Skip to main content

Has Russia resumed nuclear resting?

Has Russia resumed nuclear resting? 
See NYT article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/russia-nuclear-tests.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage 

Comments

Anonymous said…

Who cares?

A better question is if anyone from one of the labs has ever gone to a Chinese restaurant and not reported it on the next clearance paper work. Anyone could be guilty....even you. The enemy is us not in Russian.
Anonymous said…
Insanity is everywhere these days.
Anonymous said…
Russia never quit nuclear testing!
Anonymous said…
Nor did the US quit nuke testing!
Anonymous said…
Russia is suspected of actual nuclear testing above zero yield. US sub-nuclears are not the same thing.
Anonymous said…
if only we could agree on the definition of the word "is"
Anonymous said…
8:48, “we” don’t matter. The treaties are quit clear on the subject.
Anonymous said…
What ratified treaty in force are you referring to?
Anonymous said…
What ratified treaty in force are you referring to?

6/07/2019 4:20 AM

Obviously, there is none. CBTB was never ratified by nuclear states US, China, Israel, NK, India, Pakistan. Source: cbto.org.
Anonymous said…
While it is true the US Senate has failed to ratify the CTBT, it is nonetheless written in clear language that the US, at least, has adhered to. Yes, those facts are, “obvious”. What is less obvious is Russia’s intent with respect to that document, and indeed testing in general.
Anonymous said…
While it is true the US Senate has failed to ratify the CTBT...

6/08/2019 10:43 AM

It did not not "fail." It did well not to ratify.
Anonymous said…
The CTBT treaty language is so vague that it is objectively impossible to enforce the US interpretation across the full possible range.

Keep in mind that the soil beneath your feet is likely fissioning, albeit at a low rate. To outlaw all fissions by political fiat is a ridiculous fantasy.

Then it comes down to the definition of a nuclear explosion, which is not what is happening under most people's feet. I suspect that line of reasoning underlies the logic of some foreign scientists, and their leaders. Whether or not they act on such reasoning is a separate issue.

Use better language in a treaty next time. CTBT was doomed by the compromised wording of Article 1.
Anonymous said…
6/09/2019 9:52 PM

Well said.
Anonymous said…
Well, given your profound insights into treaty language, and the fact that the treaty is updated every ten years, it seems to me you should advise on the updated language immediately. Or, you could make random and incorrect pronouncements on a blog. Your call.
Anonymous said…
I suspect more than one very experienced CTBT technical advisor may be lurking in the vicinity of this blog.
Anonymous said…
C'mon folks, what moron would sign a treaty prohibiting "nuclear explosions" that did not even so much as define what constituted a "nuclear explosion." ?

This so-called "treaty" is fundamentally un-enforcible. If the Russians choose to ignore a worthless piece of paper, then they are provably smarter than the average policy wonk advising our elected politicians.

Critical thinking is a lost art in the US!
Anonymous said…
Apparently, so is nuanced thinking.
Anonymous said…
Apparently, so nuanced that nobody else understood. Failed diplomacy.
Anonymous said…
6/15/2019 9:12 AM should have said that the Ruskies are definitely smarter than the wannabe policy wonks commenting on this blog!
Anonymous said…
Here’s a pretty insightful podcast on this whole issue.

“The United States intelligence community, or a portion of it, has concluded that Russia is conducting very low-yield nuclear tests. Aaron Stein and Dr. Jeffrey Lewis discuss past allegations of nuclear testing, open source monitoring of Russia’s nuclear test site at Novaya Zemlya and how the Trump Administration might change its mind on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.”

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1207600/low-yield-nuclear-testing-in-russia/
Anonymous said…
Trump has never weighed in on the CTBT. As far as the US is concerned, it is not in force. Not so "insightful."
Anonymous said…
Actually if you listen to their discussion they talk about how the administration might find focusing on definitions (eg what does zero yield mean) and test site access, as opposed to testing vs non-testing.
Anonymous said…
Speak English much? "..might find focusing.."??
Anonymous said…
6/18/2019 5:48 PM

You don't seem to following the major point, which is actually the point after all.
Anonymous said…
Attempting "points" while using lousy grammar and sentence structure was something that was drilled out of me in high school. Sloppy speech/writing = sloppy thought.
Anonymous said…
Attempting "points" while using lousy grammar and sentence structure was something that was drilled out of me in high school. Sloppy speech/writing = sloppy thought.

6/20/2019 6:52 PM

Still not getting it, are you. Sigh
Anonymous said…
Grammar errors are only allowed by the grammar police when they agree with your point. It’s called trolling or deflecting, etc
Anonymous said…
No "point" except that poor grammar is an indication of poor education. Did you get what you paid for?

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!