well, first off @ gsellis, it was a nuke, not conventional explosives, stop with the conspiracy theories. Also the fact you don't even know the name of the country and call it "NKPR" doesnt help your case. Its DPRK .. Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
also @ JSSheridan, this is a plutonium device. It is using PU-239 breed from U238 in a nuclear reactor, it also likely contained too much PU-240 which can be a large factor in a device fissiling like the one tested did. PU-240 spontainiously fissions at a high rate and will cause the reaction to start before the critical masses are fully assembled, greatly reducing yield. When you breed Plutonium in a power reactor the U238 goes to PU-239 which then goes to PU-240. If you use only very short fuel cycles then you can increase the ratio of PU-239 : PU-240, but never eliminate all of it. This incidentally is why a gun-style nuke cannot work with Plutonium, becasue the 2 pieces will fissile before they can be fully assembled.
also @ JSSheridan, this is a plutonium device. It is using PU-239 breed from U238 in a nuclear reactor, it also likely contained too much PU-240 which can be a large factor in a device fissiling like the one tested did. PU-240 spontainiously fissions at a high rate and will cause the reaction to start before the critical masses are fully assembled, greatly reducing yield. When you breed Plutonium in a power reactor the U238 goes to PU-239 which then goes to PU-240. If you use only very short fuel cycles then you can increase the ratio of PU-239 : PU-240, but never eliminate all of it. This incidentally is why a gun-style nuke cannot work with Plutonium, becasue the 2 pieces will fissile before they can be fully assembled.
gsellis
Diamond Member
- Dec 4, 2003
- 6,061
- 0
- 0
We still have no radiological evidence from last reports. But, we also know that underground devices are not going to show gases in Australia (I was trying to figure out why they even mentioned the Oz station in a report).
But considering the timing involved on a Pu implosion device, I think it is a dude/poor extraction (as you outlined). BUT it is not impossible that it was a conventional HE, which is why I layed it out. I don't have the satellite intel to see if a bunch of boxcars or trucks rolled up over the last few months.
As for NKPR vs DPRK. I was incorrect, but did not give a rat's a## to look it up. I was still working on the first cup of joe
imported_eppenoire
Member
- Jan 6, 2005
- 35
- 1
- 71
A couple of things:
1) Its highly unlikely that they detonated a nuke of any yeild underground due to NK's entensive underground water table. Per the USGA information on the epicenter of the blast, there are at least two city/towns with populations of over 120,000 people located within 50 miles of the blast site. According UN analysis, which was initiated because NK sat in on the Pakistan testing, NK would not be able to carry out underground testing because of the terrain (ie lack of desert) and reliance on ground water as a primary water source.
2) Strip mine detonations are done in sequence, because if set off all at once, they would show up as a nuclear detonation. Furthermore tnt is far from the only conventional means of creating a big bang.
3) We will know in a couple of weeks whether or not it was nuclear, once the people in surrounding towns start dying, which we can observe via satallite.
1) Its highly unlikely that they detonated a nuke of any yeild underground due to NK's entensive underground water table. Per the USGA information on the epicenter of the blast, there are at least two city/towns with populations of over 120,000 people located within 50 miles of the blast site. According UN analysis, which was initiated because NK sat in on the Pakistan testing, NK would not be able to carry out underground testing because of the terrain (ie lack of desert) and reliance on ground water as a primary water source.
2) Strip mine detonations are done in sequence, because if set off all at once, they would show up as a nuclear detonation. Furthermore tnt is far from the only conventional means of creating a big bang.
3) We will know in a couple of weeks whether or not it was nuclear, once the people in surrounding towns start dying, which we can observe via satallite.
The main reason why it is not very likely that is was a conventional device is that 500 tons of TNT is still a VERY large pile of explosives meaning you would
A) Need a very large cave that would need to be excavated.
B) You would also need good infrastructure in order to be able to transport the explosives to the cave.
Now, DPRK is under constant satellite surveillance and AFAIK there are no reports of that kind of activity in that region, a project of that magnitude would have been impossible to hide.
However, moving a nuke into an old coal mine without being detected is probably quite easy.
edit: 500 tons, or 500 000 kg; not 500 000 tons...
A) Need a very large cave that would need to be excavated.
B) You would also need good infrastructure in order to be able to transport the explosives to the cave.
Now, DPRK is under constant satellite surveillance and AFAIK there are no reports of that kind of activity in that region, a project of that magnitude would have been impossible to hide.
However, moving a nuke into an old coal mine without being detected is probably quite easy.
edit: 500 tons, or 500 000 kg; not 500 000 tons...
We're talking less than 1000 tons of conventional explosives. Texas City, Texas had two much larger than that in one day. Look it up. It's really no big deal.
imported_eppenoire
Member
- Jan 6, 2005
- 35
- 1
- 71
Ever heard of ANFO? It was orignally developed for mining, however has been used to simulate nuclear detonations(http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/pro...biblio.jsp?osti_id=6871923&query_id=0). If you were going to fake a nuke explosion you would most likely use a melding of chemical explosions and use the subterrainian environment to amplify the effects. All you have to do is fool the sensors. Like I said earlier we will know for certain in a few weeks once the ground water has leached into the ocean or the people in the surrounding region die.
the radiation from such a small device is highly unlikely to kill people in the neighboring towns, so expect a bunch of people to randomly be dying from this.
EDIT: also, the news sites are now reporting radiation was detected. I guess if you want to be a conspiracy theorists then they are just releasing it on purpose to fool us though, so this probably won't convince you.
EDIT: also, the news sites are now reporting radiation was detected. I guess if you want to be a conspiracy theorists then they are just releasing it on purpose to fool us though, so this probably won't convince you.
How hard is it to get a 'fizzle' nuclear explosion? Say you have plenty of uranium and trigger explosive but not much skill or equipment, could you get a small amount of the fuel consumed in fission? Maybe even by accident in attempt to make a 'dirty bomb'?
Well, it depends how their device was setup. If it was sent up as a 'Gun' device where you shoot a subcritical mass projectile of HE U-235 into another subcritical mass of HE U-235, then that is very unlikely to fizzle. The velocity of the projectile needs to be fast enough. I think the 'Little Boy' device was 300 m/s. The team with the Manhattan Project was so sure of it that they didn't bother to test this setup before deploying the device. This type of device doesn't work for Pu-239 however, and 'Gun' devices are unsafe.
The other type of device that can be used is an implosion, where many simultaneous explosions around a subcritical mass compress it to a prompt critical state. This works with either U-235 or Pu-239. If the explosions aren't properly timed or powerful enough, the device may fizzle, that is, disassemble itself before the planned % of fuel was used. The Trinity test was an implosion device, and they didn't know if it was guaranteed to work.
The other type of device that can be used is an implosion, where many simultaneous explosions around a subcritical mass compress it to a prompt critical state. This works with either U-235 or Pu-239. If the explosions aren't properly timed or powerful enough, the device may fizzle, that is, disassemble itself before the planned % of fuel was used. The Trinity test was an implosion device, and they didn't know if it was guaranteed to work.
getting a chunk of plutonium to fizzile is not difficult. And i mean really not difficult, you could hold one chunk in your left and and the other in your right hand and smash them together. That would casue it to fizzile, but .5kT of fizzile, that takes a little more work, but still is not even remotely hard. Having a bomb fizzile mean you screwed up, and I have never seen an example of a test that any other country carried out that failed. I'm sure its probably happened, but you have to suck pretty bad at making bombs to not get a nuke to work once you have the correct materials.
A Manhattan Project mishap resulted in several chunks of uranium being placed close enough together to produce a very low grade fission that resulted in some people and stuff being seriously zapped.
they're not sure. for a nuclear bomb, what NK tested would be considered a dud here in the states or in my country. the problem is miniturization. getting a small enough nuke to fit on a missile is difficult. unless NK is really really advanced( which they clearly are not) then the only way they can threaten an country is the way the US did with a plane which is easy to shoot down.
gsellis
Diamond Member
- Dec 4, 2003
- 6,061
- 0
- 0
Someone pointed out this weekend that what DPRK has might have been enough to kick it up a notch. They may not have been testing a fission bomb. The may have been testing a trigger for a fusion bomb. That shot might have been big enough for kicking Lithium Hydride. Pure conjecture. I will stick with poor design first.
Trying to go directly to a staged thermonuclear device would be idiotic, and to my knowledge North Korea has no ability to do so. Where is your sources suggesting they have enough uranium, tritium, and deuterium to even build such a device if they even knew how? Anyways, its alot easier to simply try to make a boosted bomb which gets you a lot better yield per KG of plutonium than a simple fission bomb does. However, normally you would try to see if you can get the simple one to work BEFORE building the ones that are more complex.
gsellis
Diamond Member
- Dec 4, 2003
- 6,061
- 0
- 0
They are supposed to have heavy water reactors. Never worked on figuring how to get Li deuteride from it, but heavy water is the piece they would also need. Tritium is created as part of the reaction from the fission bomb IIRC.
And you just never know. Still think it was a failed implosion device. But it is an interesting riddle. Oh, and see Drudge. US reports signs of a second test site being prepped.
The size of North Korea's bomb yield may be a little hazy due to the possibilty of the North Koreans applying the idea of decoupling. The United States experimented on decoupling, or attenuation of the blast produced by an underground nuclear detonation, during two nuclear tests, Operation Salmon and Operation Sterling. These tests occured in a salt dome under Baxterville, Mississippi in the mid 1960's. By using the large chamber created by the Operation Salmon detonation, the decoupling effect was proven when Operation Sterling took place. These tests were monitored by the USGS and the Army to listen for any change in the infrasound generated by the blasts. By effectively decoupling the blast from the surounding earth, the North Koreans may have at least partially, obfuscated their test.
[Q=jssheridan]If it was sent up as a 'Gun' device where you shoot a subcritical mass projectile of HE U-235 into another subcritical mass of HE U-235, then that is very unlikely to fizzle. The velocity of the projectile needs to be fast enough. I think the 'Little Boy' device was 300 m/s. The team with the Manhattan Project was so sure of it that they didn't bother to test this setup before deploying the device.[/quote]
Wow. That's interesting.
Iran is supposedly hunting down a uranium nuke; the media talks as if they've got rows and rows of centrifuges hooked together for action. Since the gun mechanism works well enough to forgo testing (even in missile weapons), how would you know when Iran has a workable bomb?
We have to wait for North Korea to pull off a successful test. We have to assume that, once Iran has enough fissionable material, that they are a nuclear power.
Iran's missile tech (according to every online source - don't take this as fact) comes from North Korea. They supposedly have the same Taep'o Dong 2 engines which failed North Korea in recent tests... but you might want to assume that Iranian engineers can solve issues that North Korea never could.
Wow. This is all very interesting.
Wow. That's interesting.
Iran is supposedly hunting down a uranium nuke; the media talks as if they've got rows and rows of centrifuges hooked together for action. Since the gun mechanism works well enough to forgo testing (even in missile weapons), how would you know when Iran has a workable bomb?
We have to wait for North Korea to pull off a successful test. We have to assume that, once Iran has enough fissionable material, that they are a nuclear power.
Iran's missile tech (according to every online source - don't take this as fact) comes from North Korea. They supposedly have the same Taep'o Dong 2 engines which failed North Korea in recent tests... but you might want to assume that Iranian engineers can solve issues that North Korea never could.
Wow. This is all very interesting.
The 'gun-style' device has several problems that make it pretty crappy for a weapon. First off you have to have the long barrel down which the HEU will travel after ignition. I don't know the numbers out of hand, but this HAS to be pretty long. The reuqired length means that the resulting warhead will be too large to fit on a missile. Especially the crappy missiles that North Korea or Iran has. Also, you cannot use reactor breed Plutonium in a 'gun-style' device or it will fissile. This is becasue the small amounts of PU-240 will set off the chain reaction before the 2 pieces are fully assembled. However, it is true that if you have a decent amount of HEU then it is simple to construct a functioning nuclear device. But it would have to be dropped from a plane, not launched from a missile.
Also, the gun type devices are unsafe, even for nuclear weapons. If anything triggers the explosive that propells the HEU 'bullet', your in trouble. The risk of premature activation is pretty high, so you can't have the weapon fully assembled until you want to use it. The crew of the Enola Gay that dropped Little Boy didn't load the explosive until after they had taken off from the base.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter