 |
|
« Note | Main | "Radical Muslims not worthy of the religion" » October 09, 2006
How Powerful Was the North Korean Nuke?
Posted by Dorkafork It looks liket it was a low yield nuke. The only thing we civilians have to look at as far as empirical data goes is the Richter scale reading. If you go by the USGS value of 4.2, it's about the energy of a 2 kiloton nuclear bomb, going by a chart on this page, search for "TNT". A 4.0 has an energy equivalent of a 1 kiloton bomb. It doubles from 4.0 to 4.2 because the Richter scale is a logarithmic scale. Loosely speaking, increases of 0.2 double the kiloton equivalent and decreases of 0.2 halve it. There have been various Richter values given for the blast, from 3.58 to 4.2, which would range roughly to 250 tons to 2000 tons of TNT equivalent. And even that is only a very loose guideline. It is only the energy equivalent, and isn't a terribly accurate way to determine the explosive power of the source. The best we can estimate from the Richter values is that it was at most a low-yield nuclear device, and it's within the realm of possibility that it was caused by a conventional explosive. Defense Tech says "No one has ever dudded their first test of a simple fission device. North Korean nuclear scientists are now officially the worst ever." This is true to an extent - they are (probably) the worst scientists to successfully build a nuclear bomb. For another point of comparison, the best estimates of the yield of the bombs dropped on HIroshima and Nagasaki have been in the 10 to 20 kiloton range. Tempted as I am to make fun of the North Koreans by, say, making an image like this:
... I also should point out that Donald Sensing is quite right to say that even if it was not merely meant as a "proof of concept", a low yield nuclear weapon is still very dangerous. It's particularly worrisome considering just a few days before the test, North Korea's unofficial spokesman was saying things like this: Kim is certainly in the process of achieving the long-elusive goal of neutralizing the American intervention in Korean affairs and bringing together North and South Korea under the umbrella of a confederated state. Then I look at this well known photograph... Posted by Dorkafork at October 9, 2006 03:38 PM | TrackBack (3) Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsI'm not in the slightest bit worried about DPRK ICBM's. a Nuclear-armed Japan, South Korea, North Korea, China and Taiwan in a pretty small space scares me more than I thought possible. I'm going to go make a bed for the refugees now. Posted by: Foster at October 9, 2006 06:06 PM I'm not sure, but I think there was some early speculation that one of the first Pakistan tests in '98 was a fizzle. Magnitude estimates for those tests ranged from 5.0 down to 3.6. Posted by: Robin Roberts at October 9, 2006 10:42 PM These guys can’t even read Abdul Khan’s schematics correctly. Durka durka durka .. or was it "Team America: World Police" at their best. LOL Posted by: Neo SDB has pointed out that a plutonium bomb is somewhat trickier than a uranium bomb, and that aspects of N Korea's program which increased plutonium production at the expense of plutonium quality may have made it even more difficult. It looks like they probably dudded the weapon. Posted by: TallDave at October 10, 2006 12:13 PM Khaaan! You glorious bastard, selling the DPRK the plan to the fizzling Pakistan nuke. Posted by: pigilito at October 12, 2006 07:24 AM The U.S. foreign policy, in regard to North Korea and virtually all other matters, is hopelessly dysfunctional. We make things worse instead of better; there are myriad unintended consequences. To read more: http://web.mac.com/ericr0283 Posted by: ericr0283 at October 13, 2006 12:07 AM ionolsen17 Best site I see. Thanks.www_4_2 Posted by: tester at October 13, 2006 10:03 PM Our foreign policy usually makes things worse. Iraq is the worst example, but we've exacerbated the problems with North Korea, too. For more discussion, please see my blog: Posted by: ericr0283 at October 15, 2006 10:57 PM ionolsen25 Your home page its great www_4_2 Posted by: kranik at October 21, 2006 04:56 PM thkq zndthavo fbcisotmg daueqtmw npsxg wsxkb jkradmsiw Posted by: nimwexrf ixznhdk at February 12, 2007 09:59 PM |
Feed Me, Seymour
bill *at* indcjournal *dot* com
Support Our Advertisers
Search
Archives
June 2008May 2008 April 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004
Extras
PDARSD Atom RSS 2.0 RSS 1.0
Credits
Our Blogroll
|
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.indcjournal.com/nav-commenters.gif)