Slashdot Mirror


North Korea Air Sample Shows Radiation

Apocalypse111 writes, "According to CNN.com, air samples taken over North Korea have not yet shown any radiation from the event on Monday that North Korea claims was a nuclear test. This is not definitive proof that the event was non-nuclear, as it may either have been so small and deep that it did not let any radioactive debris escape, or perhaps the North Koreans sealed the site." Furthering speculation over whether North Korea has actually exploded a nuclear device, vk38 writes to point out a (free) article in today's Wall Street Journal claiming that the blast could have been set off by exploding fertilizer (ammonium nitrate). The article points to the Texas City disaster of 1947, in which 7,700 tons of ammonium nitrate exploded in the hold of a ship with the estimated power of 2 to 4 kilotons of TNT.
Update: 10/14 08:03 GMT by Z : The story at CNN has been updated: "A preliminary analysis of air samples from North Korea shows 'radioactive debris consistent with a North Korea nuclear test,' according to a statement from the office of the top U.S. intelligence official."

96 of 543 comments (clear)

  1. Oh my gawd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    OMG, they perfected Cold Fusion!

    1. Re:Oh my gawd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well perhaps there was a large underground laptop battery storage facility. Sony must be doing something with all those recalled batteries. ... One belw up and set off a chain reaction. :)

    2. Re:Oh my gawd by SnotBob · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good for them. I'm sticking with PHP.

  2. Choreography! by Malakusen · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe all the North Koreans jumped up and down at the same time.

    --
    Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
    1. Re:Choreography! by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe all the North Koreans jumped up and down at the same time.

      Oddly enough, external microphones on the jet picked up something that sounded like singing... "I'm so wronery..."
      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Choreography! by assassinator42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if Kim Jong Il has ever watched that movie.

    3. Re:Choreography! by Y0tsuya · · Score: 5, Funny
      I wonder if Kim Jong Il has ever watched that movie.

      The Dear Leader watches everything. He is all-knowing. The Dear Leader was born on Mt. Paektu the Sacred Mountain. His birth was attended simultaneously by a double rainbow and a radiant star in the heavens. Surely that's a sign of Godhood. He is the light of our lives. We are blessed to have his benevolent gaze shining over our great nation.

  3. Hardware? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think it's funny that this article is under the Hardware section. Maybe we could get Tom's Hardware to produce a 25-page full benchmark test of this nuclear explosion v. competing nuclear tests, and then we'll really get to the bottom of this.

  4. Halifax Explosion! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Pfft, Canada does accidental explosions best: Halifax Explosion:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion Atleast 200kTons there...

    1. Re:Halifax Explosion! by nasor · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Halifax explosion was only around 2 kt, two orders of magnitude less than the 200 kt figure that you claim.

      Instead of very large accidental explosions, it might be a bit more topical to talk about known instances in the past where nations have deliberately simulated nuclear bombs with conventional explosives, like the 4 kt Minor Scale experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale_(explosio n)

    2. Re:Halifax Explosion! by AJWM · · Score: 3, Informative

      Canada deliberately conducted a non-nuclear nuclear test (in cooperation with the US) in, IIRC, the 1960s. 500 tons of TNT -- a hemisphere about the size of a small house or large garage -- was detonated in one of the prairie provinces. (Sorry about the fuzzy details, this is from memory). The crater (ground level detonation) was as large as one from a multi-kiloton nuclear detonation in the Nevada Test Site, because the higher moisture content in and nature of the underlying rock conducted the shock better (and probably added to it from vaporization). This was hypothesized beforehand and one of the reasons they did the test in first place.

      Now, that 500 tons of (real) TNT was a 0.5 kt blast, about what the North Korea blast is estimated at from the shockwave. Could easily have been a few container loads of TNT. It's a pretty damp squib as far as even first-attempt nukes go.

      --
      -- Alastair
    3. Re:Halifax Explosion! by QRDeNameland · · Score: 5, Informative

      There was a larger deliberate explosion in Canada: the explosion of Ripple Rock, off Vancouver Island in 1958. It used 1,375 tons of explosives.

      I have seen the Ripple Rock explosion characterized as the "largest man-made non-nuclear explosion ever" or the "largest peacetime man-made non-nuclear explosion ever."

      You can watch the CBC footage here.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  5. In Other News by CodeArtisan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Iran has also exploded a nuclear bomb. Or something. We're not really sure. Coulda been anything really.

    Seriously though - is this really news ? Shouldn't we wait until it's confirmed one way or the other before it makes sense to comment on it ?

    1. Re:In Other News by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would it be on slashdot, or any other social news site, then?

    2. Re:In Other News by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the news is that there is still *no* confirmation. North Korea said they were going to test a nuclear bomb, there was an explosion, and AFAIK, they claimed success. However, we're a week out and we are still not sure.

      So yes, we should know by now, but we don't. This is news.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    3. Re:In Other News by Lally+Singh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is really the best confirmation data we have. DPRK says they set off a nuke. Even if a nuke had fizzled, it would've been bigger than the 550T explosion the seismometers felt. From here, "A geology professor at Yale, Jeffrey Park, emails to tell me that the updated Richter magnitude for the North Korea event is 3.5, which he calls "mighty small for a crude nuke." And that's true: it suggests a very small yield. But the odd thing is that it's actually harder to build a 1 kiloton weapon than a 5 or 10 kiloton weapon, and it's unlikely North Korea has the expertise to do this."

      So, nobody's really sure what to believe right now, and eventually it'll just fall to consensus on the data we already have.

      The best place to hear about the debate's over at ArmsControlWonk. New radionucliotide data, insider info from some well-placed anonymous sources, and insights into the scientific cultures within dictatorships paints an interesting picture.

      --
      Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
  6. Assplosives Detonation Velocities table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
  7. Re:Of course they don't by spillingvoid · · Score: 2, Funny

    I agree. The guy lies so much that it is impossible to tell whats going on. Though I do hope he bursts in to flames tonight for no reason.

  8. If North Korea says so... by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are we justified sanctioning and otherwise punishing it, even if it lied?

    This is more than an abstract question (like the famous "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there...").

    Saddam's Hussein downfall was (at least partially) brought about by his insinuating that he still has WMDs privately — to keep neighbors in fear, soldiers brave, and citizens proud, while claiming loudly, that he got rid of them all (which turned out to be true, after all)...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:If North Korea says so... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are we justified sanctioning and otherwise punishing it, even if it lied?

      Well, consider this: if someone comes to you and says "hey, I just crapped in your locker" without laughing, what do you do? either you punch him in the face rightaway for having crapped in your locker, or you don't believe him, look inside your locker, discover no turd, then turn around and punch him in the face for being a stupid asshole. Either way, you punch him in the face.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:If North Korea says so... by krell · · Score: 2, Funny

      "what do you do? either you punch him in the face rightaway for having crapped in your locker, or you don't believe him..."

      Why, I bomb the locker for a few weeks and then send in 150,000 troops. What else could I possible DO in a situation like this???

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    3. Re:If North Korea says so... by krell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "If you dislike Bush, you should abhor Chavez [umb.edu]"

      OT, but good call. Can you imagine what people would have done if Bush had given a big loud speech blaming Jews for all the evil in the world for the last 2,000 years? Chavez did this. Or if Bush made a public speech with crude sexist comments about foreign female diplomats? Chavez did this (about Rice). Or, to show how petty he was, Bush passed laws to force all the radio stations in the country to play only the music he personally liked? Chavez did this...

      I guess this proves the rule "A fascist dictator is my friend if he happens to hate George W. Bush".

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    4. Re:If North Korea says so... by Tod+DeBie · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Are we justified sanctioning and otherwise punishing it, even if it lied?
      They lied to the Clinton administration when they started cheating on the no nuke deal before the ink was dry. We should punish them for that.

      As for the nuke, we need to have a serious sit down with China. China does not want a unified Korea (at least not unified under the South), but they also don't want SK, Japan or, God forbid, Taiwan going nuclear either. China is the only one in a good position to stop NKs nuclear ambitions without firing a shot, and they had better do it or Japan and the rest may go nuclear too. That would be much worse for China than destabilizing NK that might lead to a unified Korea.

    5. Re:If North Korea says so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I, the GP said they were "old". That does not contradict them being pre-Gulf War. The payloads, however, were only partially degraded, and still largely potent, including the sarin gas. Pointing out the fact that Saddam was keeping and hiding WMD does not have a thing to do with the claims concerning new weapons programs (a Red Herring on your part). The facts show that Bush and many others, including foreign leaders and American Democrats were correct to point out that Saddam Hussein still had WMD in violation of the cease-fire agreements. Whether or not Bush claims it, the fact is that many have been found. I think you are trying to find excuses to excuse WMD stockpiling to somehow make Bush look bad. In contrast, I'm not fixated on Bush or making him look good or bad.

    6. Re:If North Korea says so... by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even without WMD Iraq is no cakewalk (as we see in present day).

      The present-day insurgents weren't in Iraq until after we removed Saddam from power. He ran a run-of-the-mill dictatorship that used his religion (and that of most of his country) as a tool to control people, but he was no religious fanatic. He disliked the Taliban and the Bin Laden extremists almost as much as the U.S. does.

      Saddam's Iraq was a cakewalk. We "accomplished" that mission quickly, efficiently, and with minimal casualties on our side. Then, we started screwing almost everything up, and haven't stopped yet. We needed to create a stabler, more secure country faster, before zealots and extremists had time to enter the country and set up shop. Probably having more troops from a wider variety of allies would have helped tremendously, but that would have required us to earn more allies through discourse and compromise, something this administration is not able to do.

      Had we not entered Iraq, Saddam would have continued to do an adequate job of suppressing religious fanatics, and Iraq would not have become another Taliban country. (He would have continued suppressing his own people, too; he was still a dictator, murderer, and thug. I'm not denying that. But there are plenty of other murderous dictators in power around the world, some of which are our allies.) Overall, we've probably left the country in worse shape than if we'd just left it alone.

      We should have sent many, many more troops to Afghanistan (where we had internation support and justification for our invasion) to avoid the problems that country is having - resurgent Taliban because we didn't kill them all back then when they were in the open, and the country falling back into its longtime role as the world's opium supplier (something the Taliban had tried to suppress, but now profits from).

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    7. Re:If North Korea says so... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the sarin was not largely potent, it was degraded and no longer sarin at all.

      Bush claimed that Saddam had an active program and was continuing to stockpile. This is false, and continues to be false.

      The only WMD that have been found are the ones that nobody on earth doubted he had. That they were badly accounted for is also not in doubt, as it was all part of Saddam's suicidally stupid bluff. It was not a "stockpile" if it was not maintained, and hence claiming that he had WMD is incorrect if you accept that an impotent WMD is not a WMD.

      No relevent devices have been found to this day.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:If North Korea says so... by Thuktun · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Well, consider this: if someone comes to you and says "hey, I just crapped in your locker" without laughing, what do you do? either you punch him in the face rightaway for having crapped in your locker, or you don't believe him, look inside your locker, discover no turd, then turn around and punch him in the face for being a stupid asshole. Either way, you punch him in the face.
      And what if, instead, he crapped in his own locker? Aside from the smell, and the insinuation that he could crap elsewhere, how does that justify punching him?
    9. Re:If North Korea says so... by crabpeople · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And how many people has chavez killed? How many wars has he started?
      Unless you think petty namecalling is equivalent to hundreds of thousands dead. I mean the CIA even tried to kill chavez in a coup, if anything hes remarkably polite considering that. Saddam tried to kill bush's dad and look how he reacted.

      NK != IRAN != VENEZUELA

      Though that doesnt stop the administration from making you think otherwise.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    10. Re:If North Korea says so... by Lotek · · Score: 3, Funny

      This falls under the time - honored Texas tradition of "He needed Punchin'."

    11. Re:If North Korea says so... by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually there ARE a lot of people who dislike Bush and abhor Chavez. We can all be ignorant and paint each other with broad "my side is pure light and yours is pure evil" simplistic nonsense. Of course not everyone on the right wants another Adolf Hitler. Of course not everyone on the left wants a Hugo Chavez.

      p.s. The fact that Chavez is a horrible dictator doesn't change the fact that Bush is a terrible president.

    12. Re:If North Korea says so... by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh wow!!!!!!!!!!!111!!! STRONGLY INDICATE! My goodness! I assume this is synonymous with "it is widely believed" esp. when uttered at the beginning of a Fox News broadcast. e.g. "It is widely believed that John Kerry ate a baby for lunch on Tuesday."

    13. Re:If North Korea says so... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aside from the first one, which was the Iranian president and not Chavez, you're right, Chavez is a nasty left-wing fucker. But one thing is still true about him, this being pretty much the fundamental law of communism--he's still better than the nasty right-wing fucker who immediately preceded him(Lenin and the Tsars, Mao and Chiang Kai-shek, Castro and Batiste). Can't say that about Bush and his predecessor. Would you like me to go find the list of fascist dictators propped up by the United States? It's a pretty long list, and it's the reason people in Venezuela still love Chavez. Most of them experienced his predecessor.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    14. Re:If North Korea says so... by susano_otter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The punching is justified because analogies always fail when discussed in bad faith.

      Better to avoid analogies altogether in this case, and talk about rogue nations developing nuclear weapons and selling missile technology to other rogue nations, while holding cities full of people hostage using the credible threat of devastating and unavoidable chemical weapons attacks.

      Talk about the actual facts of the matter, and suddenly the whole idea of punching becomes both eminently desireable and eminently unworkable.

      What now?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    15. Re:If North Korea says so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The present-day insurgents weren't in Iraq until after we removed Saddam from power.

      They were in Iraq. They were school teachers, doctors, construction workers, grocers, electricians, etc...

    16. Re:If North Korea says so... by AoT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The present-day insurgents weren't in Iraq until after we removed Saddam from power.

      I agree with your comment but you're technically wrong on this point. The vast majority of these insurgents were in country prior to the war but not actually fighting. And a lot of the Shi'a insurgents are related, literally and figuratively, to the uprising following the first Gulf War that we encouraged then let Saddam crush.

    17. Re:If North Korea says so... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As long as you're happy with your wandering logic. Let me summarize: he had WMDs, but wasn't sure which ones he had and/or how many. So none of it counts.

      He had none at the time that it mattered -- when the case for war was made.

      It's that simple, and laser focused. No, none of the weapons from before Gulf War I that were not maintained count. And that, so far, is every one we've found.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    18. Re:If North Korea says so... by Gocho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many people has Chavez killed? Let's see... there were 19 people killed at a march armed with FLAGS and SINGING. Chavez ordered the military and his civilian followers to shoot (http://www.venezuelaenvideos.com/pt01v01.htm). How about the ones killed by his inaction and invitation for crime? (The guy in charged of security says the media is exagerating when they say 90 thousand have been killed... he adds "it's only been 60 thousand, people!" (http://www.noticierodigital.com/forum/viewtopic.p hp?t=117819). Wait... how about the miners at La Paragua killed by the military just some weeks ago? Is buying 3 BILLION DOLLARS worth of AK-47s a sign of peace? (http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/672 198221/m/5900086190001) Well maybe... but then he says "To all of you against me.. this is a peaceful revolution, but WE ARE ARMED". Oh... and how about everyone who is tagged as a "traitor" for having signed against him in preparation for a referendum (which is a constitutional right, mind you) (http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2005/04/tasc on-list-modern-political-apartheid.html)... By the way.... you can download it off kazaa and thepiratebay.

      I'm venezuelan. I know what I'm talking about.

    19. Re:If North Korea says so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >He ran a run-of-the-mill dictatorship that used his religion as a tool to control people

      Wrong. Iraq wasnt a religious state, unlike the USA

    20. Re:If North Korea says so... by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Note that Clinton has said that the intelligence available to his administration when he left office indicated that Iraq was actively developing WMDs.

      Nevertheless, I believe that the Bush Administration should have framed the Iraq War, when it first started, in the terms they frame it in now: Iraq refused to allow UN inspectors to do their jobs, despite numerous UN resolutions requiring it. In other words, Saddam could say he'd destroyed every last WMD until he's blue in the face, but we would never know one way or the other until Saddam acquiesced to full and unfettered inspections.

    21. Re:If North Korea says so... by SQL+Error · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lenin and Stalin killed 40 million of their own people.
      Mao killed 60 million of his own people.

      The Tsars and the Chinese nationalists were pikers when it came to bad government compared to the communists.

      The fundamental law of communism is that it is the worst political system ever invented. No exceptions.

    22. Re:If North Korea says so... by krell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I don't pretend to know you or your politics so I won't direct these words at you personally but I have heard US American Neocons spout that kind of rhetoric on TV"

      For one thing, American neocons aren't in power. There's a difference between speaking in front of your think tank and being a world leader speaking on the world stage. Chalk this one up to another mention of the "neocon" bogeyman in conversations where it does not belong. Aside from that: can you CITE references where Neocons did what Chavez did: 1) blame Jews for all the evil in the world 2) put lewd sexual language about female diplomats in their speeches? 3) Neocons wanting to censor all music they did not like from the radio?

      Can you back up your claim?

      Thanks also for the alternatve history of the Cold War... you described things that never happened except PRIOR to WW2.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    23. Re:If North Korea says so... by krell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Actually there ARE a lot of people who dislike Bush and abhor Chavez. Of course not everyone on the left wants a Hugo Chavez."

      Where on the mainstream left are they speaking out against Chavez? There are so many like Mark Weisbrot, "The Progressive" magazine, who grovel at his feet, and I've read numerous articles in "The Nation" as well. Michael Moore is a passionate fan of his.. I don't think I need to even look to see what Chomsky says. Every mainline left magazine and individual I check out so far loves the fascist dictator of Venezuela.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    24. Re:If North Korea says so... by prelelat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or if you look at it from the other point of view you could take it is as the peace keepers were invading their airspace so they kicked them out. I don't remeber Iraq ever leaving their country to shoot at peackeepers, but that doesn't matter.

      Iraq wasn't invaded because Saddam never let inspectors come in or anything like that, he was invaded because he didn't retire his position. I recall this on the night that they went to war. Bush had won that political fight before the cannons started blazing, he may have been able to win the war politically but no extension was given. Some people see that kind of compromise as not getting anywhere but as long as talks are on going, no WMD are found by the inspectors I see that as progress. Now whos to say that Saddam leaving his position would have helped Iraq anyways, next dictator is still a dictator.

      Leave all of that out of it, do you think it was wise to start a war in iraq when the U.S. still has troops fighting over in Afganistan? Do you think we would still be there if the U.S. focused completely on that area with more troops? These are the questions that need to be asked. Was The United States ready for a war on Iraq. Yes the U.S. was able to go in remove Saddam and create a new democratic system, this is a big win for anyone who likes freedom. On the same token the U.S. could have maybe found Osama and cleaned out the rest of the terrorist groups out of the country that had UN approval for invasion. They have alot more allies in that fight, and invading Iraq has weakend those ties with their allied countries, if not with their governments than with the people in those countries that re-elect those politicians into their government, remember the U.S. isn't the only country that does it. Some even do it better. So whos to say who will be supporting the Afgan mission when its done. Some countries will most likely pull out before the U.S. if only because it can no longer get the support from its people.

      The Iraq invasion seemed like a half hazard thought out plan, it could have been at least delayed with talks and inspectors comming into the country, if things didn't pan out then at least then the U.S. would have had more global and local support.

      'On whether the war was one worth fighting, Sgt Meadows said: "I don't
      care about Iraq one way or the other. I couldn't care less. [Saddam]
      could still be in power and, to me, it wasn't worth leaving my family
      for; for getting shot at and almost dying two or three times, there's
      nothing worth that to me." '- www.slaw.neu.edu/students/nuslaws/soldiercomments. html

    25. Re:If North Korea says so... by aminorex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > He does say some outragous bullshit

      I read his speech at the U.N., so now I like him a LOT.
      He's got the balls to tell the truth.
      Of course this makes him hated by those who live in darkness and lies.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  9. Sanctions? by CrazyTalk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The ironic thing is, the nations of the world are looking to impose sanctions - but can we really impose sanctions if it turns out it wasnt a nuke in the first place?

    1. Re:Sanctions? by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes

      Should I be arrested for calling you every night and threaten to shoot you and your children, even if I don't actually own a gun?

      The fact that North Korea is saying they have nukes is threat enough to warrant attention.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Sanctions? by Duncan3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What exactly would you saction?

      The are already starving, lack electricity in 95% of the country, are almost completely uneducated, and make most starving African nations look rich in comparison.

      They quite literally have nothing to lose, which is very sad.

      --
      - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    3. Re:Sanctions? by Gospodin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This isn't meant to answer your question, but I still think it's fascinating (and terrible). Look at this picture. In the upper right you'll find the Korean peninsula. South Korea is a sea of light. North Korea is completely dark (except for a little dot around Pyongyang). The dividing line is sharp and obvious.

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
  10. Isn't this like a fairy tale? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have nukes!

    No you don't

    Boom!

    That wasn't a nuke!

    Boom!

    Sorry, just don't believe you!

    Boom!

    No no.. never. That was just gas.

    errrr.

    Oh.. you used all your material and you are out now?

    (reminds me of puss and boots with the mouse).

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  11. It doesn't matter by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For years they guy has been openly claiming to be working on a bomb. The fact that he does not unambiguously have one yet is astounding.

    With all the information that is public, it *is* trivial to create a bomb. Access to plutonium, which he has, is the hard part.

    I hate to introduce politics, but it has to be said, Saddam maybe, could have, possibly, been working on something, if you look at the intelligence "just so." North Korea, has been openly saying they are working on these bombs. North Korea sells arms to our enemies. I blame Bush on all counts. The guy is all about acquiring power, but without the wisdom or honor to use it well.

    I am remeinded if Bill Maher, Usually you have an administration that is corrupt or one that is inept. The Bush administration is both.

    1. Re:It doesn't matter by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We created Saddam, made him a credible threat, basically placed him in power... and more importantly he is within our reach. We can't mess with North Korea without the blessing of China.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:It doesn't matter by BrettJB · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now wait just a minute there! I'm darn well prepared to shed a little blood if it assures my access to quality kim chee at reasonable prices, and I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment!

      --
      Smell that? You smell that? Burning karma, son. Nothing in the world smells like that...
    3. Re:It doesn't matter by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know, I think the Chinese would probably kill a whole lot of Korean civilians on their way to dominance of their government. I mean this is the country that is running around killing people and refusing to let their family even see the body, prompting people to assume that they're organlegging - and they probably are. I wouldn't trust them to stop at the 38th parallel, or any other line... China has repeatedly shown itself to be a nation without any belief in human rights, at least at the level of their political administration.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:It doesn't matter by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hate to introduce politics, but it has to be said, Saddam maybe, could have, possibly, been working on something, if you look at the intelligence "just so." North Korea, has been openly saying they are working on these bombs.

      Which is why Kim Jong Il is still in power and Saddam isn't.
      Bullies don't pick on those who could seriously fight back.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  12. hm, by joe+155 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I really wouldn't be amazed if it wasn't a nuke. They obviously want people to think they have nukes (whether they do or not) because otherwise they wouldn't have said they were going to do it and just passed it off as a light earthquake.

    One can easily see from the increase in prestige and offers that Iran has been given for just saying that they want nuclear power that it gives your country an "edge"... I think it has backfired a bit - but we'll have to wait and see. Either way it's understandable why he would want to make it look like he has them. If Kim was thinking about the situation rationally then he would also know why China wouldn't want to put too many conditions on North Korea - which is to say that what China really fear is thousands of immigrants flooding in, after all, the nukes North Korea has will never rival China; and they can't even deliver the bombs anyway! (as far as I know they only have the ability to deliver something like that on a boat or train, really)

    --
    *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
  13. C'mon by blang · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How the hell would NK come up with some 500 fully loaded dump trucks worth of fertilizer, and dump it in a hole? It would be visible from the friggin moon.

    --
    -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    1. Re:C'mon by IcyNeko · · Score: 3, Funny

      With the amount of crap that comes out of Kim's mouth? Not hard to imagine.

    2. Re:C'mon by alienmole · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Guess you won't be getting that analyst job at the CIA. It would be trivially easy to truck that fertilizer into a cave or mine somewhere, spread out over time, and detonate it when you're good and ready.

    3. Re:C'mon by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know of many underground mines that come pre-equipped with a few thousand tons of explosive. Do you?

      --
      AccountKiller
  14. yes, it may or not be... by zogger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..a real nuke, but the government right now REALLY doesn't want it to be a real nuke, because they would have to put up or shut up over their "no nukes for axis of e-vile" places. So who knows? They have been more or less threatening Iran now for a long time on the theory they are even developing one, and saying "dire consequences" and a lot of pre emptive strike speculation, etc. So, what can they do to N. Korea if they really had one? Invade, or a pre emptive strike? Ha! They are already on the serious manure list for most everything, what else practically can they do about it? What "sanctions" are even left of any importance that aren't already beng imposed?

    OK, get back to the question. If a nuke was buried deep enough and the caverns sealed before the blast, with a very small nuke, would radiation escape to be detected? And wasn't there a lot of talk the other day that the seismograph guys were good enough to tell just from the signature?

    1. Re:yes, it may or not be... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So, what can they do to N. Korea if they really had one? Invade, or a pre emptive strike? Ha! They are already on the serious manure list for most everything, what else practically can they do about it? What "sanctions" are even left of any importance that aren't already beng imposed?

      I think that "total" economic sanctions would be effective. This means absolutely nothing in or out--no food, no medicine--nothing. Despite complete self-reliance being Dear Leader's wet dream, the NK regime would collapse. However, Russia and China would never go along with it; the westerners would be wracked with guilt about millions (more) NKans starving to death; and the NK generals might obliterate Seoul in the regime's death throes.

    2. Re:yes, it may or not be... by nuzak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blockades are an act of war. I mean, this is a regime that calls being served kimchee that's too warm an act of war, but this would really actually be one. You may as well just start knocking out the artillery with a surprise attack.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  15. Chemical explosion, is my bet by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not so hard to pile up ten thousand tons of conventional explosive, and as discussed in the previous thread on the test itself there is some value in convincing your neighbors that you have nuclear weapons regardless of whether you actually have them.

    The revised seismic figures were (if I recall right) something like 0.5 kT equivalent. The smallest easy-to-build bombs (those that have supercritical assemblies without hyper-compression of the metal) yield something like 10-30 kT, so this was either a fizzled nuke or a large pile of ANFO (or something like that).

    In the last discussion I made a big deal about the Kamioka observatory and how they "should" have been able to see neutrinos from the blast -- but with an 0.5kT blast the number of neutrino interactions is only 1 or 2, so they can't be expected to distinguish a large chemical explosion from a very small fizzled nuclear explosion.

    1. Re:Chemical explosion, is my bet by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Informative


      I find it very implausible that it could have "fizzled." It's a damn chain reaction - set it and forget it, as the saying goes.

      Then you need to learn a bit more about nuclear physics. Plutonium is a bit trickier to set off as a nuclear weapon do the fact that it can start a reaction before it's compressed down to the intended size. What happens is the chain reaction stops short of the intended yield because the ball of plutonium literally blows itself apart before you get enough generations of neutron reactions to yield enough energy.

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:Chemical explosion, is my bet by partofthething · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We had a departmental meeting about this the other day where a bunch of nuclear engineering professors got together and discussed what they thought had happened. The concensus was that this was actually a nuclear device. Almost definately. The seismic signals are the giveaway, and here's why. When a pile of chemicals explodes, they explode on a timescale of the speed of sound. So, the seismic signal from the explosion would be on the order of micro- to milli-seconds. When a nuclear device explodes, it happens in the time it takes for fast neutrons (>200keV) to get across a few centimeters. Now we're talking about nanoseconds. The seismic people have enough experience looking at explosions to be able to tell chemical from nuclear, and this one apparently looks nuclear. It also looks to be 0.5kT or so. That makes it by far the smallest yield 1st test ever. Which either means they have perfected making small bombs (which is incredibly complicated and wasn't done by the Los Alamos people until 15 years after their first test), or they failed in their test. The latter is very likely. They've also wasted a lot of Pu-239 or U-235 (probably Pu) and contaminated their expensive underground test facility. Lets count the days together to see how long they take to test again. If it's quick, they have plenty of material. Only time will tell.

    3. Re:Chemical explosion, is my bet by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't this theory assume that the theoretical large pile of conventional explosives is detonated from a single source? Couldn't the signature of the detonation be shortened by detonating the same amount of material with multiple detonators?

    4. Re:Chemical explosion, is my bet by partofthething · · Score: 2, Informative

      Surely a chemical explosion of 5kT would be detonated by multiple detonators. But to get that much power, you literally need a large room full of explosives. You can never reach the signature of nuclear devices with chemicals.

    5. Re:Chemical explosion, is my bet by AJWM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      it's pretty hard to pile up ten thousand tons of conventional explosive in a remote area

      Nobody is talking about 10,000 tons. The estimate is 500 tons. At a density of about 1.65, 500 tons of TNT is about a 21 foot cube. About two or three moving van loads, although you'd need to spread it a bit thinner than that for the weight. If you're digging a hole and setting up instrumentation for a test, a few extra trucks spread over several weeks or months is no big deal.

      --
      -- Alastair
    6. Re:Chemical explosion, is my bet by AJWM · · Score: 4, Informative

      We had a departmental meeting about this the other day where a bunch of nuclear engineering professors got together and discussed what they thought had happened.

      You should have called in some mining engineers. Your analysis is a bit off.

      The speeds involved were close enough -- although the detonation of 500 tons of TNT takes about half a millisecond and given your energy for the neutrons that takes closer to a microsecond -- but either kind of explosion has to couple the energy to the rocks surrounding and propagate out from there as seismic waves for the seismic people to detect it. That coupling is going to be affected by the precise nature of the surrounding rock -- density, water content, etc. Without knowing that, it will be hard to tell the difference even with good seismic signals (or a much more powerful blast).

      There were only (as I recall) a few stations that even detected the blast, enough to triangulate it but not enough for really good signal data. Good enough to tell that it was an explosion rather than an earthquake, but not to determine the kind of explosion.

      --
      -- Alastair
    7. Re:Chemical explosion, is my bet by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yay, my amateur ramblings were backed up by nuclear engineers!

      The seismic people have enough experience looking at explosions to be able to tell chemical from nuclear, and this one apparently looks nuclear. It also looks to be 0.5kT or so. That makes it by far the smallest yield 1st test ever. Which either means they have perfected making small bombs (which is incredibly complicated and wasn't done by the Los Alamos people until 15 years after their first test), or they failed in their test. The latter is very likely.

      I remember they called China in advance. According to the first article I found on Google news they told China to expect a 4KT explosion. Definitely sounds like a failed test.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  16. It still makes sense... by acidrain69 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can seal the site before detonation. It's not that difficult. The US has done it hundreds of times during the cold war and just before.

    Also, the estimates (which vary according to which country you ask) are less than 1 kt. As far as nukes go, that is very tiny. How much rad would you expect from this? How deep was the explosion? I know that they registered seismic activity, which was how they knew it happened. How accurate can one guage depth using seismographic equipment?

    For some perspective, the US 1954 Castle Bravo test was 15 MEGA tons, and it was a mistake, they were only expecting like 1/3rd of that. The "ruskies" detonated 50 Mt, the largest ever, in 1961. There has been over 2,000 nuclear tests by the world nuke powers since they began, most of them from the US.

    --
    -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
  17. Team America by WilyCoder · · Score: 3, Funny

    In between bouts of decrying "Sooo Wone-wy", Kim was quoted as saying that news of the faked nuke test was "Inebbidable!"

  18. a sign of the times by tehlinux · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now Kim Jong-il is spreading FUD...

    --
    Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
  19. North Korea proves they still arn't "big time". by kinglink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    North Korea seems to have failed at the very essence of the Nuclear test. The idea isn't to test if your nuclear bomb work, you better fucking know your technology is ready before you even hint you have the bomb. The idea of a nuclear test is to PROVE you have the bomb, and to prove it works, and to show everyone you got big balls. They have not done this, and this further proves it. They might have one, but you don't brag about an underground nuclear test unless you have something to prove and North Korea definatly has that.

    Personally I think it proves they DONT have a bomb.... yet. And more likely their real first test will be over Japan/Israel/South Korea/ whereever else, and their second will be during the all out nuclear bombardment where all the countries give them all the nuclear power they need, though they'll have to figure out how to contain it.

    North Korea and Iran are both playing dangerous games. They are acting like children at the grown ups tables. Let's hope they mature or get slapped before they become teenagers who get into a massive car accident and "kill" one or more of the adults

  20. Take him at his word by throx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If we run around telling him he didn't really explode a nuke then it's only incentive for him to try again. Far better to pat him on the head and pretend it was the world's most wildly successful nuke test and get down to the business of what to do about it.

    --

    Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

  21. Bush Lies Again by sanman2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Damn that Bush -- another false claim of WMD.

    Just because NKorea is also falsely claiming they're real, doesn't mean that Bush can slander them by agreeing.

  22. Re:We Don't Need No Stinking Evidence! by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... so the Bush Administration says.

    They never bothered with it before, why bother with it now? I mean evidence just detracts from the issues they are pushing.


    So let's see... you're saying that if we got back a first round of air samples, and the only way you heard one way or the other about it was through some leak, you wouldn't be complaining about the lack of transparency? Well, which is it? Do you want the data as it comes, NASA-style, or do you want to wait while the DoD and DoE and other agencies chew on it for some indeterminate time and make what may never be a conclusive conclusion? For everyone here that bitches about not getting enough raw info from the government about what's happening with crazies like NK, it seems that no good deed goes unpunished. Or, were you just looking to bash, no matter what happened or didn't?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  23. A dud, if you ask me by Ernesto+Alvarez · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't think it makes sense to drop 500 (or 1000) tons of explosives in a hole, blowing it up and pretending it to be a nuke. Such a small explosion would certainly give the idea of a fizzle, showing that NK does not have weapons yet (since the "prototype" failed). It would also show that a nuclear capability is imminent, so everyone interested would be acting to prevent that.

    On the other hand, gun type bombs are not really tested that much. Little boy went straight to hiroshima without testing, because the scientists thought it would work (unlike fat-man, they did the trinity test for that).

    Besides, North Korea was producing plutonium, that if I remember correctly, cannot be used in gun type bombs (it detonates too soon, blows apart and you get a dud).

    I think they were testing their implosion bomb, and it fizzled. That does not mean they do not have a few gun types in a bunker somewhere.

  24. Underground Nuclear Explosions by anshil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IANAE (I am not an expert), but underground nuclear explosions do usually not emmit radioactivity, at least at the moment.

    As far I understood an article I read some time ago, the gigantic heat of the explosion melts the surronding soil into a glass cave which conceils the radioactive mess.

    The problem is only after years of even decades, this glass sealing can (and at some point will) break and set the radioactivity free. Then the radiation levels will boost up... Thats another problem of humanity waiting we create now (our legacy for our kids).. all this sealed nuke-eggs from past underground expiriments loosing integrity at some future point.

    --

    --
    Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
    1. Re:Underground Nuclear Explosions by l0cust · · Score: 2, Funny
      IANAE (I am not an expert)..
      This must be the only place on God's Earth where people post weird acronyms AND their full form along with it. I mean whats the bloody point? The whole purpose of acronyms is to save writing/typing space and time. Now I am sure some good soul started this trend when he was analyzing his post content in real time and posted the non-abbreviated form just in case someone does not 'get it'. But then people wanted to be like him because he must have been like a Geek God or something so everyone jumped on the bandwagon and started explaining their acronyms because everyone knows that this way you waste much less time than typing only the acronyms or ..you know.. normal text.

      Disclaimer: IANSPTRR(I am not someone prone to random rantings)
      --
      Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
  25. Especially since by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are using it as a point of blackmail. If you look at their rhetoric they are demanding that the world congratulate them on their successful test, saying that any sanctions will be an act of war (wtf?), and that how they proceed from here will depend on how nice people are to them.

    To run with your analogy this is like someone holding a gun to their child's head and demanding you give them money to not shoot their kid. Regardless of if it's a cap gun, the fact that they'd stoop to that level of blackmail means that they need to be stopped.

  26. In other news by CarnivoreMan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sony recently confirmed its disposal of the previously mentioned exploding batteries by means of burying them in a landfill of North Korea. The landfill was stuffed to capacity and sealed off early last week. Sony reports it intends to bury the remaining defective units somewhere in Iran.

  27. It seems to me, the whole point of having a... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    test is to prove that you have a nuke. Testing publicly before you actually had more than a few dozen seems silly. Nobody in their right minds would threaten to use a Nuke, particularly if they only had one or two. Sure they might cause a localised disaster here - how much damage can one nuke cause to the US - but the response would turn the whole country into a sheet of glass.

    Who bets this was a well calculated plan by some sensible N.K. scientists to demonstrate that in fact they have nothing for us to fear.
    Of course idiot Kim wouldn't know what a real nuke is capable of, probably felt the earth shake and thought to himself, "cool, now I have a big penis too.". Also a calculated response from some sensible N.K. scientists.

  28. Duh by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apparently nobody recalls the catastrophic "mysterious" explosion of a train in North Korea last year?

    Hm...why would they be shipping railcars full of explosive anywhere?

    Face it, "dear leader" is just an attention wh0re.

    Although I confess I expected that he would have at least loaded the cave with a bunch of Fiestaware? Old smoke detectors? bought off ebay to give it SOME sort of radiation signature.

    --
    -Styopa
  29. Implosion devices are not trivial, a dud I bet by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The theory is trivial, and the tech and materials are mostly trivial, again with the exception of the plutonium. But that doesn't mean constructing a working implosion device is trivial. You have to be extremely precise in your calculations in order to pull it off. This is why the culmination of a nuclear program always involves a live test, because that's really the only way to be sure that your math and engineering were correct.

    And, because in the modern age there are thousands of seismic sites and many radiological sites that can detect the seismic and radioactive signature of a nuclear explosion, a nuclear test is also the announcement that you have succeeded in your nuclear ambitions. For a recent example of how a nuclear test is both final exam and public announcement, see Pakistan.

    So the fact that a successfull nuclear test would be quite apparent (and as we are seeing the absence of a nuclear test as well), and that NK called China to tell them so they would be sure China was watching closely, tells me that this was probably a real nuclear test. A test that, it would appear, failed. If memory serves, they told China to expect a 2KT explosion, with the actual measurement at about 0.5KT?

    Sounds to me like they had at best a partial detonation of the nuclear material, but didn't have the timing of the high explosives good enough to pack all the plutonium into a small enough ball for it all to react before the reaction force blew it apart.

    Saddam could bluff about having chemical weapons. Kim can bluff about developing nukes, but it really doesn't make sense to try to bluff a nuclear test. And of course we know he desperately wants them. So I'm going with the theory that this was a real nuclear test, just a failed one, and North Korea doesn't have a working nuke yet, but they are very close. The data from just this test may be enough for them to fix it.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  30. I disagree... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's far better that they blow up their own country than someone else's. Just keep saying "Nuh-uh!" long enough, and they'll waste some more of their weapons grade materiel in a mountain compression exercise...

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  31. North Korean Explosions by k2r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What if the explosion in 2004 happened while transporting / stacking explosives to fake a nuclear test?
    See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryongcho n_disaster&oldid=79574083

    k2r

  32. correction by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why, I bomb the locker for a few weeks and then send in 150,000 troops to the locker next to it. What else could I possible DO in a situation like this???"

    Fixed it.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  33. It's politics. by CherniyVolk · · Score: 2, Interesting


    I knew China wasn't really going to do much about the advertised nuclear testing in North Korea. Just days ago, fellow Americans argued that China would help America every step of the way. The reports on BBC News beats a far different tone.

    The problem with Nukes is two fold really. First, it's pretty much science and that much every man has the right to know; problem solving is a capability inherent in all humans. So, I think the main factors of developing such technology reside soley in ability to apply the acquired/developed knowledge of a group of scientists. Controlling who gets what materials currently known to work. Politics comes into play here, make the world look down on you if you do go through with it. But, nothing can stop a person from going to a library and picking up a book; and for men of the calibur to become Generals and National Leaders... determination is every bit as tangible as the solid brick wall infront of you.

    I have little doubt in my mind that North Korea detonated a nuclear device. We all have a very basic and crude understanding of how it fundamentally works. It's really only a magnitude of elegance and stability between my 600lbs of home-made shock stabalized nitro-glycerin, nitrocelulos and gun-powder, all crudely shape charged towards colliding necessary fuels together with enough force to initiate a violent nuclear reaction. But, how on earth am I going to get the "fuel" from? All the other stuff is relatively easy to come by with a little effort.

    Sooner or later, Afghanistan will have the capacity to build a thermo-nuclear device. Sri-Lanka, Madagascar, Iran, Chechnya perhaps. An elegant, stable one even; probably far more sophisticated and engineered than what we currently have, by the time they do. Along the way, those opponents against developing nuclear arms are left with their hands tied behind their back. Like I said, there's only two real controlling factors, politics and resources. Once an interest group gets their hands on the resources, they may ignore the politics if they so choose to. Which leads me to...

    Perhaps, the only thing left to do is try to belittle the effort of the target (North Korea), hiding under the reality that not one authority in the entire world would have any allies at all should they pre-emptively launch a nuclear weapon at anyone. Then, quitely, accept the fact they have Nuclear Weapons. I'm surprised that one may often run into an American at a bar or club, who has yet to aware of the fact India and Pakistan are Nuclear. Even knowing so, still doesn't sit right due to how much poverty exists in those countries...

    So, I think all of this hooplah (including the wikipedia implicitly saying that the explosion was conventional by adding it to a list of large conventional explosions.), is just aftermath propoganda warfare.

  34. Re:Of course they don't by Kagura · · Score: 5, Informative

    UPDATE ON THIS STORY AS OF 8:30PM EASTERN:

    US has evidence of radioactivity from North Korea

  35. UPDATE: U.S. claims evidence of test by Lurker2288 · · Score: 3, Informative
  36. They're covering for something else... by joeme1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    They've developed a method for predicting earthquakes and made up the story about the nuclear explosions so they can keep their technology secret a little longer. It's all a big cover up.

  37. Hello, the size of the explosion doesn't matter by BlueCoder · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is all about payola. The western powers and china don't want the North Koreans selling weapons grade nuclear fuel on the open market. The size of the explosion is irrelevent.

    It's simply a statement in poker game. You didn't believe we could do it... Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah. Now pay up!

    The truth is that if North Korea fuel actually was used in a terrorist attack on the US, north korea would be blown off the map and there would be raidiaon fallout in asia for at least 20 to 40 years and to a lesser extent all over the rest of the world.

    China already knows the score, they will be notified of any immmenent attack and given the option of taking North Korea out themselves when the time comes in exchange for something like a hundred billion dollars. Of course south korea would be devestated and that's why we don't just do it now.

  38. According to CNN, radiation has been detected by Deslock · · Score: 4, Informative

    U.S. intelligence statement: N. Korea radioactivity detected

    From http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/13/nkorea .test.sample/index.html

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A preliminary analysis of air samples from North Korea shows "radioactive debris consistent with a North Korea nuclear test," according to a statement from the office of the top U.S. intelligence official.

    The statement, from the office of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, was sent to Capitol Hill but not released publicly. CNN obtained it from a congressional source.

    If confirmed, the nuclear weapons test that North Korea claimed it conducted on Monday would be the first of its kind since Pakistan's underground blast in 1998.

    Pyongyang's claim has renewed fears of a regional arms race and that North Korea might aid terrorists with nuclear materials or technology.

    The national intelligence office statement said the air samples were collected Wednesday, and analysis found debris that would be consistent with a nuclear test "in the vicinity of Punggye" on Monday.

    "Additional analysis is ongoing and will be completed in a few days," the statement said.

    The South Korean Defense Ministry told CNN that the United States has informed it that radioactivity has been detected.

    The report is in contrast to information provided to CNN earlier Friday from two U.S. government officials with access to classified information. Those officials said that an initial air sampling over North Korea showed no indication of radioactive debris.

    The White House said it had no confirmation that the North Koreans conducted a nuclear test.

    "We've seen the various press reports," said National Security Council spokesman Fred Jones. "We still have no definitive statement on the event. The intelligence community continues to analyze the data."

    The U.S. Air Force flew a WC-135 Constant Phoenix atmospheric collection aircraft on Tuesday to collect air samples from the region.

    The intelligence community and the military will also continue to collect air samples in the region and use satellite information to try to collect radiological data that would confirm a nuclear test, officials said. But as time goes on, it will be increasingly difficult to achieve confirmation.

    Officials emphasized earlier Friday that the data collected are preliminary and provide no conclusive evidence about the North Korean event.

    It is possible there was no radiological data. That could be the case if: the North Koreans successfully sealed the site; it was such a small detonation and so deep underground there was no escape of nuclear debris; or the test was actually conventional explosives.

    The U.N. Security Council has agreed to vote Saturday on whether to impose sanctions on North Korea over the purported nuclear test, according to John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

    CNN's Suzanne Malveaux, Jamie McIntyre and Barbara Starr contributed to this report.

  39. Each one made things worse. by krell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Aside from the first one, which was the Iranian president and not Chavez"

    It was the Venezuelan dictator who made the speech blaming Jews for all the evil in the world for the last 2,000 years. This speech was Dec. 24, 2005.

    "But one thing is still true about him, this being pretty much the fundamental law of communism--he's still better than the nasty right-wing fucker who immediately preceded him(Lenin and the Tsars, Mao and Chiang Kai-shek, Castro and Batiste)."

    You need to check your history:

    Lenin: The Tsars (who had already moderated a whole lot) were gone by the time Lenin seized power. Lenin actually overthrew a fledgling post-Tsar democracy. He made things significantly worse, grabbing for himself more power than the Tsars ever had, re-invading the former vassal states that the Tsars had actually let go free, and slaughtering many hundreds of thousands of people.

    Mao and Chiang Kai-shek: Clearly no comparison at all here. Mao ordered more than 30,000,000 people killed. The relatively mild legacy of Chiang has been apparent in how Taiwan was ran after Mao's conquest. Chiang's government, the Nationalists, had run all of China for quite a while before Mao came along: pre-Mao China was significantly lacking in the routine atrocity that Mao ushered in. Do you really know anything about it at all?

    Castro and Batista: Aside from the mass execution of political prisoners by Castro, and the many tens of thousands killed by his invasions of other countries (Batista stayed home), there are so many other factors such as freedom of religion, freedom of the press (many beleaguered newspapers under Batista, no independent ones at all under Castro).

    Every single one of these was much worse than the one before. That's the fundamental law of Communism.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  40. Three valid examples of communist countries. by krell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every one of those examples was Communist. You are correct that they are "governments run by a single person or very small group where everything in the country is owned by them". That is how communism ends up being out here in the real world. We have seen plenty of communism in all of its glory. What this probably boils down to is disagreements among factions of communists as to which are the real communists. Then it becomes a matter similar to 7th Day Adventists saying that Catholics are not Christians. If the majority of those involved in a movement can't go a long way to DEFINING it, who can? Scores of millions of members of the ruling Communist Parties of these countries can't be ignored.

    "The only socialism the world has seen has been in democratic countries."

    Socialism is the degree to which ruling elites control the private and personal economic affairs of the people. Socialism has been very strong in the named communist countries. It has been weak in the democracies.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?