|
Don't the US already park nukes in South Korea just in case?
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 10:59
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
blowfish posted:Don't the US already park nukes in South Korea just in case? I don't know if any are parked on South Korea itself, but there are certainly nuclear weapon equipped submarines within like a 20-30 minute missile flight to Pyongyang. And that's good enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Don't the US already park nukes in South Korea just in case?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Well North Korea just announced they tested a thermonuclear device, so I expect we're in for another round of the usual nonsense (but moreso).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Hydrogen bomb apparently
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
If it actually was a fusion bomb to begin with I'd guess the secondary didn't hit and they ended up with a 20-50kt fission bomb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:If it actually was a fusion bomb to begin with I'd guess the secondary didn't hit and they ended up with a 20-50kt fission bomb. If they actually did try an H-Bomb test, I wonder if they went with the alarm clock design since that's easier to get right and would let them claim to have triggered a "hydrogen bomb" (but not a classical thermonuclear one)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
LGD posted:Well North Korea just announced they tested a thermonuclear device, so I expect we're in for another round of the usual nonsense (but moreso). that sound bad. I doubt its some fully functional classical thermonuclear bomb. But thats still kinda scary that the may have gotten a hydrogen devise/bomb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
What's the difference between a hydrogen bomb and thermonuclear? I thought that they were the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:If it actually was a fusion bomb to begin with I'd guess the secondary didn't hit and they ended up with a 20-50kt fission bomb. Probably a good guess. 5.1 on Richter scale from usgs.gov as of time of posting E: whoops. MMS, not Richter scale Dilkington fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
2013 test was 5.1 and just 8kt, though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
here, have an article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jan/06/north-korea-major-announcement-artificial-earthquake-nuclear-test-site-live
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
I will never understand how the North Koreans can build hydrogen bombs but can't figure out modern infrastructure like electricity and roads and food for all citizens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:What's the difference between a hydrogen bomb and thermonuclear? I thought that they were the same thing? When I used it, I might not have used the right terminology, but I was differentiating a weapon which uses fusion to improve the yield (boosted or staged) versus a weapon where fusion provides the majority of the energy (i.e. a staged weapon, because that's the only implementation which achieves that) It's probably not fair to call a boosted weapon a hydrogen bomb, especially given that everyone thinks you're talking about a staged weapon when you say that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
So where the gently caress are they testing these things? There's a reason the U.S/U.S.S.R did most of their weapons tests in uninhabited wastelands. If it turns out Pyongyang is downwind of their range then I am going to laugh and/or cry so hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Presumably it was an underground test, making fallout a non-issue, though, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
It was underground.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
MechanicalTomPetty posted:So where the gently caress are they testing these things? There's a reason the U.S/U.S.S.R did most of their weapons tests in uninhabited wastelands. North Korea is full of barely populated mountain ranges, which are quite convenient to test things in and under. Al-Saqr posted:I will never understand how the North Koreans can build hydrogen bombs but can't figure out modern infrastructure like electricity and roads and food for all citizens. They know how to do that other stuff, they simply refuse to do anything to make it happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:North Korea is full of barely populated mountain ranges, which are quite convenient to test things in and under. Someone has to pay for Glorious Leader's James Bond Collection. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
mb=A+B log y 5.1=4.05+0.77 log y I guessed for A and B off of what's used for Pakistan's test sites. Not gonna get out my graphing calculator tonight. I'll see how close I am on yield tomorrow morning. edit: the above is based on my misinterpretation of how yield calculation is done. Ignore Dilkington fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Anyone think anything is actually going to happen besides another round of games involving sanctions and sabre rattling?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:Mb=A+B log y Wolfram alpha says y = ~3.9, which would be less than half the yield of the 2013 (fission device) test, so I think you're a little low. Unless I'm misinterpreting your model. Edit: I'm stupid and W-A defaults to the natural log. Base 10 gives like 23, which is in the vicinity of Hiroshima so plausible, but still the seismic signature of their previous test was the same and that one yielded 8kt so I dunno Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Reminder that GPS satellites carry sensors specifically for the purpose of detecting this poo poo, and hydrogen bombs have a characteristic optical signal. People in the US government (and probably others) know the yield etc by now. edit: unless it was underground, ok i got nothing Lyapunov Unstable fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I will never understand how the North Koreans can build hydrogen bombs but can't figure out modern infrastructure like electricity and roads and food for all citizens. It's an incredibly corrupt state that exists to enrich the elite, propped up by decades of isolation and propaganda. Money spent on electricity and roads for peasants is less money to be spent on luxury goods and the nepotism/bribes that keep things rolling. Farms devoted to food means fewer farms devoted to heroin production, scientists and engineers devoted to civil engineering means fewer people building and running meth labs, etc. A hydrogen bomb can be a useful thing for entrenching and empowering the elites. A well fed, educated population might have time to start asking questions about dear leader's fucknasium. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Wolfram alpha says y = ~3.9, which would be less than half the yield of the 2013 (fission device) test, so I think you're a little low. Unless I'm misinterpreting your model. My constants are wrong, and I myself probably don't understand the model... I'm going off of this: https://seismo.berkeley.edu/~rallen/research/nuke/yield.html if anyone else wants to have a go edit: here's a good write up on how yield was calculated from seismic data after the 2013 DPRK test: http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/206288/making-yield-estimates/ Dilkington fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Did they ever figure out with a reasonable degree of confidence the details of the 2013 test, such as the yield and the technologies used? There was some speculation that it could even turn out to be a hydrogen bomb during the lead-up to the test. I remember reading an article from several weeks after the test saying that no radiation had been detected, and this could be because the test site was very well-sealed and deep underground, which would be a fairly impressive feat in itself. The lack of radiation could also indicate that the tremor was caused by conventional explosives (meaning the nuclear test was staged for domestic and/or international propaganda purposes). Just from casually researching it now, it seems there was a lot of speculation from various countries and nuclear agencies but it doesn't look like anybody knew the details, or if they did they weren't talking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
So do we have to destroy them now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
So has North Korea completely alienated China by this point? Who's left for them to do business with that would be sad to see their regime go?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
China will continue to begrudgingly prop them rather than dealing with a potential failed state on their border.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Republicans posted:Who's left for them to do business with that would be sad to see their regime go? They ship a lot of their weaponry off to other third-world countries. The Iraq occupation found a lot of North Korean Artillery in use by the local forces. Y'know, before they were B-52'd to hell and back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:China will continue to begrudgingly prop them rather than dealing with a potential failed state on their border. If tensions heat up between the US and China over the South China Sea islands or other issues, and the US becomes a lot more interested in that part of the world for whatever reason there's a decent chance of a US-sponsored coup, assassination, or other destabilizing event to take out the current North Korean regime. I'm fairly surprised that it hasn't already happened, but I would guess it's more that the time just hasn't been right than any lack of interest or ability on the part of the US and South Korea. It's also possible that the US may genuinely fear that the situation could spiral out of control into a major war although when has that ever stopped them before. Or as a comedy option- the US has humanitarian concerns about what would happen to the North Korean people in the chaos. (They actually do care on some level, it's just waaaay down the list compared with geopolitical and economic concerns) All the reasons that China has for keeping the regime in place are reasons that the US would like to see the regime go. A united Korea modeled after the current South Korea would presumably be a strong US ally and a significant regional military power in it's own right. Of course there would be an extremely chaotic transitional period after the regime falls in the North. The really interesting question would be whether China would sweep in and try to install an allied government in the North or even straight up annex all or part of the North during the chaos. US or allied troops right on China's border in a united Korea would be quite a powerful lever for the US and a thorn in China's side. A united Korea coupled with a rebuilt Japanese military would be a powerful counterweight to Chinese ambitions. Of course this assumes the US can stop the Koreans and Japanese from using their fancy new weapons against each other first. Even absent a crisis, a few decades of steady growth in China's economic and military power relative to the US will make a united Korea more and more attractive to the US and its allies as the gap in economic and military strength narrows and China becomes more confident. I would guess that the US, China, Japan, and South Korea all have detailed plans for various scenarios that they'll activate the moment something happens to the regime in the North (or the moment one of them decides to MAKE something happen).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
sparatuvs posted:North Korea is saying that they have apparently developed a Hydrogen Bomb. Nah. Maybe a fusion-boosted fission bomb or a Sloika (big and heavy), But the Teller-Ulam radiation imploded configuration is much harder, especially to miniaturize. Fusion boosting increases yield 2 or 3 times and reduces the amount of fissile metal needed per bomb by giving a hard pulse of fusion neutrons to kick-start and greatly quicken the main fission chain reaction. Much less tamper is then needed, shrinking and lightening the weapon. It is a required step to miniaturize the weapon so it can go on a missile. Or to be used as a primary in a two-stage device, as the explosion is much more transparent(less heavy nuclei cuz less tamper and un-fissioned Pu metal) to allow a good hard pulse of X-rays for the secondary. ... Something I read (possible crap) was that Iran is giving technical assistance to Nork in exchange for testing Iranian bomb designs at their test site, As Israel possibly did with South Africa. If Iran were to do a test in Iran, Israel would go major bitchcakes and maybe pre-empt so you see how second-party testing could allow Iran to nuke up and still have deniability. And Israel very likely does have proper thermonukes of 300 kT or more. Anyone else got any data on this? This could have been a test of Iran's first bomb. It all fits. zimboe fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:China will continue to begrudgingly prop them rather than dealing with a potential failed state on their border. Nork is the geopolitical equivalent of a flaming sack of dog-poo poo left on China's porch. They don't want to stomp on it. They'll just wait and let it burn out by itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
Smilin Joe Fission posted:
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha. Don't get me wrong, most of what you've said is fairly valid (Although China has mentioned via diplomatic channels that they wouldn't mind a reunited Korea under southern administration, so long as the Yanks didn't start building more bases in the north) but the idea that China is going to grow at all after the decade is out is pretty laughable. Even discounting the current building bubble, stock market freezes, endemic corruption and ecosystem collapse aside.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
zimboe posted:Anyone else got any data on this? This could have been a test of Iran's first bomb. So you're saying George W. Bush was right after all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
LGD posted:So you're saying George W. Bush was right after all? Right about what, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
zimboe posted:Something I read (possible crap) was that Iran is giving technical assistance to Nork in exchange for testing Iranian bomb designs at their test site, As Israel possibly did with South Africa. Well, if we discount the fact that there are still no real indications that Iran is trying to get the bomb in the first place, then sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
Yeah, UN report came out. They were experimenting with enrichment for a bit, but there appeared to be no evidence they were actively pursuing a bomb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Yeah, UN report came out. They were experimenting with enrichment for a bit, but there appeared to be no evidence they were actively pursuing a bomb. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. You can't prove a negative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
Smilin Joe Fission posted:a few decades of steady growth in China's economic and military power relative to the US Hmm, yes. Thank you for posting on the Something Awful forums, Xi Jinping. 7% for all eternity. No where for China to go but up uP UP! *7% plummet, selling bans extended*
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 13:02
|
|
