device on their two tests of less than one kt and less than 1.5 kt?

USSWisconsin
24 May 10,, 16:58
a zero yield test would be done with inert simulated componnents and would prove the HE compression of the primary, a simulated primary pit would be retreived and the amount of compression achieved would be analyzed, the containment of the HE compression would be studied to ensure it did not prematurely disassemble the weapon and break the secondary. Low yield tests would be able to demonstrate primary performance to ensure adequate assembly intergrity, radation compression and secondary ignition. Without any real yield data to calibrate the computer simulations - the full yield simulations would be questionable.

USSWisconsin
24 May 10,, 17:06
To all masters and experts out here is what can be considered a dumb question. If that is the case, please still atleast say Yes or No.

I understand that at some point of time Nuclear testing would again be done by all 5+3 to test the existing stockpiles or to Validate new concepts.

My Question thus is :-
Rather than doing a MT or KT tests, would it be possible to calibrate/collect/generate the expected yields/data/info by conducting Sub KT tests? or is it that MT tests are a necessity for testing certain concepts?

I have 1 more question but think that it would be post to that question depending on that answer to the above question.

My answer is: YES, only if they had good data from someone who had conducted full yield tests

Sumku
24 May 10,, 17:21
To answer your question, how much confidence do you have in the North Koreans in building a 10+kt device on their two tests of less than one kt and less than 1.5 kt?

On the face of it, one can say that if 1 KT was successful then blow the device first 10 times and then work out ways to Miniaturize the device. This however is easier said then done. So No.

Effectiveness of such a device would be questionable for some and would be deterrent for some - depending on whether or not you are the likely target of such a device.

Sumku
24 May 10,, 17:26
My answer is: YES, only if they had good data from someone who had conducted full yield tests

So what you gentleman are suggesting is that effectiveness of 1MT device of both India and Pakistan would be questionable. Understood that point.

USSWisconsin
24 May 10,, 17:45
So what you gentleman are suggesting is that effectiveness of 1MT device of both India and Pakistan would be questionable. Understood that point.

NK Questionable, but data would not be impossible for them to get, given the nuclear nations that are known for thier prolifferation facilitation. I would think that Chinese, Soviet or French data would be the most likely sources of accurate calibration info they might be able to get their hands on.

India has done TN tests, scaling from 300KT to MT is not as hard as getting up to that point. I beleive India has MT weapons. Need to review what Pakistan has done, but they definately have boosted fission weapons >30KT and that was a long time ago.

Officer of Engineers
24 May 10,, 18:10
I believe open source indicates India is scaleable from 45-200 kts but there is confusion about the reliability of the data as some scientists have now come forth saying the tests failed.

Pakistani device are estimated at the 15-20kt yield the last time I checked.

The only country still with multi-megaton warheads is China and that's because they're for the DF-5s but those are being retired as newer DF-31whatevers are coming on line with the smaller scalable 15-200kt warheads.

USSWisconsin
24 May 10,, 20:40
I believe open source indicates India is scaleable from 45-200 kts but there is confusion about the reliability of the data as some scientists have now come forth saying the tests failed.

Pakistani device are estimated at the 15-20kt yield the last time I checked.

The only country still with multi-megaton warheads is China and that's because they're for the DF-5s but those are being retired as newer DF-31whatevers are coming on line with the smaller scalable 15-200kt warheads.

I agree, the numbers I was thinking of were from their tests years ago, the current state of thier stock pile is probably as you have described, big nukes have been superceeded by smaller, more accurate versions. The maintanence on the smaller types is less expensive and they are just as effective without as many side effects (less EMP and fall out).

USSWisconsin
24 May 10,, 21:53
a zero yield test would be done with inert simulated componnents and would prove the HE compression of the primary, a simulated primary pit would be retreived and the amount of compression achieved would be analyzed, the containment of the HE compression would be studied to ensure it did not prematurely disassemble the weapon and break the secondary. Low yield tests would be able to demonstrate primary performance to ensure adequate assembly intergrity, radation compression and secondary ignition. Without any real yield data to calibrate the computer simulations - the full yield simulations would be questionable.

for nuclear weapons up to about 40-50 KT, there is normally no secondary, fission boosting is used to get a primary device to yield over ~20 KT. While larger unboosted primary yields are possible, the devices are very unstable. For larger yields a Thermonuclear design with a secondary is normally used, by varying the strength of the primary with boosting, different levels of secondary yield can be configured, alternatively the amount of fuel in the secondary can be adjusted. The dial a yield type uses variable boosting. Lower yields, like sub kiloton, can be configured by reducing the effectiveness of the HE primary initiation or through the use of fission inhibiting materials.