In the vast expanse of Nevada’s desert, where once the ground puffed up like a giant balloon, scientific history was made. The year was 1992 when a nuclear device detonated below the earth’s surface, unleashing forces equivalent to thousands of tons of TNT. Shock waves rippled outward, rocks melted and fractured, leaving behind a cavity filled with liquid radioactive rock.
Unknown to those involved in this test named Divider, it marked the end of an era. The United States halted nuclear testing soon after. But now, decades later, whispers of resuming underground tests have stirred debates and dissent among scientists worldwide.
### A Blast from the Past
“During the Cold War…it was like war drums: ‘We have nuclear weapons and they work. Better watch out.’”
– Frank von Hippel
With over 2,000 atomic blasts since Trinity in 1945, global nuclear testing echoed loudly until silenced by norms set by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in the mid-1990s. Only North Korea has conducted a nuclear test this century.
As nations grapple with maintaining aging arsenals amidst geopolitical tensions, calls to resume tests grow louder. Today’s intricate weapons demand complex understanding—how plutonium ages inside them poses critical questions about their reliability.
### Enter Subcritical Experiments
“We’ve always found better ways than returning to explosive testing.”
– Marvin Adams
The Nevada desert isn’t silent; subcritical experiments hum beneath its surface at PULSE facility. By imploding or shocking plutonium without triggering sustained reactions that define a blast, scientists mimic weapon conditions but ensure safety.
These experiments coupled with powerful supercomputers provide vital data for modernizing arsenals without risking global nuclear escalation triggered by full-fledged tests.
### The Ethical Quandary
“There is no scientific reason we need to test.” – Jill Hruby
Subcritical experiments offer hope for maintaining stockpiles without breaching CTBT bans on explosive tests. However, concerns linger over defining ‘zero yield’ experiments under CTBT rules as political tensions rise globally.
While advances in monitoring detect small-scale underground explosions swiftly today—a stark contrast from past incidents like Baneberry test’s fallout release—the risks remain ever-present even as technology evolves.
### Looking Ahead
“The chance of non-containment increases if others follow suit.”
– Sulgiye Park
International cooperation faces challenges amid differing views on what constitutes a legitimate experiment versus a banned test under current treaties. As uncertainties loom over pit aging and arsenal reliability, balancing science with ethics becomes paramount in steering our nuclear future towards safety and security for all mankind.
