“sometime in the last 24 years we know they did SOMETHING inconsistent with (incoherent) US “zero-yield” interpretation.”

But...if you don’t know how many or when or even what then how can you claim it was inconsistenr with US Zero Yield interpretation? https://twitter.com/kingstonareif/status/1250491310789873665

Let’s also talk how “zero-yield” is:

A) a definitional nightmare that streches way beyond hydro-nuclear tests (it can & will be argued) US is fixated on.

&

B) unverifiable (for foreseeable future)

Which you don’t want in your arms control treaties if you can avoid it.

3/n

Let’s also talk how “zero-yield interpretation” has increasingly become point of polarization mobilized (sometimes bad faith) to foment suspicion in opposition to Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

RememberMadeline Albright demarsh-mallowed Russians?

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998-05/features/false-accusations-undetected-tests-implications-ctb-treaty

4/n

The “RUSSIA HAS TESTED A NUKE/HYDRO-NUCLEAR TEST!” accusations have long been a talking point as the Albeight incident suggests...

....oh, and look who else was peddling vague Russian nuclear test theories 9 months ago?

JOHN BOLTON!

@CherylRofer https://nucleardiner.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/john-bolton-goes-for-the-big-one-the-ctbt/

5/n

”Zero yield is not a technically viable statement”

As I pointed out last time we accused Russians of violating CTBT (which US has not ratified)...

...we violate a strict Zero Yield interpretation rule everytime we shock plutonium or HEU FFS.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1122950

6/n

Right on time!

United States has signed—but not ratified—CTBT so it always entertains me somewhat that we so gleefully & w/o public evidence accuse others of violating it.

But here’s Mr. I Hate Treaties doing exactly what I described above:

https://twitter.com/jackdetsch/status/1250532854913785856?s=21 https://twitter.com/jackdetsch/status/1250532854913785856

7/n

What is hydronuclear testing?

-produces tiny nuclear yield thru supercritical chain reaction.

-lets you see & measure how weapons & primaries start to go nuclear.

usefullness depends on test experience & capability but not great for weapon development, etc.

8/n

The United States conducted multiple hydronuclear tests during the 1958-1961 nuclear test moratorium.

Discussed in this short and readable report:

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/19/033/19033584.pdf

Positions hydronuclears of 1958-1961 as both undetectable & necessary for checking warhead safety.

9/n

US was never as fond of hydronuclear testing as the Soviets, IIUC, but we did a fair (classifed) number.

means we blew up & left in NV packages of radioactive, toxic, & dangerous metals & materials.

Sometimes we left the shafts uncovered!

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc694589/m2/1/high_res_d/615630.pdf

10/10

That’s it from me on hydronuclear tests tonight.

As always if you learn from, enjoy, or whatever from my research and work please enable it:

http://paypal.me/nuclearanthro 
http://patreon.com/nuclearanthro