This is false, almost all of those employees have a Q clearance. You can search the job listings for keywords like ‘Wci’ ‘high energy density’, etc to confirm.
Part of the purpose is definitely personnel related though. Part of the US nuclear deterrence is the projection of having a large, highly skilled nuclear weapon related workforce.
Those experiments and supercomputer modelling is what allowed US to get sub-10kt nukes without actual testing. Credible promise of responding with those small nukes directly against Russian regime is what stopped Putin's threat of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Wrt. inertial confinement fusion productization I think the delay is intentional (just look at Sandia z-machine results from 20+ years ago and all the ways of tempering and redirecting progress since then there) as such schemes allow for fusion weapons without fission primary which will completely break the non-proliferation regime.
W-54 isn't here anymore. So instead US have tuned down W-76 into 5-8kt. I.e. getting new capabilities without testing (there are recent tuned down, though not that low, versions of B61 too). And that is open information. One can expect that classified would be at least a step ahead, i.e. something like 1kt. Coupled with high precision delivery and earth-penetration designs (that US has been using across the range - from conventional to B61) that makes for extremely effective deterrence as it allows to take out a dictator like Putin deep in his underground bunker if he crosses the line (Putin becoming the first and primary target himself is the cornerstone of the current deterrence architecture), and other strategic keypoints without initiating full scale war.
> Putin becoming the first and primary target himself is the cornerstone of the current deterrence architecture
Do you have any reference for this?
I'm familiar with US Nuclear bunker buster bombs. But I've never seen any writing that makes the claim the US deterrence policy is targeting Putin.
Indeed [1] makes the claim that the US in incapable of successfully attacking Russian command and control bunkers and seems from a reasonably credible writer.
> Credible promise of responding with those small nukes directly against Russian regime is what stopped Putin's threat of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Link to credible reports where the US said they would respond with nukes? AFAIK, this never happened and I paid close attention
I have no inside knowledge whatsoever but we can all rest assured that each side is in a near constant back and forth of implicit unstated "communication" about capabilities and doctrine.
Merely publishing a paper on a certain subtopic in the fusion space can easily be interpreted as an implied threat or threat response.
Of course the US does have a stated doctrine of using nukes only in response to nukes used against it or its allies. It is enormously doubtful that the US would trigger an end-of-days scenario in response to Russia using tactical/low-yield nukes against a non-US-ally like Ukraine, but the uncertainty is for sure purposefully cultivated.
Do sub-10kt nukes really involve any fusion at all?
I have read of spiking conventional fission warheads with a core of fusible material to boost yield, but maximizing yield does not seem to be the goal of these devices.
One kind of the low yield weapons is to have very precisely placed smaller explosion - those ones is mostly fission core, and the other is to have high neutron flux with minimal blast effects - with that instead of a point you'd want to cover a wide area.
What are your mid-term and long-term goals? Do you want to advance in your company, or find a new job? If new job, are you looking for a local job, to move, or remote?
My generic thoughts without really knowing your situation: I think an associates degree for the purpose of programming job qualifications is nearly worthless. There are some corporate jobs that require bachelors degrees- I think largely as an HR requirement.
I think generally you would be better off with either A) getting a new job that is better aligned with what you are looking for, or B) going for a bachelors and using your networking and resources from the university to get a different job.
Again all of this is incredibly generic, and your specific circumstances will certainly change the picture.
> I don't know the school system in Singapore, but in the US, we have community colleges that accept everyone. Most people in your situation take a few classes at a community college to prove that they can succeed in that environment, and then try again with the university. If there are similar option in Singapore, I'd go that route.
I also am not familiar with the Singapore system, but that is my first thought as well. Also sometimes scoring high on a standardized test (if applicable in Singapore) can make up for some bad grades.
I second this and was coming here to post exactly this. I have no doubt that without a latex template that was iteratively updated by students over the years that my thesis would have taken considerably longer to write.
Here are my thoughts as someone who hires and supervises data scientist and statisticians. I personally find that candidates are lacking in one or more of three areas: 1) Technical knowledge, 2) Problem solving, 3) Communication. I would advise a little introspection or feedback from others to figure out which of these areas you could improve, and let that guide you with how best to prepare.
Other than that it heavily depends on the company you are interviewing for. One one extreme some interviews will feel more like trivia questions, and others might be obscure IQ test style puzzles. Good luck!
I also like the large sized reader. It's not something I need anyone but when you find a technical manual or text book as a pdf only the remarkable is a pretty good reader. I do like the Kobo for most of my reading but it's nice not for the oddly shaped big stuff.
>NIF, remember, is funded by the DoD. It's not a civilian reactor research program: it's a device for testing fusion reactions in the lab now that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty means that they're not allowed to test H-bombs out in Nevada.
*DOE’. There is a quasi-separation of powers, where DOE ‘owns’ the weapons and the DOD ‘uses’ them.
The DOE is a fascinating organization btw…anyone who is so nonchalant about public oversight and security practices that the DOD gets angry at them has to be fun at parties.
Note that in the US nuclear weapons are controlled by the DOE, and not the DOD.