From: "John Beamish" 

My a-weapons acquaintance (from whom I got the drift) basically told me
that, even though the major powers haven't physically tested a weapon in
ages, the design of the weapons has been changing based on the computer
simulations.  From what you've just said, I'll know enough to prod him the
next time I see him.  You'll have to be patient ... we accompany our
partners to Christmas parties held by our partner's friends and that's
where we first crossed paths.


"Bill Lucy"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1b01fc9890865d8398993f{at}news.barkto.com...
> In article , JLBeamish{at}rogers.com says...
> > You are aware that most nuclear weapons testing is done via computer
> > simulations.  The absence of a physical test does not preclude
possession of
> > working weapons.  The fundamental technology is, after all, quite
simple.
> > Expensive.  But quite simple.
>
> I'm struggling right now. Although what you say above is somewhat
> correct, it is actually unlikely that an fission implosion device may be
> tested via computer simulations. At the very least it wasn't possible as
> recently as 5-6 years ago. Simulations generally are related to scaling
> and process rather than whether or not the fission occurs.
>
> A fusion device *can* be simulated completely though. It's one reason
> why it's necessary to test a fission implosion device. Data from the
> test can feed directly into the thermonuclear triggering.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5