Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Was North Korea's 'nuclear' test a con?

Lock&Light said:
Only the hard of learning need a comment for that link.


Ah, waiting for your moment to pounce. You have no room to talk; you aren't exactly graced with intellect - are you? I find it amusing how one, so devoid of intellect, can have the audacity to accuse another of being "hard of learning". But then you're not the sharpest tool in the box. Only thing is, you are incapable of self-analysis.

Now kindly fuck off and die. Please feel free to report me. After all, if I report you, the mods will only come along and blame me for this altercation. Whereas, they will act on your report. You must feel really good about that. But, as they say, tiny things for tiny minds.
 
Lock&Light said:
Interesting that you have to ask.

"Ask"? You're as thin on intellect as Donald Trump is thin on hair and like him, you try and cover up your inadequacy. Only in your case, it's the posting of crap instead of a ridiculous comb-over. Either way, they're both laughable. :D
 
sometimes i wonder why I dont delve into world affairs etc more often...

the insights
the passing on of information relating to world events
in depth discussions about current affairs
 
Pingu said:
sometimes i wonder why I dont delve into world affairs etc more often...

the insights
the passing on of information relating to world events
in depth discussions about current affairs
pointless bitching
personal abuse
etc

good innit:rolleyes:

sort it out please people
 
If any of you are in any doubt as to how this started, have a look at post 76.

It wasn't me who derailed this thread nor did I begin this 'pointless bitching' by winding up another poster. There are two posters (both of them on this thread) who specialise in derailing threads that ask serious questions about foreign policy and the attendant media hype. Perhaps those of you who want to debate/discuss things seriously should have a word with the posters in question.

Thank you.
 
kebabking said:
not sure about fizzle or hoax yet, both are ridiculously embarrasing for DPRK...
It's looking a lot like fizzle, what with the appropriate radioactive debris having been detected and all.

Sure it would have been better from the point of view of NK had the bomb exploded properly, but the engineers and scientists involved will have learnt a very great deal from their experiment. In that sense, it was not a failure, it was more likely a very big step towards being able to trigger a full detonation.
 
kebabking said:
if you're in central london? lots, if you're in Tottenham: very little, if you're in Reading? none at all.

a sub-kilotonne warhead is used (doctrinally) to destroy groups of concentrated armour or more widely spread 'soft' targets - like communications sites, radars, docks, logistics depots and the likes.

in a rural area a sub kilotonne weapon could be dropped on - say an advancing armoured regiment - and would probably destroy/completely disable anything within 800 metres of the detonation point. damage is then graduated the further out you go until you get to about 3000m where you'd just say 'shit that was a big bang' or 'fuck that was bright' and go about your business as before.

understanding what would happen in a city is much more complicated, the cityscape provides both shelter and burning materiels, as well as the architecture for a firestorm of the type seen in WWII as a result of conventional bombing.

the interesting thing for me is that the 'first nukes' of the previous nuclear powers have all been in the 12 - 20kt range. this suggests that this is the easiest size/type to build - so the chances of DPRK deliberately setting out to build a much smaller weapon (of a type/size not seen in western arsenals until perhaps 30 years after the development of the first nukes) is pretty slim.

not sure about fizzle or hoax yet, both are ridiculously embarrasing for DPRK...
Most countries develop gun type uranium weapons first, then go on to the more complex implosion plutonium weapons.

The plutonium weapons is far more complex to build and its partial success is a technical achievement all the same. There are political reasons as well for a deliberate fissle that are possible. Amoung these is to walk a fine line with China (i.e. proving it is a weapons state without scaring the crap out of Seoul).

First detonations have almost exclusively been basicaly experimental packages. They tend to be over engineered and are not deployable weapons*. However if North Korea has detonated a geniune 0.5 kt weapon first up it may be demonstrating an artillary shell, or a missile warhead for its Taepong missile that can reach its maximum possible range.

North Korea officialy declared its self nuclear armed in 2002 and may have conducted sub critical tests that sufficiently demonstrate the necessary charactaristics of a conservative bomb, that they felt they only needed to fully test a far more advanced design to ensure that it worked.

A range of possibilities are on the table, with a fissle only being the most likely and that not necessarily a good thing.

*They tend to be very bulky and very heavy and have no aerodynamics to speak of.
 
i understand the technical issues - to a degree - but i just can't understand why a regime which lives on bombastic statements, over-hype and vast displays of (apparrent) military might would possibly prefer to confirm its new power by demonstrating such a low-yeild weapon when a much higher yeild one would almost certainly be available - and probably sooner.

everything i read about our creepy friend says 'psychological impact' is his turn-on, X million troops, 4,000 artillery pieces aimed at Seoul, hugely aggressive news broadcasts declaring war on a hyperpower - and then he demonstrates his new found nuclear capability by detonating a weapon with about the lowest yeild you can get?

summat smells fishier than a fishes wet bits...
 
I agree fissle is the most likely scenario, but its one thing yapping on too the americans who can no longer tolerate the casualties of a real war on the pennisula, its another annoying the People's Liberation Army or its bosses.

Also the North Korean leadership is very likely to be less of a one man show than people assume. It is a difficult state to fathom, but he is no Stalin or Saddam in terms of his grip on power, Kim Il is probibly far more constrained by factions within his government. (as I say probibly.)
 
Subsequent analysis of samples has shown that the fissile material used in the test was plutonium. Since different fissile materials produce different proportions of various radionuclides, measuring these ratios (such as the ratios of Xe-133, Xe-133m and Xe-135) can unambiguously determine the fissile material used.

The North Koreans have high grade plutonium (content of neutron emitting Pu-240 measured at 2.44% by the IAEA in the July 1992, compared to 6% for U.S. weapons plutonium), so problems with predetonation are almost certainly not the cause.

Likely causes of a partial failure would be poor implosion performance (that is, poor compression), or late initiation.

Regarding the possibility of poor compression, it should be observed that they are likely trying to develop a relatively sophisticated light system suitable for missiles, in the range of 500-1000 kg, not the 3500 kg design of the WWII Fat Man, which proved very reliable. Failure might be due to problems perfecting the design, or simply some test-related technical fault in an otherwise sound design.

The relatively low yield announced prior to the test was possibly to conserve plutonium of which North Korea has a fairly limited supply.
Source


Also very strongly worthy of noting. There were two possible routes for a North Korean bomb. One was uranium the other was Plutonium. All of the DPRK's plutonium was under international seal until 2002 when Bush announced that they were refinining uranium ilegally and pulled out of the deal with the DPRK. Had this been a uranium bomb it would have proven Bush right, but as it is only a plutonium bomb, it's source is undisputably material that was under international monitoring until 2002 and Bush's intervention.

Until new evidence emerges, it can be safely assumed that this weapon test is a failure of Bush's policies.
 
well thats no great shock!

question remains however: does DPRK have (or will have soon) a deployable, usable nuclear weapons doctrine?

if their plutonium supply is so limited then is it possible/likely that they have only one or two other weapons, potentially very low yeild weapons?
 
david dissadent said:
Also the North Korean leadership is very likely to be less of a one man show than people assume. It is a difficult state to fathom, but he is no Stalin or Saddam in terms of his grip on power, Kim Il is probibly far more constrained by factions within his government. (as I say probibly.)
#
AFAIK, He pretty much runs the entire show - he micromanages the lot.
 
kebabking said:
well thats no great shock!

question remains however: does DPRK have (or will have soon) a deployable, usable nuclear weapons doctrine?

if their plutonium supply is so limited then is it possible/likely that they have only one or two other weapons, potentially very low yeild weapons?
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so94albright

About 35 kg of weapons grade plutonium at 5kg per bomb once the technology has been mastered.

It almost certainly has one large heavy 15kt plus weapon that it most likely cannot deploy, perhaps two of these. This test seems aimed at a refined small weapon in low kt range that is light enough to reach targets far off in Japan and for future missiles the US, or to be used as nuclear artillary rounds to pound Seoul and US/ South Korean defences.
 
difference between a Uranium and Plutonium bomb

I wrote this in responce to a question on another forum but thought one or two here may benefit from the answer I gave, as alway apologies for my poor smelling.
There is no salient difference when one goes of on your home town. But the route that they were obtained is important in this case.

To develop a plutonium bomb you need a reactor, a specific kind of a reactor, that NK has to irradiate uranium and turn it into plutonium. As they are different chemical elements, chemestry seperates them. So once you have irradiated uranium getting the plutonium is an easy step.

To get weapons grade uranium for a uranium bomb things are a bit different. You need to seperate isotopes of the same element. They are chemicaly identical so no chemestry can seperate them. Theyre is a sublte weight difference though. The fraction of 238/235. Various methods are used to seperate the two differing weights of isotopes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_centrifuge gas centerfuges are the easiest to attain innitialy, but they are energy hungry and take hundreds to make a feasable weapons program as they tend to only be able to make milligrams of U235 per year per unit.

North Korea had obtained about 12 (not sure of the exact number) a number perhaps 30-40 times too small for a weapons program. But the Americans accused them of developing Uranium bombs.

The difference in how they are detonated is also salient. The uranium bomb requires a relatively unsophistaceted 'gun' type assembly method. Basicaly a slug of uranium is shot out of a gun into a larger mass pushing it above critical mass. Almost anyone who can build an artillary gun can produce this kind of weapon, with weapons grade uranium.

Plutonium bombs however will not work like this. They will predetonate and fissle. They require explosives to surround them and compress them to push them above a critical density threshold. This is a rather more difficult technical challange and requires some no mean engineering and physics to get right first time. In part because of the nuclear physics and getting the wrong kind of explosives can also fissle the weapon.


Why this is important is that Korea had enough plutonium from its reactor to make a plutonium bomb or two. Far far to little to test its design with. So it had to be very conservative with its design to hope it worked. However once the Agreed Framework collapsed it gained access to alot more plutonium it already had and is now able to refine far more complex weapons it can mount on its small rockets instead of lumping great monsters that would struggle to fit aboard a C-130 Herculeas.
 
Americans have this aspect of cowardice in their blood. If they felt they couldn't win, they'd never try. .

Well that's the advice Sun Tzu AND Macchiavelli both offer - don't start a fight that you can't win.
 
it was a big thing over here until china went and bollocked him

i thought that was well funny when Kim Jong Il came out of that meeting with china and he looked like a kid ho's just been sent to the headmaster
 
Strange thing here is no one really seems to care.

I was expecting people to be really worried about it, but people just seemed to shrug their shoulders around here (Seoul) How did the Pusan people seem to react ninja?
 
Is there a feeling then that with food shortages being so acute in North Korea that it's just a bit of bluster and really everything there is going to go with a whimper rather than a bang?
 
the attitude i've encountered is that kim jong il is constantly making these threats of war etc like the boy who cried wolf sort of thing

in my experience south koreans see korea as one country and the aim is to reunite the two rather than any concept of 'beating' north korea
 
lostexpectation said:
does nobody find it funny the NK detonated test nuclear bomb and the world just went *shrug*?
For South Korea, well because it was a 500 tonne fire cracker that North Korea had boasted it possed back in 2002, when they were expecting a 15 kt one.

Because it makes virtualy no difference to the threat that the DPRK poses to them, as they are expiting an apocalyptic barrage against them when the war starts. The quoted figure is for Seoul to be reciving 10 000 warheads a minute for the first hour of the war. (The bulk of these warheads being in the 40-50kg range from artillary shells and rocket artillary such as BM-21.)

That in additional to thousands of tonnes of conventional explosives the attack will include, perhaps up to hundreds of tonnes of mustard, phosegene and other gases in addition to tonnes of nerve gases such as sarin (GB) and tabin (GA) plus perhaps Cyanogen chloride (CK), Hydrogen cyanide (AC) and [although very disputed] VG gasses.

For the Koreans the test was a firecracker.
 
Back
Top Bottom