Slashdot Mirror
Seismic Data From North Korea Suggest a Repeat of 2013 Nuclear Test
Lasrick writes: Seismologist Jeffrey Park has done an initial analysis of the seismic data from North Korea's reported nuclear weapon test and found 'an uncanny resemblance to the signals recorded for the February 12, 2013 detonation.' Park's analysis pretty much destroy's the North Korean claim that they detonated a hydrogen bomb, and he postulates that P'yongyang is desperate for attention during the US presidential election cycle.
Siegfried Hecker, one of the world's top experts on the North Korea nuclear program, is nonetheless concerned that the DPRK has now completed its fourth test, and with it a greater sophistication in their bomb design. Hecker is also skeptical that the test was an H-bomb. However, as he says, "We know so little about North Korea's nuclear weapons design and test results that we cannot completely rule it out."
Siegfried Hecker, one of the world's top experts on the North Korea nuclear program, is nonetheless concerned that the DPRK has now completed its fourth test, and with it a greater sophistication in their bomb design. Hecker is also skeptical that the test was an H-bomb. However, as he says, "We know so little about North Korea's nuclear weapons design and test results that we cannot completely rule it out."
They only have a stunted A-bomb that they don't have a delivery system for. So, they're still not really a serious threat.
They tried the A-bomb three times:
- The first one had yield that was way low (about 1 kiloton). Probably a "fizzle" (extreme shortfall of output, typically from blowing apart too soon, though it may still be far more powerful than a conventional explosive). EVERY country developing nuclear explosives has had one or more fizzles.
- The second did considerably better (about 4 kilotons), though probably still below their design intent.
- The third was better yet (about 7 kilotons). This is right in the ballpark of other countries' first bomb models, a tad more than half the yeild of the "Little Boy" bomb (about 13 kilotons) dropped on Hiroshima.
So it looks to me like they've got a competent design crew and a working design. At this point they may have their A-bomb robust enough, as well, to fit onto a missile and survive the trip to a target.
This was allegedly their first try to test an H-bomb, and had a similar yeild to the third A bomb. Maybe they had an ignition failure on the second (H) stage on their first try. Any bets on whether they do on their second or third?
The Teller-Ulam configuration is a bit complicated. But it's not all that hard to understand or to build. (With the amount of secrecy and misdirection published on nuclear weapons I would expect that first try by a new player would, more likely than not, either fail to ignite or have significant shortfalls in yield. But I'd also expect an army of physicists and engineers to figure it out and get it right pretty quiclkly. People might try to keep secrets, but physics doesn't.)
Meanwhile: A Nagasaki-sized bomb might be small by Cold War standards, but it's quite adequate to ruin a city.
However, they are much closer to taking that crappy payload and putting it on a missile that could hit Japan.
They have been making, and selling, their successful knockoff of the SCUD for three decades now. They have tested a number of long-range missiles. That's apparently part of the same program, so I would expect it to have a payload weight and volume adequate to carry the bombs.
And they could probably already trundle that device into an underground tunnel that goes right into Seoul.
With those missiles no tunnel is required. But they could also put it in a container, put that on a cargo ship, and sail it into pretty much any seaport in the world. If the coast guard doesn't catch it far enough out, blammo!
It's mostly a joke because they're waving around a BB gun and calling it an assault rifle. You could still put someone's eye out with that thing, though.
7 kilotons of TNT equivalent is the energy of metric s**t load of BBs.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
For this we can thank Madeline HalfBright and BJ Clinton. Thanks guys! In about ten years, we will be having the same conversation, except about Iran , Hillary, and BHO.
Here is the non-right-wing fantasy version (aka the "reality based version") of how North Korea went nuclear:
North Korea built its first graphite reactor, a prototype for its plutonium production reactors, during Ronald Reagan's first term of office, and it went critical in 1986 during his second term.
By that time work had begun in the plutonium reactors, and a plutonium extraction plant that was near completion in 1992, when Herbert George Walker Bush was in office.
The, in 1994, when Bill Clinton was President, and Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State the U.S. arranged the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework which halted all work on the Yongbyon site, both the reactors and the processing plant and North Korea made no further movement toward going nuclear. This lasted for eight years, the entire rest of the Clinton presidency.
The in 2002, during the George W. Bush Presidency, ham-handed confrontational 'diplomacy' ('cuz real men don't do subtlety?) caused the Framework to breakdown, and North Korea restarted all of its weapon program facilities. This resulted, four years later, in 2006, with George W. Bush still in office North Korea began its series of nuclear tests.
So all of the significant progress toward going nuclear occurred during 5 Republican presidencies, and the 8 years of Bill Clinton are marked by a remarkable freeze on that program.
Now go back to you Democrat-hating, Fox News is on.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age