NK Nuclear Test Faked?, page 1


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 10-10-2006 @ 02:35 PM by 2stepsfromtop
While watching the various news reports from around the world it appears that the NK Nuclear Test yield was at a level of 550tons of Dynamite without any detectable radiation. 550 tons, not Kilotons, not Megatons, 550 tons. That would effectively be 1/2 the explosive power shown on this map.

Just two years ago the U.S. Air Force was asking that the Spratt-Furse provision be abolished so that they could develop weapons with yields lower than 5kt, thats Kilotons, not tons. The question becomes that of whether North Korea has the knowledge and education to develop weapons with such small yields while having a program that is in an 'infant' state. It has always been my understanding, from educators, physicists and weapons experts alike that it is easier to build a weapon with a medium yield than it is to build a specialized large or small yield weapon due to the amounts of material, the refinements to the materials, the types of materials required and the cost of the weapon.

My conjecture in another thread was that NK had actually detonated 550 tons of dynamite in order to simulate the nuclear explosion, as they had reported no leaks of, or detectable radiation, from the site. What if there was another quite different scenario at work though, what if the powers that be, decided to pay-off NK and have them fake the test in order to promote programs in their home countries that would enable them to better control populations and shipping? While China has no real problem controlling their population, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan have remarkebly free populations without many Governmental restrictions. Of course China would eventually benefit from Taiwanese local restrictions and militarization, but what benefit would North Korea receive from such an action. The United States dictatorship benefits due to the great fear that is now instilled in the predominately democratic west coast of a potential, and 'real' nuclear threat from a 'mad man'. Current actions before the UN are restrictions on shipped high-technology equipment, which NK is used to, but there are no restrictions on food, medical and humanitarian aid. So the status quo for North Korea remains basically unchanged as a pariah in Asia, with the exception that the local boogeyman is now a perceived nuclear boogeyman.

The home advantages are too great to be considered out of the question, so did a consortium, or even a lone country, undertake an operation to allow North Korea to fake a nuclear detonation, with financial incentives being paid to NK in exchange for the raising of NK status to Nuclear North Korea?


reply posted on 28-4-2007 @ 08:07 PM by sy.gunson
If the bomb were nuclear then it would not have been a Plutonium bomb. With a Plutonium fission bomb you have to precisely implode multiple elements of Pu239 so they reach criticality at the same millisecond.

If you are off by so much as a whisker the explosion will not occur. That is why Plutonium and not Uranium is used for military A-bombs. Using Pu239 allows one to create failsafe locks. A Uranium warhead is so fragile that it could explode accidentally by rough handling.

On the other hand a Uranium bomb is extremely easy to detonate which makes it the weapon of choice for terrorists. Obtaining highly enriched uranium is the big challenge to a terrorist.

Back to the topic, North Korea had a Soviet IRT-2M research reactor since 1965 which was designed to use Uranium enriched to 10% U235. In 1974 the North Koreans modified that reactor to use fuel enriched to 80% U235, which effectively made it a Plutonium breeder reactor.

The implication is therefore that North Korea has a source of highly enriched Uranium. North Korea has been closely involved with setting up Burma's nuclear program. Burma/Myanmar, ships rice and uranium to North Korea in return for technological assistance and weapons.

It is plausible that the October 2006 test was a fizzled Uranium A-bomb. It is not plausible that it was a fizzled Plutonium bomb. It is also possible that it was a TNT explosion. However one needs to ask oneself why the explosion would be faked with TNT and the answer to that is what is really interesting ?


reply posted on 30-4-2007 @ 05:48 PM by Tom Bedlam
Originally posted by sy.gunson
If the bomb were nuclear then it would not have been a Plutonium bomb. With a Plutonium fission bomb you have to precisely implode multiple elements of Pu239 so they reach criticality at the same millisecond.

If you are off by so much as a whisker the explosion will not occur. That is why Plutonium and not Uranium is used for military A-bombs. Using Pu239 allows one to create failsafe locks. A Uranium warhead is so fragile that it could explode accidentally by rough handling.

(snip)

It is plausible that the October 2006 test was a fizzled Uranium A-bomb. It is not plausible that it was a fizzled Plutonium bomb. It is also possible that it was a TNT explosion. However one needs to ask oneself why the explosion would be faked with TNT and the answer to that is what is really interesting ?


Well, no. It's tough not to fizzle a plutonium weapon. The reason why is Pu240 contaminants. Pu240 spontaneously emits neutrons, and thus can initiate an assembly before it's at optimum supercriticality.

Any plutonium weapon is an exercise in statistics. You have to compress the pit to super-criticality as fast as possible in order to reduce the likelihood of having a spontaneous emission occur during the window between break-even criticality and your desired optimum.

But it's strictly the Pu240 contaminant that causes the issue. If you could magically remove all of it, you could build a gun type bomb with plutonium. If you can't remove enough of it, you run the risk of having a fizzle yield due to predetonation. This is why Khan didn't design any plutonium devices. Most plutonium produced in power reactors is chock-full of Pu240; to minimize its production, you have to optimize your rod formulations and the reactor design.

So, yes, you most definitely CAN have a fizzle yield from a plutonium device. You can get one from having a "Munroe effect" jet form during compression so that you don't get the density you want. You can get one from having an initiation failure. You can get one from having predetonation due to crappy material. You can get one from not having proper reflectors. Lots of ways to mess up. The US fizzled a couple of shots, but they were generally trying something outlandish when it happened.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Are You Offended??? SO WHAT!!!
  Posted 9 days ago with 97 member flags
The Image of Baphomet: Upsetting Folks Since 1855.
  Posted 9 days ago with 39 member flags
New Scientific Report Destroys Global Warming!
  Posted 7 days ago with 32 member flags
Al Azif: Is The Necronomicon Real?
  Posted 8 days ago with 25 member flags
What The Hell Is This?
  Posted 5 days ago with 9 member flags
How copyright enforcement robots killed the Hugo Awards
  Posted 7 days ago with 4 member flags