They shot, but missed
Richard Miniter, Washington Editor at Pajamas Media has a special report on whether the North Korean test was a fake. He suggests that it was genuine, but flawed.
So, was the blast a fake? It is possible but not likely, says a well-placed bureaucratic source. Some intelligence community contrarians suggest that North Korea might have synchronized some 600-800 tons of TNT to explode in a mountainside tunnel. The emerging consensus is that such a trick would be very difficult; getting all of the TNT to explode in the same nanosecond is nearly impossible. ... Possibly the ring of some 12 to 16 conventional bombs designed to create the nuclear implosion misfired, with some detonations occurring too late or not at all, or the design was flawed.
Read the whole thing. (Nothing follows)
posted by wretchardthecat at 10/12/2006 05:16:00 PM
26 Comments:
So why does it take so long to scrutinize the seismographic data?
The explosion occurs, the seismograph records it. the intelligence officers look at the peaks. Should take all of about 10 - 15 seconds to scrutinize.
sam,
My only guess, based on what I have read, is that the data is modified by models which take geological structure and possible spoofing into account. I posted a comment from the chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission (they have a working bomb) which describes the ways in which nuclear powers distort signatures. Of course, this might be assigning too much skill to the North Koreans, but it is the only answer I can think of to your question.
When you brandish a pea-shooter in Dodge City you better make damn sure it don't hang-fire. On the other hand, if Li'l Kim wants to waste 20% of his preciousssssssssssss plutonium every time until he gets it right, maybe we should let him go ahead.
Dedicated to KIm Jung
The Great Pretender
The Platters
_____
Oh yes, I'm the great pretender
Pretending that I'm doing well
My need is such
I pretend too much
I'm lonely even no one can tell
Oh yes, I'm the great pretender
Adrift in a world of my own
I play the game, but to my real shame
You've left me to dream all alone
I think the biggest problem is that the explosion was too small...
A small underground explosion coupled with no radiation means...what exactly?
A dud
a partial
A fake
A test of a very small bomb
It takes a while to figure it out.
I'm voting for a partial. "Something" went off so it wasn't a dud, as noted synchronized conventional explosions are difficult, but not as difficult as creating a working 'small' bomb.
So, a Partial. I suppose we'll know eventually.
"The emerging consensus is that such a trick would be very difficult; getting all of the TNT to explode in the same nanosecond is nearly impossible."
What? Wait... I didn't think most seismographs had resolutions allowing that sort of discrimination. Am I wrong?
Ivan, the Tsar Bomba, 50 megatons, biggest ever.
The original USA estimate of the yield was 57 Mt, but since 1991 all Russian sources have stated its yield as "only" 50 Mt. Nonetheless, Khrushchev warned in a filmed speech to the Communist parliament of the existence of a 100 Mt bomb. The fireball touched the ground, reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane, and was seen 1,000 km away. The heat could have caused third degree burns at a distance of 100 km. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 60 km high and 30–40 km wide. The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, even breaking windows there.[citation needed] Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1,000 km away. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the earth.
Since 50 Mt is 2.1×1017 joules, the average power produced during the entire fission-fusion process, lasting around 3.9×10-8 seconds or 39 nanoseconds, was a power of about 5.3×1024 watts or 5.3 yottawatts. This is equivalent to approximately 1% of the power output of the Sun. The detonation of Tsar Bomba therefore qualifies, even to this day, as being the single most powerful device ever utilized throughout the history of humanity. By contrast, the largest weapon ever produced by the United States, the now-decommissioned B41, had a predicted maximum yield of 25 Mt, and the largest nuclear device ever tested by the USA (Castle Bravo) yielded 15 Mt. Note the recent comparison with asteroid impacts which may have formed the Chicxulub Crater and the Wilkes Land crater, both larger events by some six orders of magnitude.
"Ivan" wiki
You don't waste missiles or plutonium in testing. You can always make more - unless you are stopped by other people.
This nuclear test has gotten the attention of even the Chinese and EUtopians. It is feasible that the US could bomb the Yongbong (sp.?) reactor with the world's blessing now.
The original USA estimate of the yield was 57 Mt, but since 1991 all Russian sources have stated its yield as "only" 50 Mt.
The radius of damage from nukes goes up with the cube root of the yield. That means a 1000 megaton bomb would only make a crater 10 times the diameter of a 1 megaton bomb. And of course, it could never be weaponized. So it's better to make lots of smaller ones.
I think it is time for Bush to give justice where it is due. His predecessor, Bill Clinton, and the otherwise unfortunate Madeleine Albright, successfully planted saboteurs in the NORK nuke development program. It would be gracious of him to admit this, as they are now not getting much other credit for their foreign policy.
Yes, and there are thousands of these plants, they're known as the "North Korean Nuclear Weapons Industry".
catherine said... 10/13/2006 06:55:58 AM
We inserted plants? Why didn't we just help Kim crocus and begonia?
Now that sort of wit starts to challenge buddy Larsen for the crown ;)
The Weekly Standard
Although the Pakistanis claimed to have detonated five bombs (likely an attempt to demonstrate parity with India), only two detonations were confirmed by seismic activity in the area, and this seismic activity showed the tests were conducted as much as 80 miles away from one another. The second test produced a much smaller blast in the subkiloton range.
According to Pike, there is reason to suspect that this second blast, in 1998, might have been carried out by the North Koreans. This speculation is based on the fact that a number of North Koreans were on hand for these tests, and seen leaving the country immediately after. Also the Pakistanis' first blast was captured on video and played for news outlets around the world, while a veil of secrecy surrounded the subsequent, smaller test.
Is it possible that this latest North Korean provocation was neither a failure nor a first test? Pike believes that may be the case. If the test was of a "trigger device" rather than a conventional fission bomb, one would expect a yield of less than 1 kiloton. A trigger device is the primary, fission explosion needed to initiate fusion in a thermonuclear weapon, otherwise known as a hydrogen bomb. The United States staged numerous tests for devices of this type in the 1960s, resulting in similarly small blasts. If the North Korean nuclear program was geared toward the development of fusion-based thermonuclear weapons rather than fission-based atomic weapons, one might expect the results of early tests to look much different that the first atomic tests by the United States, Russia, or India--all of which had programs that were originally designed to produce fission weapons. ..."
catherine said... 10/13/2006 06:55:58 AM
We inserted plants? Why didn't we just help Kim crocus and begonia?
Wouldn't have worked. He'd just have rose up again to peonie ...
On a similar thread a few days ago, there was speculation that this was a suitcase nuke, which makes more sense. This week's AWST (written before the test) quoted Rummy as saying NorK is more an "active proliferator" than any other threat. The last paragraph explains why it is in NorK's interest to create small weapons rather than something they themselves would put on a missile to attack others:
"I can't see that it would accomplish any of North Korea's objectives. It would mean an instant end to Kim Jong Il and his regime, because misiles have return addresses," the weapons expert says. "A launch would cause an instant retaliation that would end the regime. A missile launch is way down my list of concerns. My greatest concern is the export of nuclear material and/or hands-on technical know-how. It's the proliferation of North Korean material and knowledge, not the fact they possess the bomb that [worries] me."
Fox News is reporting that air tests have found traces of radiation.
Axis of Evil, anyone?
Fox News is reporting that air tests have found traces of radiation.
Of course. The tectonic and isotopal skepticism was threatening to take the momentum out of the Presidents drive for sanctions. First it was Russian and South Korea that were playing up the test. Pretty soon it will just be the US and Japan that believe in the successful test and everyone else will say Li'l Kim boofed it so we should go back to the status quo.
Non-Suitcase Nuke
LOL ... I bower to your horticultural superiority, Catherine, and pledge to stand on garden for thee, evermore. :-)
jeff m
We are not talking about using off the shelf Russian technology, but duplicating 1954 US tech.
The W54 warhead used on the Davy Crockett weighed just 51 pounds and was the smallest and lightest fission bomb (implosion type) ever deployed by the United States, with a variable explosive yield of 0.01 kilotons (equivalent to 10 tons of TNT, or two to four times as powerful as the ammonium nitrate bomb which destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995), or 0.02 kilotons-1 kiloton. A 58.6 pound variant, the B54, was used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM), a nuclear land mine deployed in Europe, South Korea, Guam, and the United States from 1964-1989.
The war head in the Davy Crockett delivery mode:
The Davy Crockett consisted of an XM-388 projectile launched from either a 120-millimeter (XM-28) or 155-millimeter (XM-29) recoilless rifle (the 120 millimeter version is shown above). This weapon had a maximum range of 1.24 miles (120 millimeter) to 2.49 miles (155 millimeter). The XM-388 casing (including the warhead and fin assembly) weighed 76 pounds, was 30 inches long and measured 11 inches in diameter (at its widest point). ...
... In Little Feller I on July 17, a Davy Crockett was fired from a stationary 155 millimeter launcher (in tandem with simulated battlefield manuevers under Operation IVY FLATS) and detonated about 20 feet above the ground at a distance of 9,357 feet (1.7 miles) from the launch point (yield was 18 tons). This test, the last atmospheric detonation at the Nevada Test Site, was observed by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and presidential adviser General Maxwell D. Taylor. Footage of Operation IVY FLATS was declassified by the Department of Energy on December 22, 1997.
This is what the NorKs are trying for, more than likely.
A 60 pound variable output, from .01 to 1 kiloton, nuclear device.
That could be mounted on a Katusha rocket.
C4, I do not disagree but no such Policy has been debated or announced.
Paris is, according to some accounts, in the midst of a 'civil war'. There may be some license used in that description though.
A one kiloton blast in Rome or Kiev, striking at the Christian heartland? How about a kiloton blast in Baghdad?
Massive over powering response?
or EU submission and chaos.
Russia on the rise
Ride Cossack Ride
One politician mention disproportionate response ONE time and was shouted down by the Powers that be.
So that idea, C4, is a long way from Policy
Posted: July 15, 2005
5:00 p.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Rep. Tom Tancredo
Clarifying remarks from a radio interview that drew praise from some supporters, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said he was not suggesting that the U.S. should bomb the Islamic holy site Mecca as a response to a nuclear homeland attack by al-Qaida.
The congressman's press secretary told WorldNetDaily the comments were an off-the-cuff response to a hypothetical situation.
"He doesn't believe that we should go out and threaten to bomb anybody's holy city," said spokesman Will Adams. ...
...The host asked Tancredo, "Worst case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the border, what would our response be?"
The congressman replied: "There are things you could threaten to do before something like that happens, and then you have to do afterwards, that are quite draconian."
"Well," Tancredo continued, "what if you said something like, 'If this happens in the United States and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you could take out their holy sites.'"
Campbell: "You're talking about bombing Mecca?"
Tancredo: "Yeah. What if you said, we recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States, therefore this is the ultimate response."
The congressman quickly added, "I don't know, I'm just throwing out some ideas, because it seems that at that point in time you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could imagine. Because other than that, all you could do is tighten up internally."
Now that radioactivity has been detected another possibility has occurred to me: a dirty bomb.
People think of dirty bombs as being nuclear waste being scattered by a convnetional explosive. But a far more effective dirty bomb would be nuclear material scattered by a small nuke - a deliberate misfire, so to speak - as in a small Pu weapon with a jacket of Uranium 238. Easier to build than a larger bombs and less critical as to targeting.
Using a bomb casing of U-238 was a common practice back in the 50's since the csaing could contribute to the nuclear reaction - this was abandoned, partly because of the increased fallout - but if that feature is what you want....
Cederford:
I recalled that some bombs used to have U-238 casinsg, but not that those were thremonukes, thanks for the clarification.
But I still think that a small, inefficient nuke would be a better dirty bomb than one powered by conventional explosives. You get a two for one. A lot of bang plus a comparitively large amount of fallout. And without more techncial effort than buildinag regular nuke. Unless of course, you want to go to the trouble to create isotopes of cobalt or strontium some other nasty stuff designed for long-term persistance - such as McArthur's proposed nuclear fence across the North Korea/Red China border.
It is true that there are Cindy Sheehan-style nuts running around describing the "nuclear devastation" accompanying our A-10 and tank depleted uranium rounds. A friend sent me an e-mail from some supposed Phd claiming that the "3 nuclear wars" we have fought - presumably Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and Afghanistan - have caused a huge increase in birth defects across Europe. How these idiots can blame that situation - if it even exists, which I doubt - on highly localized battlefield depleted Uranium use thousands of miles away that did not reach the upper atmosphere - and while ignoring Chernobyl 20 years ago is beyond me.
It looks like the NORKs did get the bomb to produce some percentage of fissile (atomic reaction).
Whether it was a small bomb that worked or a large bomb that "fizzed" it's bad news.
The NORKs will eventually learn from their mistakes and make modern atomic bomb (possible a two stage device).
As for the geopolitical fallout, I think that the Chinese would not mind NK having a nuke to use against Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea. The Chinese have no great love for any of those countries.
And, now that the Chinese have Hong Kong under their control why not stoke the war machine fire against the above countries? The Chinese could due without Taiwan, Japan or S. Korea.
Post a Comment
<< Home