Three myths about "nuclear weapons"

Text from the Los Alamos Primer that disclosed a model for a nuclear chain reaction based on “prompt” neutrons.

There are few historical events, if any, that have had greater impact than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The world emerged from those events into the nuclear age and a newfound awareness of the fragility of the world. “Apocalypse” went from being a biblical reference to an ever-present existential threat.

The foundational presumption of the nuclear age is, of course, that nuclear weapons exist. That is likely false. More precisely, the evidence for the existence of nuclear weapons is extremely weak. Three widely-accepted myths are set forth below that raise deep questions about whether nuclear weapons exist.

• Myth: The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are proof that nuclear weapons exist.

  In an article entitled “Atomic Bomb Hysteria“ published in February 1946, Maj. Alexander P. de Seversky, wrote: “… the effects of the atom bombs – not of future bombs, but of these two – had been wildly exaggerated.” As reported in Hiroshima Revisited, de Seversky wrote: “…Hiroshima from the air looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities I had observed!”.

• Myth: A nuclear explosion will take place if the critical mass of a fissile element is present.

  In fact, laboratory experiments are routinely conducted with super-critical masses of highly-enriched uranium-235. For example, the National Criticality Experiments Research Center recently reported on studies involving experiments on highly-enriched uranium in super-critical states. In these studies, nuclear chain reactions occur when a critical mass of the fissile material is assembled. However, these studies show that such chain-reactions rapidly self-extinguish. The ultimate result of such nuclear chain reactions is the deposition of heat in the fissile material which, in turn, reduces the capacity of the fissile material to sustain the chain reaction.

• Myth: There is scientific consensus that nuclear weapons are feasible.

  There are several scientific publications showing that nuclear weapons are feasible. One theoretical model found that an explosion of fissile material such a uranium could be obtained with an efficiency of 1% for the conversion of nuclear energy to kinetic energy. Given the extreme energy density of fissile material, that would be sufficient to produce a bomb. Another model found that the energy yield from a nuclear chain reaction based on “prompt” neutrons - without the moderator material present in power plant nuclear reactors - would be expected to produce 10,000 MJ of energy in a near instantaneous reaction with a mass only marginally greater than the critical mass.

  However, all studies showing the feasibility of nuclear weapons originate from the Los Alamos Laboratory. Software used in the simulation of prompt-neutron chain reactions is described in the publications: “PAD: A One-Dimensional, Coupled Neutronic-Thermodynamic-Hydrodynamic Computer Code” and “PAGOSA Physics Manual”. However, the software is not publicly available, as far as I know.

  Another method for simulation of the “multiphysics” of prompt-neutron chain reactions has been developed. Significant power levels were observed in prompt-neutron chain reactions but results for cases approaching the magnitude of a nuclear explosion were not reported.

  In summary, there is every reason to be skeptical that nuclear weapons exist.

  As a society, we believe that nuclear weapons exist purely on the say-so of the US government.