was the NK test blast REALLY a nuclear device ?

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Not really..
a tactical nuke IMO is much more relevant to nuclear war than a strategic nuke.
Whether N Korea has the ability to do so is again debateable,but tactical nukes are an important asset anyways you look at it.

If one uses a tactical nuke on an advancing division or a closely grouped battle group; there may be a chance that the response is NOT on the strategic scale. See, once you get into nuclear war, both sides are looking to come out victorious WITHOUT going the whole way.
Usage of strategic devices on the peninsula would cause obvious reverse fallout repercussions.
Tactical nukes would give NK a serious advantage.

I disagree. Tactical nukes are made for people who WANTS to use them, strategical ones serve only as deterrence. Now, I don't think Kim is that mad, that he would start nuclear war, he obviusly wants nuke to be sure NK will NEVER be invaded. He might eventually try to make tactical nukes, but I think he would try it with bigger ones at first. Also it is much easier to make 15-20kt bomb than subkiloton one. I don't think Koreans have resources to make some experiments with advanced weapons designs. They wanted nukes as soon as possible.
Also you can use tactical nukes on enemy only if you have sufficient deterrence strategical arsenal, otherwise enemy could respond with everything he has - especially in this case when enemy is so powerfull as US. Then they can claim "look NK used nuke first." If you don't have the ability to seriously strike enemy into his heart, enemy might decide it would be better to destroy you before you gain it.
That's the reason why I think Kim will pursue bigger nukes and intercontinental ballistic missiles at first.

Originally posted by PEADY

Underground N detonation does not necessarily mean contamination of the environment(above or below the surface).

Yes it does...Do your research!!..
here is a good place to start...
google
peady][/url]

I don't see where exactly that link states that underground testing = contamination ALWAYS..
Maybe you could quote a section?
Infact underground testing is the safest because with proper safeguards, the radiation can be limited to a small volumnar zone, thus avoiding contamination totally..
underground water tables are not present everywhere..

Originally posted by longbow
I disagree. Tactical nukes are made for people who WANT to use them, strategical ones serve only as deterrence. Now, I don't think Kim is that mad, that he would start nuclear war, he obviusly wants nuke to be sure NK will NEVER be invaded. He might eventually try to make tactical nukes, but I think he would try it with bigger ones at first. Also it is much easier to make 15-20kt bomb than subkiloton one. I don't think Koreans have resources to make some experiments with advanced weapons designs. They wanted nukes as soon as possible.

You're disagreeing with the fact that Kim may not have the tech to conduct controlled subKT yields. I never said that in the first place..
I was simply stating the usability of tactical nukes and their relevance to North Korea.

Also you can use tactical nukes on enemy only if you have sufficient deterrence strategical arsenal, otherwise enemy could respond with everything he has - especially in this case when enemy is so powerfull as US. Then they can claim "look NK used nuke first." If you don't have the ability to seriously strike enemy into his heart, enemy might decide it would be better to destroy you before you gain it.

I think your reasoning is flawed.
A strategic arsenal would obviously serve as deterrence, but unless you have a MAD or near MAD capable strategic arsenal, its useless in the event of a nuclear war.
Kim cannot use strategic nukes on the peninsula unless he's 'taking everyone else with him'.
He cannot use it on American soil, because he'll be invaded by none other than China first.
If he uses a tactical nuke on a military target, the opposition(US or anyone else) will be under severe pressure to respond in like and NOT escalate the warfare to a strategic level. Especially since the US has a very advanced tactical capability.

Say he's being invaded by western forces and is beginning to be overwhelmed. He launches a few well placed tactical nukes, severely crippling the invasion forces. He then asks the chinese to occupy NK and prevents his country from going into american/western hands. He averts all out nuclear war on the peninsula, saves the motherland from occupying forces, saves lives(S Korean lives as well), and basically puts America and the west right back to where they started: below the 38th parallel.
Now if the Americans respond on a strategic scale, they cause a holocaust on a already death ridden peninsula, face confrontation with chinese forces(nobody wants that), and face severe international criticism exponentially worse than Iraq.
Technically Kim wins!

That's the reason why I think Kim will pursue bigger nukes and intercontinental ballistic missiles at first.

He may(already have) of course. But if he's forced to use a nuke, he'd be much better of using a tactical one than a strategic one. And obviously,then he would want to get the tactical N-system honed as finely as possible(so it works when its need) rather than spending loads of money in building strategic ones.

And when it comes down to deterence, there is not much difference between tactical and strategic nukes. Nobody's going to attack Kim purely on the fact that he has a tactical capability only and not a strategic one.

Kim's much better off buidling a tactical arsenal and publicising a strategic one.

Sweden is sending high-tech sensing equipment to Japan to see if the North Korean detonation was indeed a nuclear one.

Further, anyone seen this?
Russia: N. Korean explosion was nuclear

A second detonation test, which North Korea is considering doing, will undoubtedly aid in a determination.

The South Koreans only claim it was 3.5, The US, japan and Russia all claim around the 15kt to 30 kt mark

US estimates and Japanese estimates
However, the US Geological Survey, which monitors quakes around the globe, put the seismic magnitude at 4.2.

The Japan Meteorological Agency registered a magnitude-4.9 shock, both measures suggesting something between a 10- and 20-kiloton yield. The Nagasaki blast on August 9, 1945, was estimated at 20 to 22 kilotons.

Regardless of the size, there is or most definately should be a direct and recordable difference between an earthquake/conventional detonation and a nuclear detonation:

Monitoring Clandestine Nuclear Tests

More to be had here:
seismic readings of an earthquake and nuclear blast
seismic readings of an conventional and nuclear blast

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Seekerof]

I still say its not much more(if more) than 10KT.
seismic readings are not a direct gauge of yields..

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I still say its not much more(if more) than 10KT.
seismic readings are not a direct gauge of yields..

Umm, no they are not, agreed, but they are next to the best thing, hence them being used by the UN, IAEA, and atomic monitoring agencies the world over, as indicated by the links I gave.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Seekerof]

There's something called CORRTEX or something which is very accurate gauge.. but one needs to use it while testing

[edit on 11-10-2006 by Daedalus3]

First reports in the USA were that it was a 500 ton yield explosion, more on that here.

It's a conspiracy, can you unwrap it?

daedalus3,
sorry for the delay.....

I don't see where exactly that link states that underground testing = contamination ALWAYS..

When conducting underground Nuclear tests their is always going to be contamination.

There is no way around this. The question is, What degree of contamination is safe.
I say none.

there can never be 100 percent confidence that a test will not release radioactive materiall

Source: Environmental Research Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Dept of Material Science and Mineral Engineering. University of California.

Here is a link

link

The Department of Energy web page has a lot of info on this subject too.

underground water tables are not present everywhere..

I beleive this web site will answer that statement
water table

Intresting stuff

True PEADY..
but then again there's the whole deal of that radiation actually causing contamination to the extent that it would pollute the ground water..
If water tables that eventually led to drinking water sources were omnipresent to the extent that even a well thought out test site would be , then that would validate ALL underground nuclear tests ever conducted as hazardous, and a majority of those have been on US soil.

but then again there's the whole deal of that radiation actually causing contamination to the extent that it would pollute the ground water..

I beleive
The problem here is that most governments that test nuclear devices go to great lenghts to conceal the affects produced.

Think about it....How could blowing up a radioactive device underground NOT effect the water table. Eventually the radiation is going to seep out everywhere.

Here is a cool page put out by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
entitled, "Radiochemical Data from Underground Nuclear Tests Declassified."

link

then that would validate ALL underground nuclear tests ever conducted as hazardous, and a majority of those have been on US soil.

Between 1951 to 1992 our government conducted 828 underground tests at the NTS.

Since then the population growth in Nevada's Clark County and Las Vegas has exploded....get it....exploded..

This area is about 100 kilometers southeast of NTS.. Ask anyone who lives there and they will tell you....Don't Drink the Water...

Hmm, the plot indeed thickens , as reported on ATSNN :

ATSNN_story one

ATSNN_story two

Despite the fact that every one had ample prior warning to position , calibrate and test ect their equipment / sensors and such

There are still issues unresolved , with conflicting signals from various governments and intelligence agencies

My opinion is that it is bluff .

the NK have very little reason to attempt to make the test [ if it was real ] appear smaller

building a 2MT bomb , once you have already built a 1MT device to the same pattern is ridiculously easy [ relatively speaking ]

so the NK leadership would , IMHO be screaming for the biggest most noticeable bang possible – to deflect attention from his dismal rocket “ test “ fiasco , and other deficiencies of a more personal nature .

a test masked by “ decoupling “ is a possibility – but there is a lot more to decoupling that just measuring an airgap – and pronouncing that the test is now decoupled

my money is still , at the moment on the 2000 gallons of ANFO slurry poured down a mine shat – my I would not put it past the NK leaders to have sown reactor waste in the mix – just to produce a radiation sig

Originally posted by ignorant_ape


building a 2MT bomb , once you have already built a 1MT device to the same pattern is ridiculously easy [ relatively speaking ]

Thermonuclear weapons are not easy..
Not all nuclear powers have that capability even today.
Pakistan definitely not and there are reports that the thermonuclear device exploded by India wasn't a total success(2ndary didn't go full yield)..
Israel..don't know but if their program is indigenous then it is probable that they don't have MT yield weapons..
Infact the thermonuclear capability of Israel is perceived to be not much greater than India (both around 0.2-0.5MT)
A good gauge of a country's nuclear weapons capability: delivery et all(when actual test data is not available) is the country's supercomputing capability.
NK used a plutonium fission device (harder to detonate successfully as compared to uranium devices) and most probably ran into some technicalities..

Gosh my spelling's gone for a toss!!

[edit on 16-10-2006 by Daedalus3]

About two hours ago, Reuters reported that the IAEA was unsure whether N.Korea conducted nuclear test.

Putting IAEA inspectors back into North Korea would be the only way to establish the facts, he said.

I dont see that happening any time soon.

reuters

[edit on 10/16/2006 by PEADY]

msnbc.com has a breaking news headline stating affirmation that the air samples now conclude that a nuclear test was done. I wonder if this will now intesify things in the region?!

Wait a minute... Something doesnt add up. the IAEA says the only way to actually confirm it is to get on the ground.. ie the post I made above which Ill requote:

Putting IAEA inspectors back into North Korea would be the only way to establish the facts, he said.

A U.S. official said on Friday preliminary U.S. intelligence analysis showed radioactivity in air samples collected near a suspected North Korean nuclear test site.

source: reuters.com

so.. IAEA says the only way to be sure is from getting in there on the ground. But that has not happened.. and now, the US says Air samples collected from A suspected nuclear test site(not necc. the one where the recent test was performed by NK) How does the US know what the IAEA cannot confirm?:

U.S. says N.Korea's test was nuclear
Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:53am ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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.

The announcement last week by the reclusive communist state that it had tested a nuclear bomb sharply escalated world concerns over North Korea's nuclear program.

source: reuters.com

So, have the air samples collected been confirmed as being from THAT specific test site?
or is the US just fishing here?
And as I asked above.. How can the US govt. confirm what the IAEA says they cannot? Is this not what the IAEA is for? the authority in this field? Why have them at all(the IAEA, that is)?
Or, Is this more of the same type of 'boogeyman' evidence put forth that has no more substance than WMD's in Iraq? Or is the US intel reliable and accurate this time?

What about Iran? If the IAEA was only relying on US intel to confirm this latest test by NK.. then what is to stop the US from conducting similar "tests" over Iran and claiming the same thing?



Thanks,
PEADY

The IAEA does not have the air surveillance capabilities possessed by the US.

I thought all tests were conducted though the IMS, regardless of who flys the planes

The fourth component of the international monitoring system is the radionuclide network consisting of 80 sta-tions to detect radioactive particles, 40 of which are also equipped to detect xenon, a radioactive noble gas. The purpose of the radionuclide stations is to monitor the unique radioactive fallout that might emerge from a nuclear explo-sion in any environment.

IAEA.org

Is the US receiveing thier information though the IMS ?

If not , where is the US receiveing their information?