Did North Korea really detonate a nuclear bomb?

[K1052]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
It could also have been a partially failed nuclear test. As in, only part of it went off?

A possibility, a large number of things could gone wrong have assuming the weapon was a Pu-239 implosion design.

They shouldn't have been able to fvck up a gun type U-235 weapon. Hell, I could build one if you gave me the chunks of uranium.

Hence the possibility of a "fizzle" where the bomb sort of pre-tetonates and produces a relatively small explosion.
The book I would recommend reading if you want to know about how the bomb was produced in the U.S. is
Manhattan Project: The Untold Story of the Making of the Atomic Bomb
in your library or here on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Manhattan-Project..._4/002-4508411-6029615?ie=UTF8&s=books
Even though it was written in 1967 it is still considered the definitive book.
And it is really interesting reading. I read it cover to cover in one sitting!

btw I was under the assumption that the Pakistanis only made plutonium bombs. Since the rogue Pakistanis who were selling bomb info are credited with aiding N. Korea and Iran I just assumed they were getting info on making a plutonium bomb.
Lastly the 6-8 nuclear weapons the N. Koreans allegedly make during Bush Seniors tenure would seem to indicate plutonium weapons since enriching that much uranium in the time in question would be highly doubtful.

I am familiar with the concept and the Manhattan Project.

Either that or NK is holding their Uranium weapons in reserve since they are much more likely to actually work and their quantity of U-235 is likely rather limited. Testing the Pu implosion design now gives them their foreign relations prod and they get to see if their design functions (looks like it needs work).

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: invidia

Originally posted by: Adamah

Originally posted by: BDawg
I like the part where the yield is reported as 500 tons of TNT. Hiroshima was 15,000 tons.

It was a mini-nuke...I say we lauch a real nuke at them now..and lets see what they say.

NK is a bunch of ARTARDS and they need to be beaten to a pulp with our nukes...

After that...we drop salt on them.

Hiroshima was a mini nuke. 500 tons is nothing but a large conventional bomb. Even the smallest nuke would give out at least 1kiloton of TNT.

Sub-kiloton nuclear weapons have been around for decades.

500 tons= 1 milion lbs of TNT. That is still a fair sized explosion.

 

[BrownTown]

North Korea only has plutonium bombs. They have no capability to enrich uranium. Their reactor is a 5MWe graphite moderated reactor that runs on natural uranium and breeds plutonium for their weapons programs. They can then reprocess the fuel to extract the plutonium. IT is simply easier to make a plutonium bomb, there is no need to even worry about enrichign uranium. With the right reactor design you can mine natural uranium from the ground, put it in the reactor, and produce plutonium. Then all you have to do is extract the plutonium from the fuel rods and stick it in a bomb with some other components (initiator/high explosives) and you got a crude low yield nuclear weapon. This is exactly what North Korea did, and really it is not a hard thing to do if you have the $$$ to do it, and the political will to piss off the rest of the world in the process.

Japan is smarter, they also extract plutonium from fuel rods (and they have waay more), but they just let it sit around until its needed, but if they want nukes then in a few months they can have them, but until then they can say they are non-nuclear. I believe South Korea also likely has stores of plutonium for this purpose. The fear of course is that NKs test will cause these 2 countries to actually make the bombs that they likely both have the designs and fuel for.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: BDawg
I like the part where the yield is reported as 500 tons of TNT. Hiroshima was 15,000 tons.

Sounds like they detonated a bomb that happened to have fissile material in it, but it wasn't really a nuclear bomb.

Their reactor is a 5MWe graphite moderated reactor that runs on natural uranium and breeds plutonium for their weapons programs.

Graphite moderated? That immediately made me think "Chernobyl."

 

[BrownTown]

Yeah, thats what you should be thinking of because its a similar type of reactor to Chernobyl. Nobody builds them anymore since they arent safe, but i doubt North Korea really cares about that.

Also, people need to get over this whole conspiracy theory cr@p, North Korea tested a simple atomic bomb jsut like the one used at trinity. However, depending on which number you believe in terms of yield it seems like it may very well have fissiled a good deal instead of exploding at its full intended yield. It might also be that since North Korea only has a very limited supply of Plutonium that they only used the smallest possible amount in order to test their ability to get a nuclear explosion, and that they *possibly* could have a larger yield device if they wanted to pack more plutonium per bomb.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Yeah, thats what you should be thinking of because its a similar type of reactor to Chernobyl. Nobody builds them anymore since they arent safe, but i doubt North Korea really cares about that.

Also, people need to get over this whole conspiracy theory cr@p, North Korea tested a simple atomic bomb jsut like the one used at trinity. However, depending on which number you believe in terms of yield it seems like it may very well have fissiled a good deal instead of exploding at its full intended yield. It might also be that since North Korea only has a very limited supply of Plutonium that they only used the smallest possible amount in order to test their ability to get a nuclear explosion, and that they *possibly* could have a larger yield device if they wanted to pack more plutonium per bomb.

I'm not a nuclear weapons expert but my understanding is that sub critical tests can still yield lots of information on weapon mechanics and give indications of how a chain reaction would go. And if the North Koreans were able to minitureize the device sufficiently, a sub kiloton bomb would actually be very useful for battlefield operations on the Korean Peninsula.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Graphite moderated? That immediately made me think "Chernobyl."

Aren't graphite control rods in a water drown bath the 'norm' for reactor control

I think that's the most commont way to regulate the rate of energy used to heat the water that provides the steam pressure for power generation.

Once the Chernobyl reactor was breached, they tried to smother it by dropping boron on it to bury the reactor pile.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Graphite moderated? That immediately made me think "Chernobyl."

Aren't graphite control rods in a water drown bath the 'norm' for reactor control

I think that's the most commont way to regulate the rate of energy used to heat the water that provides the steam pressure for power generation.

Once the Chernobyl reactor was breached, they tried to smother it by dropping boron on it to bury the reactor pile.

Once the Chernobyl reactor was breached, they tried to smother it by dropping boron on it to bury the reactor pile.
Which is exactly what Fermi had prepared to do at his first ever nuclear reactor in Chicago.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

We have planes up gathering data as well. If even a tiny bit of radioactive dust escaped they would detect it.

What they should be looking for is a post-detonation crater. A satellite in space should be able to capture images,
and using 'blink-comparators' overlay previous known territory with newer imagery and spot it easily.
If it was a Nuke, they should be able to locate a displacement crater nearly a half mile across.
Triangilation by Seismic Analysis would determine the location to within a few meters.

 

[Atheus]

I think we can be pretty sure that Kim Jong-il has a small weapon...

 

[piasabird]

You underestimate our abilit to detect a nuclear explosion. Satelites, and earthquake detectors and the kind of shock wave and pattern of the tremor produced is probably all it takes to tell if one has gone off. Still it might be nice to ask for an outside inspection of their site.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: piasabird
You underestimate our abilit to detect a nuclear explosion.
Satelites, and earthquake detectors and the kind of shock wave and pattern
of the tremor produced is probably all it takes to tell if one has gone off.
Still it might be nice to ask for an outside inspection of their site.

Patrick AFB, Florida

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Graphite moderated? That immediately made me think "Chernobyl."

Aren't graphite control rods in a water drown bath the 'norm' for reactor control

I think that's the most commont way to regulate the rate of energy used to heat the water that provides the steam pressure for power generation.

Once the Chernobyl reactor was breached, they tried to smother it by dropping boron on it to bury the reactor pile.

No, graphite moderated reactors are very unstable and very few still exist. All commercial US reactors use light water as both the moderator and the coolent.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Graphite moderated? That immediately made me think "Chernobyl."

Aren't graphite control rods in a water drown bath the 'norm' for reactor control

I think that's the most commont way to regulate the rate of energy used to heat the water that provides the steam pressure for power generation.

Once the Chernobyl reactor was breached, they tried to smother it by dropping boron on it to bury the reactor pile.

You are confusing control rods and moderator. Control rods are composed of some combination of Cadmium, Silver, Gadolinium, or other neutron-absorbing materials. The moderator is used to slow neutrons down but not absorb them, and can be water, heavy water, graphite, or other material with low atomic mass and low neutron absorption rate.

 

[ntdz]

Drudgereport had a report that it wasn't a nuke test a few days ago. They're always way ahead of the mainstream press reporting this kind of stuff...I definetly don't think it was successful, which bodes the question. If they couldn't even successfully test a nuke underground with 500 tons of TNT used to create the chain reaction, how the hell can they fit it on a missile with exponentially less explosives to create the reaction? I think they're extremely far away from being able to produce a missile that can hit us, much less Japan. With our missile shield mostly operational, I don't think N Korea stands as any threat to us in the near future.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Drudgereport had a report that it wasn't a nuke test a few days ago. They're always way ahead of the mainstream press reporting this kind of stuff...I definetly don't think it was successful, which bodes the question. If they couldn't even successfully test a nuke underground with 500 tons of TNT used to create the chain reaction, how the hell can they fit it on a missile with exponentially less explosives to create the reaction? I think they're extremely far away from being able to produce a missile that can hit us, much less Japan. With our missile shield mostly operational, I don't think N Korea stands as any threat to us in the near future.

I agree with most of your assumption with the exception of the missle shield bit. It isn't even close to being ready for anything outside of an announced test.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Drudgereport had a report that it wasn't a nuke test a few days ago. They're always way ahead of the mainstream press reporting this kind of stuff...I definetly don't think it was successful, which bodes the question. If they couldn't even successfully test a nuke underground with 500 tons of TNT used to create the chain reaction, how the hell can they fit it on a missile with exponentially less explosives to create the reaction? I think they're extremely far away from being able to produce a missile that can hit us, much less Japan. With our missile shield mostly operational, I don't think N Korea stands as any threat to us in the near future.

The threat is not directly to us.

It is missle/artillery against SK/Japan.

Then for those that will pay for them, comes the suitcase nukes or a larger weapon contained in a shipping container.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Drudgereport had a report that it wasn't a nuke test a few days ago. They're always way ahead of the mainstream press reporting this kind of stuff...I definetly don't think it was successful, which bodes the question. If they couldn't even successfully test a nuke underground with 500 tons of TNT used to create the chain reaction, how the hell can they fit it on a missile with exponentially less explosives to create the reaction? I think they're extremely far away from being able to produce a missile that can hit us, much less Japan. With our missile shield mostly operational, I don't think N Korea stands as any threat to us in the near future.

Its not the amount of explosives needed. In fact using 500 tons would probably NEVER work. It has NOTHING to do with the amount of the explosives.
In order to achieve compression you need to set off a shock wave around a spherical shell of plutonium. The amount of the explosive used is relatively small.
You need a special way of exploding the explosive. Achieving this is difficult because you have to invert the shock waves from concave to convex (or maybe vice versa?) and achieve an almost incredibly uniform explosive pattern.
If they actually used 500 tons of explosives then it was definitely NOT an attempt to explode a nuclear bomb but to decieve the world into believing they set off a nuclear bomb.

 

[Sheepathon]

From the Economist:

n the near term, North Korea?s nuclear capabilities are more likely to pose a greater risk to North Koreans than to the neighbours. The country is reckoned to have reprocessed enough weapons-grade plutonium to make several bombs (it has also admitted to a programme for enriching uranium). The bombs, however, are fairly crude?in the underground test, the nuclear reaction was probably triggered by a large conventional charge. Such a bomb, in other words, is not easily transportable; North Korea is still some way from being able to miniaturise nuclear weapons to use on missiles or even to drop from planes. Unusual means of delivery, such as a shipping container, would be needed if North Korea?s were to be used in anger. So the immediate threats from North Korea?s new capability come from radioactive leaks into the atmosphere and North Korea?s groundwater.

Don't believe all the hype about this past weekend's events.

 

[BrownTown]

I am still very sure it was an actuall nuke test, however I jsut think it would be funny as hell if it was fake. I mean that would be one of the biggest hoaxes ever to fake a nuclear bomb test. I know before the Trinity test they exploded 100 tons of TNT in order to create a reference to measure the yield from, so its entirely possible to get that much explosive in one place and blow it all up if you really wanted. And since its underground and the radiation is supposedly contained it would be difficult to prove it was fake

 

[Schadenfroh]

Confirmed nuke, but it sucked compared to 1940s US atomic weapons.

The U.S. government said on Monday that the test conducted by North Korea on October 9 was a nuclear explosion of less than one kiloton.

"Analysis of air samples collected on October 11, 2006, detected radioactive debris which confirms that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion," the director of national intelligence said in a statement.

The statement said the explosion yield was less than a kiloton. By comparison, the nuclear bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945 was about 12.5 kilotons.

 

[1EZduzit]

They must not have wanted to waste too much of their weapons grade plutonium.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Confirmed nuke, but it sucked compared to 1940s US atomic weapons.

The U.S. government said on Monday that the test conducted by North Korea on October 9 was a nuclear explosion of less than one kiloton.

"Analysis of air samples collected on October 11, 2006, detected radioactive debris which confirms that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion," the director of national intelligence said in a statement.

The statement said the explosion yield was less than a kiloton. By comparison, the nuclear bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945 was about 12.5 kilotons.

Why did it take so long to confirm???

 

[BrownTown]

It was a small test and so the samples were likely somewhat ambiguous. Nobody wants to go make a false claim, so you wait till there are several tests showing the same thing before you publish results. Its better to take awhile and get it right the first time then to have to come by a week later and change your position.

 

[maluckey]

It took so long to confirm because NK is not an open country so to speak...:disgust: