Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

North Korea's got the Bomb!


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#35 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 12:36 PM

I heard a report last night on the late news that scientists outside of N. Korea have found no abnormal levels of radioactivity from the test site, implying the blast used conventional explosives. A hoax!? :umno:

#36 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 01:11 PM

I heard a report last night on the late news that scientists outside of N. Korea have found no abnormal levels of radioactivity from the test site, implying the blast used conventional explosives. A hoax!? :umno:

The blast was in an old mine, to the best of my knowledge. I don't know whether they'd find any radioactivity from a blast 800-1000 meters underground...

#37 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 02:31 PM

The blast was in an old mine, to the best of my knowledge. I don't know whether they'd find any radioactivity from a blast 800-1000 meters underground...

I have yet to find an article to link, however the type of sampling done is consistent with the known effects of an underground nuclear blast. In other words if it was nuclear they know what readings to expect and in the absence of those readings the logical conclusion is that the blast was not nuclear. Off to find some linkage. :hihi:

:umno: :hihi: :hihi: :doh: :doh: :ebomb: :ebomb:



#38 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9148 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 02:45 PM

I heard a report last night on the late news that scientists outside of N. Korea have found no abnormal levels of radioactivity from the test site, implying the blast used conventional explosives. A hoax!?

Could just be spin or false reports, sometimes known as propaganda... :umno:

#39 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 02:47 PM

I have yet to find an article to link, however the type of sampling done is consistent with the known effects of an underground nuclear blast. In other words if it was nuclear they know what readings to expect and in the absence of those readings the logical conclusion is that the blast was not nuclear. Off to find some linkage. :hihi:

:umno: :hihi: :hihi: :doh: :doh: :ebomb: :ebomb:


I found this article quote about seismic evidence, but I heard a TV report mentioning air sampling which I have yet to find.

...U.S., French and South Korean experts estimated that the power of the explosion, about 240 miles northeast of Pyongyang, was equivalent to about 500 metric tons of TNT, which a senior U.S. intelligence community official said was unusually small for a nuclear blast.

By comparison, nuclear tests in 1998 by India and Pakistan were about 24 to 50 times as powerful, according to the Federation of American Scientists. (Nuclear nations)

Also, the small size of Monday's explosion may make it difficult for geological sensors to pick up radioactive emissions that would effectively confirm a nuclear test -- raising the possibility that the international community may never know for sure whether North Korea actually has a working nuclear bomb....

http://www.cnn.com/2...test/index.html

Mind you this is a trivial issue in so far as N. Korea's ambitions and actions constitute a threat to be thwarted. Ohh...IMO :hihi:

#40 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 02:48 PM

I have yet to find an article to link, however the type of sampling done is consistent with the known effects of an underground nuclear blast. In other words if it was nuclear they know what readings to expect and in the absence of those readings the logical conclusion is that the blast was not nuclear. Off to find some linkage. :hihi:

:umno: :hihi: :hihi: :doh: :doh: :ebomb: :ebomb:

I can't imagine North Korea allowing anybody to stroll through the undergrowth sampling radiation levels? Underground nukes are picked up seismically, but their radiation is contained in the shaft itself. You can stand right on top of the sucker, and your Geiger counter will only pick up normal radioactivity...

* KABOOM *

#41 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 02:50 PM

Could just be spin or false reports, sometimes known as propaganda... :umno:


Always a possibility. :hihi: Maybe just something sometimes known as a developing story? :hihi: :doh:

#42 Jay-qu

Jay-qu

    Ancora Imparo

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6340 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 04:25 PM

Ok so for a second just beleive that it was only TNT, that is a sh!t load of TNT!!! 500 metric tonnes shoved down a mine :phones: I dont know.. then would the blast not be more distributed, as in the shape of the blast would be different, because the 500t would take up a lot of space compared to a nuclear bomb?

:secret:

#43 infamous

infamous

    Visions of grandeur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3962 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 05:14 PM

do we really want to push them into a corner?

Better than allowing them to push us into one, IMHO............................Infy

#44 alexander

alexander

    Dedicated Smart-ass

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5722 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 07:10 PM

why trinitrotoluene all of the sudden, its has been obsolete for a while, and while it is still used, more conventional and more powerful explosives have been discovered since TNT...

looking up heats of formation formula TNT or C7 H5 N3 O6 has a mass basis of 227 g/mol and a heat of fomration of -54 kJ/mol

this means that TNT generates 616.4 kJ/mol of heat in its exothermic reaction and produces 2175.42 J/mol of energy.

why use old technology, use a similar composition explosive and lets see what we come up with

for example cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine or HMX having a composition of C4 H8 N8 O8 has a heat of formation of +104.77 kJ/mol with a mass basis of 296 g/mol, which translates into releasing 999.17 kJ/mol of heat and 3375.57 J/mol of energy.

that means there is a 24.311 percent gain in energy released, meaning you would need 121.556 tonns less explosives to produce the blast (that is if my math serves me right.... and i'm not a math person...)

bibliography: http://www.fas.org/m...ry/chemstry.htm

#45 IDMclean

IDMclean

    A Person

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1670 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 07:25 PM

Regarding the radiation thing, not all the radiation is contained, expecially with a light yeild nuke. They leak like a sivv.

It would be possible to do a fuel air bomb if done just right, I would suppose. It was pointed out to me today that their is a very real possibility that North Korea doesn't produce high enough quality people or material for building an effective nuclear weapon. That is people with the technical know-how, and the material that the bomb uses as fuel need to be relatively pure and the percise machinery is needed for the reaction setup.

#46 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 07:32 PM

why trinitrotoluene all of the sudden, its has been obsolete


The term here is a relative measure of energy used to gauge explosive forces regardless of the chemical makeup of the explosive itself. We say for example this device had a 1/2 kiloton yield which means simply it had as much explosive force as if one had detonated 500 tons of TNT.

Ok so for a second just beleive that it was only TNT, that is a sh!t load of TNT!!! 500 metric tonnes shoved down a mine I dont know.. then would the blast not be more distributed, as in the shape of the blast would be different, because the 500t would take up a lot of space compared to a nuclear bomb?


This is largely dependent on the shape of the cavity surrounding the explosive as well as the configuration of the closure above the device, and as stated above the size of the bomb is related to what explosive is used.:ebomb:

#47 Mercedes Benzene

Mercedes Benzene

    Student

  • Moderators
  • 2950 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 08:02 PM

This is largely dependent on the shape of the cavity surrounding the explosive as well as the configuration of the closure above the device, and as stated above the size of the bomb is related to what explosive is used.

This is very true. IN the last day or so, there has been much speculation as to how long North Korea has been working on their test "mine". It is entirely possible that the test site has been excavated over a long period of time. The size of the cavity would give the appearance of a smaller yield test.
It's really all speculation at this point.

#48 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 13 October 2006 - 12:30 AM

Whether the blast was caused by conventional or nuclear explosives can be readily seen in the seismic signature. Conventional explosives will 'spike' slower on a seismometer, visibly so. Nukes convert a lot less mass into a lot more energy in a hell of a lot less time than conventional explosives, and will show it on a seismometer.

I think the whole story of it being conventional, is simply a propaganda tool employed to belittle Kim Jong Il and to publically minimise the threat. And, KAC, it's not a question of North Korea not being able to produce the quality people or material so mentioned. After the fall of Communism, nuclear weaponry have become a kind of a home-craft industry, and the only effort required on your part is to know the right Russians, and you'll most likely get the required stuff. And Kim Jong certainly knows quite a few Russians who sorely need cash.

#49 Jay-qu

Jay-qu

    Ancora Imparo

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6340 posts

Posted 13 October 2006 - 02:30 AM

:ebomb: what a great point that I did not think of.. TNT is by no means the most powerful chemical explosive..

#50 alexander

alexander

    Dedicated Smart-ass

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5722 posts

Posted 13 October 2006 - 06:40 AM

oh, the shockwave is not only dependent on the size of the cavity, but also the shape of the charge can alter the power readings i would think, combined with right size cavity, and right shape of it together with a shaped charge, you may need relatively little explosive material to pull this off.

also HMX is kinda a pain to make, i would imagine that the process is similar to making of trinitroluene (that is judging by its composition, not a chem guy here...) they could use other conventional means of making lots of explosives cheap too, such as using ammonium nitrate which aint hard to make or get, and if i'm not mistaken its a sideproduct of some production, and fuel oil, perhaps combining it with alluminum dust it would't be hard to come up with 6-700 tonns of the explosive mixture and pump it into the mine mixing only at the very end...

#51 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 13 October 2006 - 12:11 PM

WASHINGTON - Results from an initial air sampling after North Korea's announced nuclear test showed no evidence of radioactive particles that would be expected from a successful nuclear detonation, a U.S. government intelligence official said Friday.

...
The air sample was taken Tuesday by a specialized aircraft, the WC-135, flying from Kadena air base in Okinawa, Japan. It apparently took the sample over the Sea of Japan, between the Korean mainland and Japan.

In Beijing, a government official said Friday that Chinese monitoring also has found no evidence of airborne radiation from the test-explosion. The official with the State Environmental Protection Administration said China has been monitoring air samples since Monday.


http://www.comcast.n.../13/498206.html

:kiss: :kiss: :surprise: :kiss: