DOES NORTH KOREA HAVE THE BIG BOOM?

Today at 10 a.m. local time in North Korea, a seismic event measuring 5.1 on the Richter Scale, was detected 12 miles East-Northeast of Sungjibaegam, according a statement form the the United States Geological Survey. This gives a possible proof to the North Korean declaration of a successful detonation of a Hydrogen bomb. If the underground test is confirmed by outside sources, then Kim Jong-un's Democratic People's Republic of Korea will have moved into the big time when it comes to nuclear proliferation.

It's been thought that North Korea conducted tests on fission weapons possibly made from plutonium in 2006, 2009 and 2103 which produced yields of maybe up to ten to fifteen kilotons of energy. The Rand Corporation thinks that the DPRK might have the capacity to churn them out at the rate of one per year, but fusion weapons are a whole other story. A Thermonuclear bomb, (North Korea's Hydrogen) at the extreme, can ramp up the yield by factors of thousands. The Fission bomb dropped on Hiroshima produced about 15 Kilotons, the one dropped on Nagasaki, about 20 Kilotons. 54 years ago, Russia detonated a Hydrogen bomb named Tsar Bomba. The yield 50 megatons, a weapon equivalent to 2500 of those inflicted on Japan.

On the bright side, there are some who are of the opinion that the DPRK does not have the capacity to have progressed so far in such a short time. They are suggesting the going from fission to fusion in only three years is probably not on the cards. But the number international voices being raised in alarm, implies that maybe there's a hint of truth the in the North Korean announcement.

 

A proper set of bellends. But that's how all these morons start out- being given power without intelligence.

Let's hope they are lying and in a fantasy world because the world has quite enough nutters without North Korea piping up.

Worryingly the seismic event does indicate an element of truth.

 

This is an eye opener Toppy. It the story of the race to build the biggest bomb. It goes for about an 40 minutes, but it's great viewing.

 

The articles I've read state it's highly unlikely to be a hydrogen bomb as the size of the explosion was not much bigger than previous nuclear detonations in the area. Hydrogen bombs are significantly more powerful. The likely explanations are either a "regular" nuclear detonation or a hydrogen bomb that didn't go off properly.

Not exactly brilliant news either way, but not quite the doomsday scenario some are painting it out to be.

 

This is the moment when I like to point out that only one dim witted country on our planet has ever used a WMD on another nation.

 

The real issue is their Ballistic programme as although there is big difference between a hydrogen and regular nuclear it is accepted that they already possess the latter, and those if married with the means to deliver them could cause a damage never yet seen in history. The thing with all of these weapons however is the same for all those who possess them in that it is certain destruction also for whoever uses them against another nuclear power. The only real danger is a leader who is on the way out and has nothing to lose, and one day this crackpot could fall into this category.

 

Yes, but this final section of WW2 would have gone on for years, the Japanese were a brutal and fanatical enemy and would never have surrendered under 'normal' circumstances? I lost relatives in the conflict out there, and, at the time and although very young, I was damn glad when it was all over. I am sure a few million Australians and New Zealanders felt that way too at that time. No good getting hysterical/upset about it now?

 

My only concern about the use by the USA of the a-bomb to 'end' the Second World War was the hurry to drop 'Fat Man' on Nagasaki so soon after the first atom bomb on Hiroshima. A gap of three days suggests to me two things:

1. To make sure the science and delivery of the second bomb was correct and possible.
2. A severe warning to the USSR.

If any of my fellow posters have greater knowledge of science, history and geopolitics please enlighten me.

 

Good point on (1), no idea on (2), BayernKenny. Must admit to have always been uneasy about Nagasaki, but would the Japanese have actually quit after Hiroshima? I have my doubts there, but the Allies should have waited longer than 3-days.

Digressing slightly, I visited Kanchanaburi War Cemetery in Thailand in the late '80s. Line upon line of graves of young soldiers, mostly between 18 and 22 years-of-age, so many from the East Anglian regiments of England. Many of these soldiers died as prisoners on the notorious Burma Road. A boss of mine in my early working days was a POW there, and he told me it was almost a 'forgotten war' in the UK. He returned on a troop ship that sailed into Liverpool docks one dark Autumn morning, no one there, not a soul. He told me that his family were so shocked at the sight of him, totally emaciated. A ghastly phase of WW2.

 

There was definitely an element of 2. in the decision Bayern. The USA knew that the USSR were also developing nuclear weapons so they wanted to demonstrate their own strength first.

There was an interesting article on the BBC site in August last year which says that there was a shortlist of cities for bombing and that it was only by chance that Nagasaki ended up as a target - until a few weeks before the bomb was dropped Kyoto was the intended main target and bad weather meant that the second-placed target, Kokura, was not possible. Apparently there was a third bomb being prepared to drop on Tokyo a week later but this was abandoned when the Japanese surrendered.

Full article here

The East Anglian regiments took a battering in the Far East during WWII, there are a lot of veterans/families of veterans still in this area. I know one woman who was offered a place on a cultural visit to Japan when she was 15 (late 1990s) because her grandfather was a POW. She went to Japan for 6 weeks and had an amazing time, hosted by an elderly couple who taught themselves English specifically for her visit.

 

My A-Level in Physics hardly puts me up there with Einstein and Oppenheimer but I know a bit about fission and fusion. Sting had some views on the matter a few years back but pondered whether the Russians loved their children too.

Unquestionably we can consider the USA to be “one dim witted country” but the devices dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, “Atomic bombs”, were examples of nuclear fission. Splitting the atom released a huge amount of energy that caused a city-sized cataclysm in both instances and brought a speedy resolution to the war in the Pacific.

Science has moved on since 1945 and the Cold War years saw the USA, Russia and China working on deadlier toys. If they were not testing them underground in Nanshan, Kazakhstan or New Mexico they were irradiating remote Pacific islands (e.g. Bikini Atoll).

The “Hydrogen bomb” is an example of nuclear fusion rather than fission. The theory has it that forcing atoms to coalesce creates a lot more energy. Fortunately nobody has tried to use one yet.

Given the reported severity (or lack thereof) from the Korean explosion, it seems reasonable to conclude that whatever sort of device was being tested by Kim and his friends, a feasible Hydrogen bomb it was not.

If he put so much time and effort into feeding his impoverished populace perhaps he would not need such overwhelming domestic military power to maintain the family dictatorship.

Does North Korea Have The Big Boom? No.