Joseph Chikva wrote:ladajo wrote:If they never produce viable "Fusion Power", that is ok, because from the beginning, that has not been their primary purpose.
At least there in the links provided by you is written "thermonuclear burn".
And primary purpose of all such inertial confinement approaches in their seed (idea) stage in the 70s of last century was the production of net power with the help of "thermonuclear burn". But now we see only NIF is considered as military program.
That is the fact.
What do you think, why?
My assumption that because of low efficiency of lasers not allowing to achieve Q>1. As I cannot see another explanation. But know that power generation is more significant than simulation of weapon that will never be used and even old design of which works with more than enough efficiency.
Aged? Out of date? Ok, you easily can build new with the same old design.
I really cannot understand the need of such simulation.
Joe, read the links I gave you. You will then understand that the US no longer makes new weapons, and has not for a while. That is what "Stockpile Stewardship" is all about.
Gahhh...
As for how can NIF simulate a weapon...a little thought would tell you that it is in what they choose to fry. And that this sort of experimentation can help validate/update the existing computer simulations for weapons.
Do I also have to tell you that the main purpose of US Supercomputing is driven by the same issue?
Building and maintaining real and useful nuclear weapons, contrary to Hollywood and The Left is not something you can do in your Garden Shed. This is the main reason a number of nations have abandoned their weapons programs in the past. They got far enough along to finally realize they could not afford to keep it up, and also that they would never gain any sort of parity with the top tier. It takes a massive amount of resources and ability to produce and maintain these weapons. So much so that the US figured out that it was much cheaper just to maintain. But even that is a finite argument. Some day, we may find we will need to spin up and make some new ones, as keeping the old ones is costing too much. Pakistan and India are great examples. They have a nacent capability that is costing them a fortune, and for what really? Do you really think that the limited exchange they are capable of is going to win the war? Not a chance. It will be decided by ground forces, and probably India will win. They have mass on their side.
Look at North Korea. After how many years of trying it is still not certain they have a functioning weapon design. The muted "tests" are certainly not indicative as to having figured it out. And, more than likely, they have certainly not figured it out well enough to be able to put it on a rocket. It is even questionable that they have it figured out well enough to put it in an aircraft.
Israel is another great example. Arguably they have figured it out. Even to the point to be able to mount it on a rocket or drop it from aircraft. But how many do they really have? I would argue just enough to smoke the major cities of the regional "anti-zionist" crowd. They may be able to supplement with a number of battlefield tactical devices. But even that capability costs.
If nukes were easy and cheap, don't you think a whole lot more folks would have them?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
