It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


North Korea's suicide bomber corps with nuclear backpacks show up in parade

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by bekod

Uh, no. If you want a nuclear explosion it's very precise, and it's NOT just a matter of "some materials in a bag". Nuclear weapons aren't the easiest in the world to make, which is why it takes years for most nations to develop them. You throw some material in a bag with explosives, and you get a bang, not a boom. Depending on the materials, not even that great of a bang.

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:02 PM
Even our own suitcase nukes were never that big in yield, less than 5kt, some would even say less than 3kt, but not what I heard. Sure, still big enough to make a good boom, but really, not much more of a statement than more conventional (and cheaper bombs) delivered in a different way.

This is all for show, no doubt whatsoever in my mind. At least these guys know what the Ghostbusters felt like though. You can bet THEY don't know their nuke backpacks aren't real, hehe....
So, they each think they have an A Bomb on their back!

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 04:38 AM

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by wlasikiewicz
While bored today i was browsing LiveLeak and this was there..

What do you think about this?
edit on 31/7/2013 by wlasikiewicz because: (no reason given)

there is no way NK has the tech to make a nuke that small that it would fit in a back pack. hahaha

Are you really that uninformed? It's easier to make a backpack nuke than a warhead. Oh, I get it. The North Koreans are backwards and crazy. They just got lucky when they figured out how to make nuclear weapons. Backpack nukes are probably the emphasis of their nuke program, until they can actually produce a reliable ICBM. Here is an article from 2011.

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:22 AM
reply to post by Adaluncatif

Seriously, you need to work on that chip on your shoulder. Smaller nukes are actually harder to make than large nukes. You need better technology, and have to be more precise than with a larger nuke, or you get a fizzle. It's not easy shrinking a nuclear warhead to ICBM sized, let alone to backpack sized.

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:29 AM
Can 'dirty' bombs be made that small? What if them bags contain and small explosive device to create minor destruction but with some sort of bio hazardous material inside it. The initial explosion might be small but hazardous material could be let out in the air. Of course I had no expertise in this field just throwing a suggestion out there

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 05:42 AM
reply to post by ThePeaceMaker

You can make a dirty bomb as small as you want, it's just not going to effect a large area. The smaller it is, the smaller the effect. If you want to just create panic and spread terror, then sure, it would work.

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:47 AM
Ok so going back to the video and I know this is pushing it, but in the video off the top of my head there were at least 20 North Koreans carrying the 'nuke bags', say if 20 people were for example in down town New York. If these guys were in different locations but all detonated/activated these dirty bombs would it not cause a wider field of destruction.

Like I said I know it's stretching the idea I personally think like others it's all propagander

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 07:32 AM
reply to post by ThePeaceMaker

Dirty bombs aren't as destructive as you've been led to believe. They'd work amazing for a terror weapon, but when it comes to an actual death toll, or making an area uninhabitable, or something like that, really, the scary part is the size of the explosion involved.

But you idea isn't the worst I've heard, and would make a twisted kind of sense.

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 09:14 AM
Fair enough then just thought I'd throw it out there, who ever was in charge of giving those guys the nuclear bags to carry probably just said "wear these bags please it makes us look dangerous'

On a side note .. I wonder if you can buy one of those bags they are carrying I'd like to see the looks on people's faces when I walk around my town

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:01 AM
When people say "North Korea or any other country cant make a back pack nuke" but other countries can, I think of the following:

US Teen Builds Nuclear Fusion Reactor in his Dad's Garage

WASHINGTON, June 3 (RIA Novosti) – A US teenager has built a nuclear fusion reactor in his dad’s garage, he told RIA Novosti on Monday, adding his name to a select group of a dozen high school students from around the world who have achieved fusion with homemade devices. Conrad Farnsworth’s reactor is small and built with parts he ordered online.

I know North Korea has the internet.
I know North Korea has scientists.

Stop thinking the rest of the world are a bunch of dumb asses. There are geniuses everywhere. Humans have imagination. They can think. They can build. They can change the world. Stop acting so superior.
edit on 3-8-2013 by DaRAGE because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:06 AM
reply to post by DaRAGE

Of course they do, and of course they have experts. That doesn't mean that they can just suddenly pull up a webpage and make a perfectly working nuclear warhead the size of a softball. It takes most countries decades to develop a warhead that can be MIRVed onto an ICBM. North Korea is going to go from their first detonation to backpack nukes in less than 10 years, because of plans on the internet? Yeah right.

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by camaro68ss

Agreed (how do you say "no way Jose" in Korean?)....but it is a good psyop!

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:18 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Mate, Tell me what's that much difference compared to a normal nuclear bomb and a backpack nuclear bomb?

The amount of fissile material right?

They probably just enrich the uranium to a higher degree so you need less of it to become fissile.

Then it's the same deal, shoot a uranium bullet into uranium to cause a reaction.

You might not think it but you can do a lot in 1 year yet alone 10 years.

2003. Remember these events?

Events 2003 U.S. The new United States Department of Homeland Security officially begins operation U.S. United States plans for an invasion of Iraq due to an imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction Iraq The United States and the United Kingdom start with their shock and awe campaign with a massive air strikes on military targets in Baghdad before the invasion of Iraq by Land Forces. Iraq Saddam Hussein, former President of Iraq, is captured in Tikrit by the U.S. 4th Infantry Division. U.S. A major severe weather outbreak spawned more tornadoes than any week in U.S. history. 393 tornadoes were reported in 19 states Algeria Earthquake in Boumerdès region of northern Algeria - 2,200 killed France Lance Armstrong wins his fifth Tour De France U.S.

Technology 2003 The Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrates over Texas upon reentry, killing all seven astronauts onboard. The highly infectious disease SARS ( Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ) spreads from China, Singapore and Vietnam, Worldwide nearly 9,000 People are effected in 15 countries and over 800 die from the effects. Human Genome Project successfully completed with 99% of the human genome sequenced to 99.99% accuracy. Secretary of State Colin Powell urges the U.N. Security Council to move against Iraq due to possession of weapons of mass destruction In the biggest blackout in the history of the north America some 50 million people in the northeastern states of US and southern Canada lose power. The birth of Prometea, the first cloned horse by Italian scientists. The space probe Galileo makes a fiery dive into Jupitors atmosphere it was launched in 1989 and is one of the most successful NASA Projects. Concorde makes its last commercial flight, bringing the era of airliner supersonic travel to a close, at least for the time being Arnold Schwarzenegger is elected Governor of California Libya agrees to give Up Chemical Weapons Saddam Hussein is captured by U.S. forces Concerns continue to grow over possible Asian bird flu outbreak also known as avian influenza.

Apple launches Itunes which becomes a major success selling 10 million songs within 4 months of launch A white tiger attacks Roy Horn of the duo "Siegfried & Roy" leaving him partially paralyzed Michael Jackson is booked on suspicion of multiple counts of child molestation ( later acquitted ) JK Rowling's fifth Harry Potter book "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is released Popular Films The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Finding Nemo The Matrix Reloaded Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl Bruce Almighty The Last Samurai Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines The Matrix Revolutions X2: X-Men United Bad Boys II Lost in Translation

I'm sure one country can go from nuclear bomb to backpack nuclear bomb in 10 years...

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by DaRAGE

I don't. If they could they would have the on missiles, and be building missile warheads, not just backpack weapons. North Korea would be throwing them on every missile they could, to have them ready to use on the South, or US bases in the region.

Going smaller is much harder than building a large warhead. It was much easier to build the Fat Man and Little Boy bombs, than it was to build the first missile warhead.

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:39 PM
Well I personally think if they were going nukes they'd want a mix of missiles/bombs and backpacks.

Backpack nukes to get into a country that would be helping out the south in a time of war.

Backpack nukes would be able to take out so many installations and they don't need to worry about that expensive missile defence system.

posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 03:06 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Adaluncatif

Seriously, you need to work on that chip on your shoulder. Smaller nukes are actually harder to make than large nukes. You need better technology, and have to be more precise than with a larger nuke, or you get a fizzle. It's not easy shrinking a nuclear warhead to ICBM sized, let alone to backpack sized.

No, backpack nukes are easier to build. They are gun-type whereas warheads are usually implosion bombs. This is why the North Koreans began uranium enrichment in the 2006-2007 timeframe because you need uranium for a gun design.

posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 07:49 PM
The North Koreans started with plutonium from their reactor. Bill Clinton sent two aircraft carrier groups to North Korea in 1994 over their plutonium production. They have had plutonium implosion bombs since probably before 1994. Miniaturization of this type of weapon is usually stated as being difficult in the media. It involves developing two point implosion for the primary which reduces the thickness of the bomb. This requires the use of computers to model the correct shape for the explosives. US government talking points tell us that the North Koreans can't do this because they are too stupid to learn how to use computers. They are all just staring at the Google search screen all day. I'm sure their scientists actually know how to do the necessary computer work. They are some of the smartest people in the world. Just look at how smart the South Koreans are: Samsung is number one in cell phone technology. The North Koreans know everything the South Koreans know through espionage. They even have hackers. The backpack nukes are uranium based and much less destructive. They require uranium for the gun design, smashing two pieces together. Typical yields are 1kiloton and 0.5 kilotons, that range. These are designed for sabotage (bridges, tunnels, airfields, ports) and assassination (White House, Congress, Pentagon, CIA). North Korea believes in sacred war. They are always preparing for the final confrontation with the United States and know that they must win this war asymmetrically.

posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 08:51 PM
Do you think pakistan wouldnt sell a few of their small nukes? They are saying now got tennis ball sized nukes (pakistan that is).

posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 09:30 PM
There are seven classes of emission from a nuclear detonation, fission or fusion. Alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, thermal neutrons and fast neutrons. specific fermions, and residual radiological materials.

Of the seven classes, only Alpha Particles and residual radiological materials hang around post detonation - these are the products which produce potentially (depending on the specifics of the engagement) the most loss of geographic access and human long term loss of life and suffering.

So if residual radiologicals and alpha particles are the damaging result, then why even use the primary blast? Skip all that and focus on using radiologicals, which are alpha and beta decayers, and getting them as hot as possible, or combusting them into smoke, and have them lifted as high into the lower atmosphere as possible. This will produce the greatest net impact and human suffering.

The solution is to construct an aluminum magnesium strontium/polonium combustible core with an ignition source which will ignite the magnesium, the core then would steady burn at 2500 Celsius until the aluminum and magnesium are all combusted. Strontium is the longest lived beta decayer and polonium is not only a great source of neutrons and alpha particles, but is chemically in the 16 group on the periodic table and will react and bond with a number of natural elements, weaving itself as a toxin into the fabric of the local ecology.

This is not a weapon of war, it is a weapon of hate.

posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:33 PM

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by wlasikiewicz

Propaganda at its finest right there....

They can't even successfully fire a missile, but they have sophisticated backpack tactical nukes???

edit on 31-7-2013 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)

I believe you have things backwards. It is so much easier to manufacture backpacks than ICBMs.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in