Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 10/09/2006 View Sun 10/08/2006 View Sat 10/07/2006 View Fri 10/06/2006 View Thu 10/05/2006 View Wed 10/04/2006 View Tue 10/03/2006
1
2006-10-09 China-Japan-Koreas
Breaking: North Korea Says Nuclear Test Successful
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by .com 2006-10-09 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Dupe my ass - 3dc was first on this puppy and I wuz chewing on his tail. Lol.
Posted by .com 2006-10-09 00:20||   2006-10-09 00:20|| Front Page Top

#2 I was trying to figure out why Kim would do this (assuming the reports are true). It's not for internal consumptions, as he doesn't give a damn about his people. It's not to pressure the US as this will give him LESS leverage and guarantee the US goes to the UN. It makes China look powerless and foolish - so it's certainly not going to win Kim friends in Beijing.

But, suppose Kim wanted to sell one or more nukes. The buyer would surely want proof that they worked before forking over say 100 million bucks (or more). As for buyers - Iran might decide it wants a nuke sooner rather than later. Also, Syria, Venzuela, even the Saudis. Then there's (non-state) terrorists - such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Sure hope we're watching shipping in / out of North Korea (though a nuke could also go by rail through China).
Posted by DMFD 2006-10-09 00:23||   2006-10-09 00:23|| Front Page Top

#3 Don't care about dup or no dup...
Merge them all!

USGS says 4.3 on richter scale.
Posted by 3dc 2006-10-09 00:27||   2006-10-09 00:27|| Front Page Top

#4 Removed the dupe thingy. Sheesh. Nothing's real here, anymore. They just edit shit helter-skelter.

Agree, 3dc, merge 'em. It's always a clusterfuck (i.e. 5 guys reposting the same thing for no worthwhile reason) and it would be nice to see it done right, this time, one thread we can all participate on.
Posted by .com 2006-10-09 00:31||   2006-10-09 00:31|| Front Page Top

#5 Japan welcomes US nuke carriers and nuke navy ships and subs into their ports.

SKor stock market is collasping

China says 20 min warning they passed off to US and Japan.

Fox says SKor worried about 4 undiscovered tunnels that intel says run into the south.

Initial FoxNews report said they would expect Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to quickly go nuke.
Posted by 3dc 2006-10-09 00:31||   2006-10-09 00:31|| Front Page Top

#6 How big would a 4.2 richter bomb be.
Posted by 3dc 2006-10-09 00:36||   2006-10-09 00:36|| Front Page Top

#7 5 M-80's?

I'll Ask & Google to see if there's some kinda chart thingy.
Posted by .com 2006-10-09 00:37||   2006-10-09 00:37|| Front Page Top

#8 240 miles ne of pyongyang
0 miles of depth.

Posted by 3dc 2006-10-09 00:39||   2006-10-09 00:39|| Front Page Top

#9 Found this:

"...seismic events over the globe of magnitude 4 and above (corresponding to an explosive yield of about 100 tons of TNT)."
Posted by .com 2006-10-09 00:40||   2006-10-09 00:40|| Front Page Top

#10 Fox says President to make announcement soon with another tomorrow.
Posted by 3dc 2006-10-09 00:40||   2006-10-09 00:40|| Front Page Top

#11 Hmmm. Now the USGS is showing some sort of something in North Korea. Magnitude: 4.2. Depth: 0km.

Hmmm.

Anybody know whereabouts their nuke facilities are supposed to be? This isn't Yongbyon. It's closest to Kumho, as shown in this BBC map, but it's not exactly at those coordinates either.
Posted by Angie Schultz 2006-10-09 00:43||   2006-10-09 00:43|| Front Page Top

#12 The test wouldn't need to be near their reactor/reprocessing plant. In fact it would be very unlikely to be, as what the one needs (lots of water) is not the same as the other (a very deep dry tunnel).
Posted by buwaya 2006-10-09 00:52||   2006-10-09 00:52|| Front Page Top

#13 FREEREPUBLIC.com blogger > CNN News babe asking on whether the USA needs a draft to support any mil option(s), i.e. attack-invasion, against North Korea. *"Successful test/no radioactive leakage" > in COMMIE-SPEAK, a successful test usually means either NO ADMISSION OF CASUALTIES-DAMAGE = MINIMAL/ACCEPTABLE??? CASUALTIES-ENVIRO DAMAGE, i.e. we aren't gonna know the truth yet for many months or even years to come.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-10-09 00:53||   2006-10-09 00:53|| Front Page Top

#14 Way under yield they wanted.
The wanted a 4kilo ton US reports suggest much much smaller but a nuke reaction.

Posted by 3dc 2006-10-09 00:58||   2006-10-09 00:58|| Front Page Top

#15 yep...sounds like a fizzle.... they gotta be wondering what went wrong. If they'll even admit anything went wrong....
Posted by Mark E. 2006-10-09 01:02||   2006-10-09 01:02|| Front Page Top

#16 Remember Richter's logarithmic, but it does appear it under-produced. Here's the Wikipedia entry for Richter and there is a small scale... a 4.5 Richter = approx 5.6 KT, so it looks like they're short.
Posted by .com 2006-10-09 01:06||   2006-10-09 01:06|| Front Page Top

#17 Re .com's #9 - 100 tons = 0.1 kilotons would be a major fizzle. Supposedly (from earlier speculation, lol) this was a "little-boy" (gun-type) bomb, which should be practically foolproof unless they used too little high-explosive and/or fissionable material. Of course early reports are usually wrong, so we'll just haveta wait 'n see...
Posted by PBMcL 2006-10-09 01:10||   2006-10-09 01:10|| Front Page Top

#18 Damn, but yer quick, dot :-) From the Wili table 4 kilotons would be about right.
Posted by PBMcL 2006-10-09 01:16||   2006-10-09 01:16|| Front Page Top

#19 Nancy Pelosi is a grandmother and a mother, she would have prevented this from happening.
Posted by Captain America 2006-10-09 01:21||   2006-10-09 01:21|| Front Page Top

#20 Oops x 2. Wiki. Plus mag 4.2 is roughly 2 kilotons. Still pretty small for a nuke.
Posted by PBMcL 2006-10-09 01:23||   2006-10-09 01:23|| Front Page Top

#21 Everyone needs to represent this as what it is, a huge loss of face for China.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-10-09 01:24|| www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]">[www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]  2006-10-09 01:24|| Front Page Top

#22 "...seismic events over the globe of magnitude 4 and above (corresponding to an explosive yield of about 100 tons of TNT)."

Thats off by at least a factor I believe. A magnitude 4.0 will be approximately 1 kiloton TNT equiv, 4.5 will go up to 6-7 kilotons and 5.0 would be a bit less than Nagasaki.
Posted by Valentine 2006-10-09 01:26||   2006-10-09 01:26|| Front Page Top

#23 South Korea says it can not tolerate this test!

Posted by 3dc 2006-10-09 01:26||   2006-10-09 01:26|| Front Page Top

#24 See the Wiki link and the 2nd table, Valentine - a mag 4 on the Richter would, indeed, be approx 1KT.
Posted by .com 2006-10-09 01:27||   2006-10-09 01:27|| Front Page Top

#25 I can't tolerate it either, 3dc! Lol. Now let's see what the SKors do, other than come crying to US.
Posted by .com 2006-10-09 01:28||   2006-10-09 01:28|| Front Page Top

#26 South Korea, US and Japan teleconference between leaders just ended.
Posted by 3dc 2006-10-09 01:30||   2006-10-09 01:30|| Front Page Top

#27 Economic reprisals against China must begin immediately. Thank goodness this may well have been a below-expectations yield. It will reflect poorly on North Korea's technology. About the only upside to this entire clusterfuck.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-09 01:35||   2006-10-09 01:35|| Front Page Top

#28 SKor says it is equiv to 500 tons...
A fizzle.
Posted by 3dc 2006-10-09 01:47||   2006-10-09 01:47|| Front Page Top

#29 If it has to accept the fact that NorK has tested a bomb, I'm sure the SKor's would love for it to be 500 tons. But if it were 500 tons, it could be accomplished by conventional means . . . .
Posted by gorb 2006-10-09 01:52||   2006-10-09 01:52|| Front Page Top

#30 I think that this will eventually be shown to be an almost incredible FUBAR on the part of Kim Jong-il.

I don't think that it's reached the point of being considered 'common knowledge', but Kim just isn't all that smart, really.

I recall Pyongyang's similar mishandling of another situation - when Kim Jong-il admitted to Prime Minister Koizumi about having North Korean agents kidnap Japanese citizens on Japanese soil (and elsewhere) and smuggle them to North Korea to train North Korean spies on how to better infiltrate and undermine Japan.

Kim's gameplan was that his admission to Prime Minister Koizumi on 17 Sep 2002 was going to be greeted with hosannas in Tokyo, diplomatic relations would be established, and that $10 billion in WWII reparation moneys would be shortly forthcoming. The operative word here being '$10 billion' and 'shortly' ... like in 'tomorrow'.

Wrong-o ... with a capital 'W'.

Kim (and his addlebrained advisors) completely misjudged the nature and depth of the feelings of the Japanese populace on this matter and were completely taken aback by the vehemence of their negative response.

I can still recall KCNA's bitching about Tokyo's not forking over the big bucks immediately after the 'two nations' big bosses had already agreed to it and can't understand what the problem is' ... which, by the way, certainly seems to imply a clear lack of understanding of how democratic governments actually operate.

My views on the Kim Family Regime's political sophistication at the international level (as reflected in my thinking then, 'Geez! These guys are really stoopid!') haven't changed all that much since then ... and, if nothing else, are certainly being confirmed by this latest antic.
Posted by Michael Sheehan">Michael Sheehan  2006-10-09 01:58||   2006-10-09 01:58|| Front Page Top

#31 Gallery of US Nuclear tests including a few fizzles ranging from 1lb! up to sub-kiloton (eg Upshot-Knothole Ruth - 200 tons).
Posted by Tony (UK) 2006-10-09 02:06||   2006-10-09 02:06|| Front Page Top

#32 Strongly worded letter on the way? Lets hope its explosivly woorded, oh and delivered by B-2s.
Posted by Shep UK 2006-10-09 02:35||   2006-10-09 02:35|| Front Page Top

#33 I think that President Bush sort of needed this Nork nuke test to actually be able to do something about the Norks. Now let the rest of the world absorb the implications of mad dawg Kimmie owning nukes. Before it was bluster and bull sh*t, sea of fire, spittle, the whole nine yards. Sure it is sort of a fizzle, but now the world faces a madman with:
*nukes (such as they are)to threaten SKor;
*nukes for sale to various regimes for a strong source of foreign exchange.

We are over the theoretical part of NORK nukes and missiles. Now he will be working to put two and two together. The US and Japan cannot allow this to happen. How we deal with it will be interesting. I would imagine sanctions strong enough that it would force Kimmie to deal with the Chicoms or Russians for transshipping rights of *ahem* politically sensitive cargo. We will see how they react to his test.

And you can bet your bottom dollar on dinar that Iran wants some fissile machines ASAP. It's fish or cut bait time, kids. This test, fizzle fissile or not, raises the stakes of the game. Will the world appease or stand firm?
Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul  2006-10-09 03:16||   2006-10-09 03:16|| Front Page Top

#34  Will the world appease or stand firm?

Yes what now USA?
Posted by Thrinter Throluque4060 2006-10-09 03:29||   2006-10-09 03:29|| Front Page Top

#35 Yes what now USA?

we cover the Norks with slime of course.
Posted by USA 2006-10-09 03:32||   2006-10-09 03:32|| Front Page Top

#36 Yes what now USA?

sprinkle cheerios on the DMZ and start the stampede™!
Posted by CIA 2006-10-09 03:36||   2006-10-09 03:36|| Front Page Top

#37 "Yes what now USA?"

Good grief, my ankle's bleeding.
Posted by .com 2006-10-09 03:41||   2006-10-09 03:41|| Front Page Top

#38 Forgot to wear your jackboots, .com?

The sequence of events that are about to unfold in the Northeast Asian quadrant will be an excellent mirror of what to expect from the Middle East, should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

All except for the part about psycho-genocidal-anti-Western regimes running rampant in the region instead of just the two of concern in Asia. However, the nuclearizing of Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are all perfect analogies of what to expect from Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt.

So far, very little has been mentioned regarding punishment of the real transgressor, namely, communist China. We need to put in place significant economic sanctions for their role in this diplomatic catastrophe. All of their public handwringing was merely cover for them telling Kim the verbal equivalent of "Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge."

PS: Big hint, Thrinter Throluque4060. Grab a recognizable nym, sit down and type something of actual substance that identifies your own stance and suggestions or content yourself with being labeled as someone who fishes with long lines from underneath a bridge.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-09 03:59||   2006-10-09 03:59|| Front Page Top

#39 SPOD: Everyone needs to represent this as what it is, a huge loss of face for China.

I'm at a loss here. What are the practical consequences of this "loss of face"? Everyone commiserates with China about how "it happens to the best of us"? Does this reduce Chinese credibility in any way? Does it mean that if China masses troops and ships in preparation for the invasion of Taiwan, we don't believe them? Let me submit to you that the "good cop" (China), "bad cop" (North Korea) routine isn't unique to the West and has been part of Oriental intrigues for thousands of years - except the stakes were a little higher than mere prisoner confessions.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 04:17|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 04:17|| Front Page Top

#40 SPOD: Everyone needs to represent this as what it is, a huge loss of face for China.

China is making the required disapproving noises because to do otherwise would push Uncle Sam into the realization that North Korea is merely doing China's bidding.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 04:22|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 04:22|| Front Page Top

#41 Crosspost from the other North Korea thread:

Upon reflection, it just occured to me that this is the perfect time to go in and bomb the crap out of North Korea.

By letting off this dud, Kim has just dropped his pants in the snow. His physicists obviously lack sufficient skill to properly detonate their stores of fissile material so, between now and the next possible test, North Korea is effectively as vulnerable as they ever will be in a military sense.

One can only speculate if an enraged Kim has just trooped out some of his senior scientists to the nearest wall for execution. All the better for us if he has been stupid enough to do that. If Kim has any brains, he built a couple of these sick puppies and should bang off another one in rapid succession to prove he's got some real nuclear firepower.

Otherwise, all he's done is drop his drawers in full view of the world.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-09 04:25||   2006-10-09 04:25|| Front Page Top

#42 Zhang Fei of course the Norks are doing China's bidding as always. Do you think that changes the loss of face? The reaction is going to be something China miscalculated putting it in a weaker position not a stronger one.

The size of the reaction is not important I don't think. Kimmi wants to sell these and a small package is ideal for the intended clients and their intended purposes.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-10-09 04:35|| www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]">[www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]  2006-10-09 04:35|| Front Page Top

#43 Supposing it's true that China has been giving them the nod for all of this (which I'm having a hard time with, but I don't discount it), why would China let them risk firing off a dud? That would mean their rottweiler baring its fangs and showing it had no teeth after all! Not a very useful tool if you ask me. Then again, there may be reasons why it doesn't matter if Kimmie has his pants down around his ankles for a while. Perhaps China wants NorK to learn their place for example. Maybe China is of the opinion that nobody will have the balls to do anything, or that just SKor won't and will tell the rest of the planet to leave NorK alone (thereby giving them a chance to perfect their design, of course!).

In any case, China has a problem. The Japanese are supposed to be able to go full-on nuclear very quickly.

Also, if Uranium is so hard for them to come by, it would make sense that they would go for the smallest test possible that would verify the design.
Posted by gorb 2006-10-09 04:44||   2006-10-09 04:44|| Front Page Top

#44 Does this mean we not only have to wean ourselves off mid-east oil but cheap Chinese imports as well?
Posted by Gladys 2006-10-09 05:06||   2006-10-09 05:06|| Front Page Top

#45 Supposing it's true that China has been giving them the nod for all of this (which I'm having a hard time with, but I don't discount it), why would China let them risk firing off a dud?

You have got to be kidding, gorb! When China says, "Shit!", Kim quickly asks, "What color?". Without the communists' constant financial and material aid, North Korea would have imploded years ago, if not decades.

China's ostensible "hands-off" masquerade regarding North Korea is strictly for the purposes of plausible deniability. China is Kim's pimp-daddy and they whore him out for the sole purpose of destabilizing what would otherwise American military domination in Northeast Asia.

China is playing for time as they desperately try to modernize their military. The ban on European exportation of high technology military hardware is really hurting them and has left China with Russia as their only willing vendor. Fortunately, the loser crap that RasPutin fobs off on the Mandarins is second-rate from the moment its paint dries.

Our satellites easily could track movement of nuclear hardware and personnel from China into North Korea. Such blatant facilitating on China's part would rip the mask off of their attempts to play a conciliatory role, thereby stripping them of any diplomatic prestige as a player in the Superpower negotiations over this intentionally trumped up threat.

While China thinks they're being oh so inscrutable, only a retarded blind and deaf third-grader couldn't piece together the backstory of this pathetic little military soap opera. Without the nuclear card to play, Kim would be merely another tin-pot dictator presiding over his pestiferous shithole of a third world nation.

As I mentioned in my last post. This misfire or dud is the last green light we're going to get for intervening militarily in North Korea. If we continue to allow ourselves to be circle-jerked by China while Kim regroups, we'll have lost a vital opportunity to strangle this sick little puppy in the cradle.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-09 05:19||   2006-10-09 05:19|| Front Page Top

#46 Does this mean we not only have to wean ourselves off mid-east oil but cheap Chinese imports as well?

Only if America wants to pretend that it has any brains.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-09 05:20||   2006-10-09 05:20|| Front Page Top

#47 Karl's October Surprise?
Posted by Bobby 2006-10-09 06:01||   2006-10-09 06:01|| Front Page Top

#48 I can't help wondering if the Kos Kiddies are in denial of if they are debating whether or not it was a Cheney/Haliburton conspiracy to impact the election.
Posted by anon 2006-10-09 06:02||   2006-10-09 06:02|| Front Page Top

#49 ...Fox News says as of 0645 US confirming - Kimmie did it...

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-10-09 06:44||   2006-10-09 06:44|| Front Page Top

#50 BTW guys, you are way ahead of any MSM outlet I've read in correctly calling it a dud.
Posted by phil_b 2006-10-09 07:05||   2006-10-09 07:05|| Front Page Top

#51 Gotta agree with phil_b. Woke up, read RB while eating breakfast, had the radio on up until I caught the bus.

RB had people looking up the correlation between the yield and Richter scale results. The radio had one fellow mention that 550 tons "sounds like a lot, but realy isn't". No clue that it might not have worked completely.
Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford  2006-10-09 07:20|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-10-09 07:20|| Front Page Top

#52 Jimmy Carter, Madalene Albright, and Bill Clinton could not be reached for comment.
Posted by Mark Z 2006-10-09 07:26||   2006-10-09 07:26|| Front Page Top

#53 I noticed that too, phil_b. The "analysts" on Fox were comenting about how small the bomb was and that means the Norks are much more advanced than anyone thought. I thought at the time it was probably a fizzle. They need to get some real analysts.
Posted by Deacon Blues 2006-10-09 07:42||   2006-10-09 07:42|| Front Page Top

#54  Does this mean we not only have to wean ourselves off mid-east oil but cheap Chinese imports as well?

Interestingly enough, Gladys, I was talking to a gentleman who manufactures gadgets just the other day about that -- mostly those freebies with a company name on, or "Bob & Debby's 50th Anniversary". He likes to refer to China as his factory floor. But he went on to say that all his stuff, at least, is really low tech, and the turn-key operation could very easily and relatively quickly be moved to another low cost country. In fact, business had been doing so well that he was looking into other countries to take the overflow. If he isn't alone, and if I understood him properly (not guaranteed when the discussion involves anything connected to money or finance), the change-over from China to elsewhere will be relatively quick, easy and relatively low-cost... except to the Chinese, of course.

The real advantage to being in China, apparently, is legacy (the equipment is already in place and run in, the people trained) and connections (the shipping agents can get the stuff through customs at their end, last container onto a ship about to leave port, and first container off-ship and through customs at this end). For low-tech stuff, that's replaceable with a little effort. The higher-tech stuff is another story, although I believe India is a low-cost option there -- it's just that the change-over would be more difficult and considerably more expensive.

I would really appreciate someone who actually knows what I'm talking about to weigh in here, please!
Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-09 07:43||   2006-10-09 07:43|| Front Page Top

#55  BTW guys, you are way ahead of any MSM outlet I've read in correctly calling it a dud.

I'm sure y'all have already dropped a little something in the Paypal jar to thank Fred properly! ;-)
Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-09 07:47||   2006-10-09 07:47|| Front Page Top

#56 One wonders if the iranian observer was impressed enough with the demo to believe the "dud" they bought is worth lobbing at Tel Aviv. Ahmadinnajacket may think 4.2 is plenty strong to wake the Mahdi.
Posted by Thinemp Whimble2412 2006-10-09 09:01||   2006-10-09 09:01|| Front Page Top

#57 Let's see, if I have no test, will they assume I have no capability? Hmmmm. Let's see, would I want to have a huge explosion and use a lot of my fissile materials, or would I want to have a very-small proof-of-capability explosion and save fissile materials for future sale and use? Hmmmm. Let's see, if I have a small test before a big test, would the small test neutralize some of the enemy's political reaction? Hmmmm.
Posted by Dear Leader 2006-10-09 09:02||   2006-10-09 09:02|| Front Page Top

#58 Meanwhile, deep in his underground lair, Karl Rove gives off a menacing "Bwahahahaha!", as election polls show gains for republicans across the board.

His October Surprise works perfectly!

"Bwahahahaha!"
Posted by Anonymoose 2006-10-09 09:22||   2006-10-09 09:22|| Front Page Top

#59 TW: But he went on to say that all his stuff, at least, is really low tech, and the turn-key operation could very easily and relatively quickly be moved to another low cost country.

This is 100% true. A lot of companies that are in China today moved their plants from more expensive East Asian countries starting a decade ago. In the 80's, a lot of what is now assembled in China was assembled in South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia. China has gotten a lot of that work because it is much, much cheaper (because salaries are much, much lower). Once Chinese wages approach those of the other countries mentioned (the highest is 1/3 US wages, while the lowest is 1/6 US wages), plants will start moving to those other countries. We have no particular dependence on China. What is now China's trade surplus alone used to be trade surpluses spread out among those countries. In fact, corporations based in those countries have moved plants to China.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 09:45|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 09:45|| Front Page Top

#60 Meanwhile, deep in his underground lair, Karl Rove gives off a menacing "Bwahahahaha!", as election polls show gains for republicans across the board. His October Surprise works perfectly!

That's what they're saying over in DU. Clinton kept us safe by talking to the NKorks, while Bush stopped talks causing the NKorks to detonate the bomb pushing the Foley scandle off the front pages before the election. Damm, that Rove is tricky.
Posted by Steve 2006-10-09 09:54||   2006-10-09 09:54|| Front Page Top

#61 The problem is (see Captain's Quarters for details) that the yeld, based on seismic data is only 550 tons. Yes, tons. 550 is 1/10 the size of Little Boy and is useless as a deterant. A stealth bomber loaded up with 20 JDAMS does more damage than that little nuke. Not sure what game Kimmie boy is playing here, but he is using firecrackers when everyone else with nukes can turn North Korea into a green, glowing, glass parking lot.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2006-10-09 09:58||   2006-10-09 09:58|| Front Page Top

#62 The Phillipines are non too happy about the seismic trigger, I'd imagine.
Posted by Thinemp Whimble2412 2006-10-09 10:11||   2006-10-09 10:11|| Front Page Top

#63 DV: A stealth bomber loaded up with 20 JDAMS does more damage than that little nuke.

A single JDAM maxes out at a ton (2000 lbs). 550 tons means 550 JDAM's. Or 55 MOAB's.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 10:40|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 10:40|| Front Page Top

#64 Based on that, Zhang Fe, I can only hope our bomb and missile manufacturers have been at maximum production for a while, to be covered by the Army's recent request to Congress for all those extra funds.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-09 10:52||   2006-10-09 10:52|| Front Page Top

#65 Remember to "duck and cover".
Posted by Thoth 2006-10-09 11:06||   2006-10-09 11:06|| Front Page Top

#66 Damage, not blast power Zhang. A 550 Ton blast maybe would take out a couple city blocks. Blast waves petter out pretty quickly and don't give you a lot of damage farther out. Unless your goal is terror, a small nuke is next to useless. You take out one factory. Whoopie. A stealth takes out 10 factories, 5 mobile missile sites, 3 radars and 2 C2 sites. Much more damage over a wider area than a small nuke.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2006-10-09 11:15||   2006-10-09 11:15|| Front Page Top

#67 Of course, I'll all for the atomic carpet bombing of North Korea as well.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2006-10-09 11:15||   2006-10-09 11:15|| Front Page Top

#68 This misfire or dud

Let's wait and see on that. Depending on the geology, those calculations may or may not be accurate.


Posted by lotp 2006-10-09 11:18||   2006-10-09 11:18|| Front Page Top

#69 What are the Chinese up to? Isn't the prospect of a nuclear Japan bad for them? No, and it might even be good. I think the Chinese have their eyes on the prize. Before making any military moves, you need to break up your opponents' alliances.

Say in the worst case, Japan gets nukes. So what? Under the American nuclear umbrella, Japan is protected by 2,000 nuclear warheads. If Japan gets 100 nukes, how is that worse for China? In the realm of nuclear warheads, 2,000 might as well be infinity. If the US-Japan alliance holds after Japan goes nuclear, China would face 2,100 warheads. I don't see how that is materially different for China. And if the alliance breaks up*, China just faces 100 warheads from Japan - without a tripwire force and a formal defense pact, Uncle Sam is unlikely to extend his nuclear umbrella to Japan. Once you get past China's self-serving statements, figuring out what it's doing isn't even all that difficult.

* Which is likely, if Japan goes nuclear, given that Uncle Sam's nuclear umbrella - his pledge to meet nuclear attacks on them with retaliatory American nuclear strikes - has been predicated on his East Asian allies not going nuclear themselves, which is why both Taiwan and South Korea gave up their nuclear programs after the US detected them.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 11:19|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 11:19|| Front Page Top

#70 Well, since it's probably a fizzle, we don't need to take any action. Let's just appease him some more.

I predict nothing will be done.
Posted by Jackal">Jackal  2006-10-09 11:47|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2006-10-09 11:47|| Front Page Top

#71 Zhang: we still have alliances with Britain and France (although they tend to be less than perfect allies) even though those two have nuclear weapons.

We also have an alliance with Israel, which also has nuclear weapons.
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-09 11:55||   2006-10-09 11:55|| Front Page Top

#72 DV: Damage, not blast power Zhang. A 550 Ton blast maybe would take out a couple city blocks.

Let me introduce you to the blast damage from a 2 ton bomb (TNT equivalent) at Oklahoma City. My feeling is that a 550 ton explosion will have much more impressive effects than a 2 ton explosion, which took out a building running a block long - certainly spanning more than just a couple of blocks.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 12:10|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 12:10|| Front Page Top

#73 Zhang - Japan has enough Pu to make 50,000 decent sized nukes!

Remember their failed nuke reprocessing for the world scheme that was ended after a flash in the reprocessing center? They still have all that material.

Japan wouldn't just make 100 nukes.
Posted by 3dc 2006-10-09 12:13||   2006-10-09 12:13|| Front Page Top

#74 AS: We also have an alliance with Israel, which also has nuclear weapons.

We have an informal commitment to Israel. There is no formal document committing us to Israel's defense. France and Britain were the other two non-Communist major Allied powers in WWII. Japan and Germany were the Axis powers. Totally different circumstances. Note that we stopped Taiwan and South Korea from going nuclear. And we have never given anyone else the permission to go nuclear. Note that apart from the two permanent members of the Security Council, we have not formally included any other nuclear powers under our nuclear umbrella.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 12:17|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 12:17|| Front Page Top

#75 Japan won't stop at 100. They will build until they feel they can counter all contingincies.
Just their on hand plutonium stockpile is over 43 tons, or over 6000 Fat Boy style bombs (21 kT) and they can also make certain light isotopes. If you were Chinese, how would you like living next to a thousand medium range missiles that give you less than 5 minutes warning time?

The North Koreans are unlikely to sell their bombs, but they will sell any designs. Each bomb's isotope signature can be traced back to the reactor of origin and the Nork know it. In their minds it is ensure against some fantasy of US invasion and to take pressure off having to feed a million man army. A-bombs are more loyal than starving soldiers. My take is that the US insist that South Koreans stop supplying Kim Jong Il's dictatorship with money, food, fertilizer and equipment. Else withdraw US forces and thoroughly inspect all SK exports to the US for nuclear weapons, with only 1 inspector on duty. Let the South Korean's know their safety cocoon and good life are over. Seize NK weapons exports, cut off money and forcefully discourage any aid to the Norks. Let the Norks collapse and Kimmie's family heads displayed on pikes.

If I was president I would make noises about how unfortunate all this is, but it's now inevitable that all east Asian countries will want nuclear weapons. That's the best chance to stop Chinese expansionism this century. The next best chance is for Americans to stop funding the Chinese economy. Call the policy agressive apathy.
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 12:30||   2006-10-09 12:30|| Front Page Top

#76 3dc: Zhang - Japan has enough Pu to make 50,000 decent sized nukes!

Remember their failed nuke reprocessing for the world scheme that was ended after a flash in the reprocessing center? They still have all that material.

Japan wouldn't just make 100 nukes.

A Japan that faces China alone could have 2000 nukes and it wouldn't matter. The point is that Japan wouldn't have US help over its territorial disputes with China. And the US wouldn't have Japan's help over Taiwan.

Note that a large number of Japanese nukes - if it does go nuclear - isn't a given. The Brookings Institution estimates that the US has spent $90b a year - in current dollars - on its nuclear weapons program. Japan doesn't have $90b a year to lavish on its program. Nukes are expensive and need to be rebuilt to stay effective every few years. This is why the Chinese haven't built more and more nukes - it involves really large sums of cash.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 12:30|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 12:30|| Front Page Top

#77 Fat Man. The R-235 bomb was Little Boy.
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 12:33||   2006-10-09 12:33|| Front Page Top

#78 Zhang, let me introduce you to the blast map for a 10 Kiloton blast. This was only a 550 ton blast that the Norks blew. The 10 Kiloton takes out an area of about a square mile. City blocks are usually a square mile.
I stand by my assesment of a couple of blocks being leveled/damaged beyond repair and no more. Enough to be terrifying, but militarily useless.
The Pacific is going to go through some interesting changes (using the Chinese curse here) and may be for the better. If they survive the growth pains...
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2006-10-09 12:35||   2006-10-09 12:35|| Front Page Top

#79 Note that a Japan that goes nuclear would have to spend a lot more on its conventional forces because it would face China (and the Koreas, as well as Russia) alone. If Japan goes nuclear, it's a major disaster for Japanese security.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 12:35|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 12:35|| Front Page Top

#80 Japan has commerical breeder reactors that produce a LOT of plutonium. They also don't need ICBMs, nuclear submarines, world wide satellite coverage, etc. US acquisition costs of a Trident missile was $30 million (double with R&D). Even a Trident is overkill for Japan's needs.
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 12:38||   2006-10-09 12:38|| Front Page Top

#81 I give up trying to correct my spelling.
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 12:39||   2006-10-09 12:39|| Front Page Top

#82 DV: City blocks are usually a square mile.

You must inhabit some kind of supermegalopolis. Manhattan is two miles wide. It has about 15 city blocks going east to west. That's a little over 200 yards per city block. I can assure you that the Alfred P. Murrah building wasn't a mile long, although it occupies a city block.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 12:42|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 12:42|| Front Page Top

#83 Zang, The Pacific is naval warfare territory. Even at 1% of Japanese GDP, its navy and airforce are more than a match for the Chinese. What is more interesting is if fighting starts, who will starve each other out first. And remember the US will be in the thick of things and on Japan's side.
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 12:43||   2006-10-09 12:43|| Front Page Top

#84 Note that a Japan that goes nuclear would have to spend a lot more on its conventional forces because it would face China (and the Koreas, as well as Russia) alone. If Japan goes nuclear, it's a major disaster for Japanese security.

You keep asserting this, but I'm still not convinced.

About the cost issues: I suspect that a lot of funny accounting is going on. Also, the US spends a lot of money just to build factories and keep them warm for a while, operating at rates far below their capacity. The Japanese do the same thing, forex. their local assembly lines for F-15 and F-16 derivatives. It would be easy for them to double production at a lot less than double the cost. (There's also instances where the US could do this, with the F-22 and C-17 production lines, IMHO).
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-09 12:49||   2006-10-09 12:49|| Front Page Top

#85 "Let me introduce you to the blast damage from a 2 ton bomb (TNT equivalent) at Oklahoma City. My feeling is that a 550 ton explosion will have much more impressive effects than a 2 ton explosion, which took out a building running a block long - certainly spanning more than just a couple of blocks."

Be careful when extrapolating from the OKC bombing.

First, blast damage from large explosions does not vary linearly with the explosive yield: the destructive radius goes according to the cube root of the yield. Thus the radius within which a given level of blast damage occurs with a 550 ton explosion will be roughly 6.5 times the radius from a 2 ton explosion.

Second, the OKC bomb did not do the bulk of the damage to the Murrah Building; gravity did most of the destructive work, because the bomb knocked the main transverse support beam for the front wall of the building off its supporting columns, allowing gravity to pull down the front wall and most of the center portions of every floor with it, from top to bottom.

Had the bomb not been placed (accidently or purposely, I haven't heard) just right to knock that beam off its supports, the damage and loss of life would have been quite a bit less.

I agree with DV's assessment: a 550 ton bomb isn't going to cause catastrophic blast damage over more then a few blocks radius.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-10-09 12:50||   2006-10-09 12:50|| Front Page Top

#86 ed: And remember the US will be in the thick of things and on Japan's side.

After the mutual defense treaty is abrogated? Over the Senkakus? Without a tripwire force in Japan? I think you overestimate the willingness of the American public to risk the lives of American boys over foreign territorial disputes when no treaty binds Uncle Sam to an intervention, and no issues of credibility are at stake.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 12:50|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 12:50|| Front Page Top

#87 Note that a large number of Japanese nukes - if it does go nuclear - isn't a given.

It it's isn't a given that they won't. They have the materials and tech on hand and will build until they think they can cover all threat contingencies. So in your estimate, how many nukes do you think is enough to wipe out China (just one of the contingencies).

I think a major reason Kimmie went nuclear is that it is so much cheaper, and loyal, than his army. Remember the "Bigger bang for the buck" slogan.
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 12:51||   2006-10-09 12:51|| Front Page Top

#88 There is no indication the mutual defense treaty will be abrogated. Instead, it will be strenghtened because the threat in the region will be perceived to have increased.
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 12:53||   2006-10-09 12:53|| Front Page Top

#89 Without a tripwire force in Japan?

When did US forces leave Japan?
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 12:55||   2006-10-09 12:55|| Front Page Top

#90 The real Chinese problem wrt Japanese nukes is that the US deterrent on their behalf is at its core uncertain. If it came down to brass tacks, would the US risk Chinese retaliation to protect Japan ? The Japanese having their own nukes nail this one down. The same would go for Taiwan btw - when the question came up of the US risking Los Angeles for Taipei.

As for Japanese conventional weapons, I don't see why having more nukes makes Japan need more planes, ships and tanks. Japan is still protected from conventional attack by distance and the ocean, and its trade routes would still be as vulnerable - or not.
Posted by buwaya 2006-10-09 12:57||   2006-10-09 12:57|| Front Page Top

#91 ed: So in your estimate, how many nukes do you think is enough to wipe out China (just one of the contingencies).

Shanghai, at 2400 sq miles, is a typical sized Chinese city - defined in China as the geographical and administrative structure just below province - what we would call a county. The complete leveling of Shanghai would take about 200 nukes. China has about 50 cities like Shanghai - some with smaller populations and some with larger ones. To take all these cities out would take 10,000 nukes, more than in the entire (current) US nuclear arsenal*. Note that I've left out military bases, which are pretty spread out and built for survivability, unlike cities, which are densely populated. Probably 2/3 of China's population would survive a 10,000 warhead nuclear strike.

* I tend to think that some of this is intentional. Chinese planners may have figured that densely populated cities were vulnerable to nuclear strikes.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 13:10|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 13:10|| Front Page Top

#92 ed: When did US forces leave Japan?

If Japan gets nukes, the mutual defense treaty will be abrogated. USFJ will therefore depart for Guam.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 13:12|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 13:12|| Front Page Top

#93 ed: There is no indication the mutual defense treaty will be abrogated. Instead, it will be strenghtened because the threat in the region will be perceived to have increased.

Let me suggest to you there are two possible outcomes - Japan will either stay non-nuclear and in the alliance or go nuclear and cause the US to abrogate the mutual defense pact. I don't think there's a third way. Time will tell.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 13:16|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 13:16|| Front Page Top

#94 TW, i rarely know what i am talking about, but i have read on more than 1 occasion China's becoming uncompetitive in that part of the world and companies are looking for less expensive countries.

We can go w/o trinkets for awhile - Santa won't be happy, tho.
Posted by anonymous2u 2006-10-09 13:18||   2006-10-09 13:18|| Front Page Top

#95 from the Gallary in post #31 -

This shot, the last Bikini atmospheric test, was an exploratory shot by UCRL attempting to dramatically reduce the size and weight of a nominally 1 megaton warhead. Alumni of the UCRL weapons program from this period have described this test as the "most radical UCRL shot" and an "entirely new concept". This led eventually to the development of the W-47 Polaris missile warhead which considerably reduced the size of megaton class warheads. The degree of novelty can be judged by the range of predicted yields 0.2 kt to 60 kt, i.e. the possibility of complete failure of the boosted primary and the secondary stage was considered possible (0.2 kt is approximately the yield of a boosted primary that fails to boost). The test was a complete success.

The test device had a diameter of 14.4 inches, and a length of 15.3 inches. It weighed 167.5 lb. That's carry-on luggage sized, except for the weight, but is also the result of numerous tests.

Posted by Bobby 2006-10-09 13:20||   2006-10-09 13:20|| Front Page Top

#96 Zhang, don't assume 20Kt weapons for an advanced nation like Japan. A US W-88 warhead yields 475 kilotons and weighs less than 800 pounds (including the reentry package). A B-61 gravity bomb is 1.3 MT. While it would take about 50 20kT atomic bombs to work over Manhattan, 2 B-61s will do just fine.
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 13:25||   2006-10-09 13:25|| Front Page Top

#97 A: TW, i rarely know what i am talking about, but i have read on more than 1 occasion China's becoming uncompetitive in that part of the world and companies are looking for less expensive countries.

We can go w/o trinkets for awhile - Santa won't be happy, tho.

China's Achilles heel isn't simply rising costs - it's also central government restrictions on foreign investment that have been sidestepped by local government officials but are now being enforced during a recent crackdown on provincial insubordination. The central government is poised to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs. That, as much as rising costs, will send investors to higher cost, but less restrictive environments in other East Asian countries that continue to have lower wages than the West.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 13:27|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 13:27|| Front Page Top

#98 The 10 Kiloton takes out an area of about a square mile. City blocks are usually a square mile

On the Death Star maybe. :)
Posted by Thoth 2006-10-09 13:34||   2006-10-09 13:34|| Front Page Top

#99 Zhang, why would the US-Japan alliance be terminated when Japan acquires nuclear weapons? Did the US-UK alliance end when the UK exploded it's first bomb? And it can be argued the US-Japan alliance is more important than the US-UK. Haven't US-India relations strengthened from cold to warm in the face of increased muslim and Chinese threats? I predict a closer defense and economic alliance with Japan. I wish I could also predict a reevaluation of US-Chinese economic relations, but there are too many top tier people in the US dependent on importing cheap goods from China.
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 13:36||   2006-10-09 13:36|| Front Page Top

#100 ed: While it would take about 50 20kT atomic bombs to work over Manhattan, 2 B-61s will do just fine.

That's correct. But that's because Manhattan's land area is only 23 square miles, and the island is roughly 12 miles long and 2 miles wide, just outside the lethal blast radius of a single B-61.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 13:43|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 13:43|| Front Page Top

#101 ZF you do realize theres an easier to get around the whole treaty issues with Japan going nuclear right? Japan allows the placing of AMERICAN nuclear devices or missiles on their soil. Same way the Germans did with the Pershing IIs. Sure its gonna inflame a lot of Japanese but I bet you it inflames the Chinese a whole hell of a lot more.
Posted by Valentine 2006-10-09 13:47||   2006-10-09 13:47|| Front Page Top

#102 ed: Zhang, why would the US-Japan alliance be terminated when Japan acquires nuclear weapons? Did the US-UK alliance end when the UK exploded it's first bomb? And it can be argued the US-Japan alliance is more important than the US-UK. Haven't US-India relations strengthened from cold to warm in the face of increased muslim and Chinese threats?

Because Japan responded to Iraq by sending 200 engineers who had to be babysat by Australians. Because they have little to no presence in Afghanistan. Because we are not tied by bonds of blood, language and culture to Japan as much as we are to the ABCA countries (America, Britain, Canada and Australia). Because the Japanese, unlike Britain, have spent most of the postwar period being a pain in the butt to Uncle Sam on trade issues - and stuck it to us every time they had a chance. Ditto for the Indians, who stuck it to us in the geopolitical arena as well, and continue to stick it to us on Iran and Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan. Brits are kin. The Japanese and the Indians are just a bunch of hangers-on looking for an angle.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 13:51|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 13:51|| Front Page Top

#103 Also, a comment, regarding nuclear bomb strength:

It might take a lot of little nuclear bombs to level a city like Shanghai or Manhattan, but it probably wouldn't take very much at all to wreck the railyards or tunnels to the point where everyone's in danger of starving if they stay and can't easily get out.

For some parts of the world it's worse: they don't have any fossil water left and rely completely on desalination plants. I don't know how many conventional jdams it would take to kill everyone in one of these countries by bombing the plants, but I wouldn't be suprised if they'd all fit in two B-2's.
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-09 13:53||   2006-10-09 13:53|| Front Page Top

#104 V: ZF you do realize theres an easier to get around the whole treaty issues with Japan going nuclear right? Japan allows the placing of AMERICAN nuclear devices or missiles on their soil. Same way the Germans did with the Pershing IIs.

That's my preferred solution. Now that would be a blow to China. A reinvigorated defense pact with US nukes on Japan that would nullify any potential future Chinese nuclear blackmail attempt. The Soviets certainly hated having the Pershings around.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 13:56|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 13:56|| Front Page Top

#105 So what now Bush?
Posted by Snereque Gruque3574 2006-10-09 13:58||   2006-10-09 13:58|| Front Page Top

#106 Zhang, populations and critical infrastructure are not spread out evenly. Take your example of Shanghai. 12 million people in 2400 sq miles, but the core of Shanghai is 110 sq miles with over 6 million people, or a 6 mile diameter circle. A lot more tractable problem. In case you are wondering, a 1.3 MT airblast has a total destruction radius of 2, a wide spread destruction radius of 5 miles and a 3rd degree burn radius of 8 miles. Tailored to the core of China's largest city pretty well.
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 14:00||   2006-10-09 14:00|| Front Page Top

#107 ed: Zhang, why would the US-Japan alliance be terminated when Japan acquires nuclear weapons? Did the US-UK alliance end when the UK exploded it's first bomb? And it can be argued the US-Japan alliance is more important than the US-UK. Haven't US-India relations strengthened from cold to warm in the face of increased muslim and Chinese threats?

Finally, because we know what Britain, Canada and Australia would do if the US came under attack. We have no clue what the Japanese and the Indians would do. That's what it ultimately comes down to.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 14:04|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 14:04|| Front Page Top

#108  Zhang Fei: Say in the worst case, Japan gets nukes. So what?

Arrival time, for one thing. Flat trajectory, for another. Cruise missile delivery radius for yet another. There’s a lot to keep the Mandarins awake at night if Japan goes nuclear.

ed: If you were Chinese, how would you like living next to a thousand medium range missiles that give you less than 5 minutes warning time?

Precisely. Unlike the United States, any efforts by China to build a missile defense shield are suddenly all for naught. This one prospect alone represents a huge deterrent. No polar route, no sub-orbital trajectory, just a low and fast incoming cruise missile at tree-top level, flying at Mach velocities with terrain hugging threat avoidance and topologically mapped flight control systems. That’s all.

ed: The next best chance is for Americans to stop funding the Chinese economy.

Which is something I’ve already mentioned in this thread and have been screaming about for years.Sadly, our politicians are so bought off by Chinese interests, such a measure will be hard to imagine.

PS: Great post, ed.

Buwaya: As for Japanese conventional weapons, I don't see why having more nukes makes Japan need more planes, ships and tanks.

Which is exactly right. Japan isn’t looking to lead a takeover assault on China. All they need to do is inflict massive damage to major port cities that could launch any surface level threats.

Zhang Fei: China has about 50 cities like Shanghai - some with smaller populations and some with larger ones. To take all these cities out would take 10,000 nukes, more than in the entire (current) US nuclear arsenal

One need not level an entire city to alter its operability. One or two well-centered medium weight nuclear detonations will usually cripple a city’s core functions like government, transportation and finance.

China would have a lot to worry about should Japan go nuclear. With China’s complicity in North Korea’s nuclear test and weapons manufacturing, we need to encourage Tokyo to develop a similar program. Most ironic of all is how Japan’s efficient fabrication technology guarantees the reliable production of atomic weapons that will far outstrip anything North Korea could even dream of making.

So what now Bush?

Hey, Einstein Snereque Gruque3574, sit down, snag a real nym and post about your own position and suggest some solutions or content yourself with being labeled as someone who likes to fish with long lines from underneath a bridge.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-09 14:04||   2006-10-09 14:04|| Front Page Top

#109 6 mile radius circle

Alliances are based on perceived need. Thanks for reiterting the example of closer ties with India even though they were a quasi-enemy during the cold war. In fact Japan has kicked in much more than our allies in Europe, except the UK. While Japan's constitution has banned deployment of combat forces, Japan has helped out quiet ways, like acting as a giant piggy bank in support of Japan-US interests.
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 14:11||   2006-10-09 14:11|| Front Page Top

#110 Zenster: Arrival time, for one thing. Flat trajectory, for another. Cruise missile delivery radius for yet another. There’s a lot to keep the Mandarins awake at night if Japan goes nuclear.

China already faces that threat today. As I understand it, American SSN's could have hundreds of nukes over China's cities in less than an hour. My view is that Japan cannot go nuclear and stay within the mutual defense pact. And that is what China is counting on. The end of the pact means US forces move back to Guam - a setback for the defense of Taiwan. It also means Japan faces China alone.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 14:14|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 14:14|| Front Page Top

#111 Ed it doesn't make a lick of difference if you got the Tsar Bomba in your inventory if you got no means of delivering it to a target. Now one thing I advise everyone on right now is the USGS still hasn't confirmed a nuke detonation (nor has the Pentagon), SK is confirming it isn't a natural quake either, me I'm going to wait till someone confirms that its got a unique nuclear seismic signature (aka "double spike" and all that).
Posted by Valentine 2006-10-09 14:14||   2006-10-09 14:14|| Front Page Top

#112 My view is that Japan cannot go nuclear and stay within the mutual defense pact.

Treaties can be re-negotiated. This one will be, I suspect.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-09 14:19||   2006-10-09 14:19|| Front Page Top

#113 Zhang, the only one's who can tear up the US-Japan mutual defense treaty are the US and Japan. There is no compelling reason to do so. There are compelling reasons to strengthen it.
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 14:21||   2006-10-09 14:21|| Front Page Top

#114 Bush is going to the UN for more handwringing. He will do nothing to stop the appeasement of Beijing wrt preferred trade just like he does nothing about illegal immigration and just like he does nothing about dependence on Arab oil. This is pathetic. If this is all we've got we deserve to get smacked.

I try not to buy stuff that's made in China but it's getting damn near impossible because damn near everything is made in China. It makes me sick.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2006-10-09 14:22||   2006-10-09 14:22|| Front Page Top

#115 One of those reasons is technical -- in many areas our research strengths are complementary.

Another is existing arsenal -- the F15-Js that Japan owns have Mitsubishi avionics packages, for instance, on standard USAF air frames.

A third is geopolitical, summed up as "CHINA". And ... as "EU sucking up to CHINA but stiffing Japan to a fair degree on things like the advanced particle research facilities".
Posted by lotp 2006-10-09 14:24||   2006-10-09 14:24|| Front Page Top

#116 EB6305, preferred trade status wasn't given to appease China. It was given because it is in our economic interests overall (but not necessarily in all details) to allow the Chinese to provide inexpensive goods.

The relationship has grown unbalanced because Beijing has by dint of sheer force kept market forces from coming into play WRT the value of the rin. However, they are paying for that with increased costs for oil and other materials. They know they are in a box of their own making, but have been very slow to back out of it in part due to the fragility of their control over parts of their own country in the event of major protests in multiple places at once.

If you don't like dependence on Arab oil, did you lobby Congress heavily to permit drilling in ANWR and off of Florida? To encourage the construction of nuclear power plants to offset use of heating oil in the northeast? Other approaches are going to take a long time.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-09 14:30||   2006-10-09 14:30|| Front Page Top

#117 Zhang Fei: My view is that Japan cannot go nuclear and stay within the mutual defense pact. And that is what China is counting on. The end of the pact means US forces move back to Guam - a setback for the defense of Taiwan. It also means Japan faces China alone.

With all due respect, I call horseradish.

ed: Zhang, the only one's who can tear up the US-Japan mutual defense treaty are the US and Japan. There is no compelling reason to do so. There are compelling reasons to strengthen it.

lotp: Treaties can be re-negotiated. This one will be, I suspect.

Abdominal Snowman: Zhang: we still have alliances with Britain and France (although they tend to be less than perfect allies) even though those two have nuclear weapons.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-09 14:31||   2006-10-09 14:31|| Front Page Top

#118 115 was a follow-on to Ed's 113, in case that wasn't obvious.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-09 14:31||   2006-10-09 14:31|| Front Page Top

#119 Japan going nuclear will not end its treaty with the US. Far from it if there is a hostile (like now) China growling to the west.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2006-10-09 14:35||   2006-10-09 14:35|| Front Page Top

#120 The relationship has grown unbalanced because Beijing has by dint of sheer force kept market forces from coming into play WRT the value of the rin. However, they are paying for that with increased costs for oil and other materials. They know they are in a box of their own making, but have been very slow to back out of it in part due to the fragility of their control over parts of their own country in the event of major protests in multiple places at once.

Well said, lotp. With their massive bad bank debt, a looming AIDS epidemic and the world's absolute worst rural versus urban per capita income ratio taken into consideration, China is headed for a major economic crash. We must summon the courage and ban their imports for just long enough to precipitate that crash. It's the least they deserve for North Korea.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-09 14:38||   2006-10-09 14:38|| Front Page Top

#121 Japan's going to develop nukes based on this? Are we talking about the Japan with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And even if they did, would they make it public? All this discussion of Japan going nuke seems like wishful thinking. Japanese politicians would be a lot smarter to use this to loosen the constitutional constraints and develop conventional systems that can be deployed and employed with far less cost and difficulty. The US has demonstrated that nukes have no military value. In terms of the faster, better, cheaper tradeoff, there is no military objective that cannot be accomplished better and cheaper with conventional weapons. So why would Japan want nukes when it can comfortably rest under Uncle's umbrella while expanding conventional forces significantly? I'm thinking special forces SSN's, the first UCAV CV, robotic patrol craft for the edge of Chinese territorial waters, etc. I'd look for the most likely and effective weapons system development from Japan to naval and in systems the US does not have in production.

Taiwan seems a lot more likely to be the onw that goes critical in response.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-09 14:40||   2006-10-09 14:40|| Front Page Top

#122 "...I'm going to wait till someone confirms that its got a unique nuclear seismic signature (aka "double spike" and all that)."

I've never heard of any "double spike" seismic signature with nuclear weapons.

There most certainly *IS* a double-spike characteristic to the light emitted during a nuclear detonation, however; that's how our satellites detect a nuke and distinguish it from other sources like a non-nuclear explosion or the entry of a meteor into the atmosphere.

But AFAIK there is no such double-spike characteristic in the seismic record of a nuclear explosion.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-10-09 14:46||   2006-10-09 14:46|| Front Page Top

#123 I think seismologists look at the depth, time and localization of the point of origin and how the waves travel on the surface (weak longitudinal component?).
Posted by ed 2006-10-09 14:59||   2006-10-09 14:59|| Front Page Top

#124 "'ve never heard of any "double spike" seismic signature with nuclear weapons.

There most certainly *IS* a double-spike characteristic to the light emitted during a nuclear detonation, however; that's how our satellites detect a nuke and distinguish it from other sources like a non-nuclear explosion or the entry of a meteor into the atmosphere."

Sorry I musta mixed them up with measuring the P and S wave relay times between each other and the ratio of the two to each other.
Posted by Valentine 2006-10-09 15:04||   2006-10-09 15:04|| Front Page Top

#125 Earthquakes will not have a tiny, single point of origin either. They will trigger along fractures, or groups of them usually, so the source is at least a little bit diffuse.
Posted by Laurence of the Rats">Laurence of the Rats  2006-10-09 15:07||   2006-10-09 15:07|| Front Page Top

#126 I think it is probably more easy to spot the envelope of a nuclear blast by the sharp "knee" or rise time its seismological trace exhibits. Conventional explosives have much more slope in their rise time due to slower ignition intervals. A nuclear detonation would probably show a near-vertical rise to peak value and a fairly abrupt decay thereafter.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-09 15:16||   2006-10-09 15:16|| Front Page Top

#127 ...preferred trade status wasn't given to appease China. It was given because it is in our economic interests overall...

lotp, I've heard that argument but I'm not buying it because we are compromising our security and our integrity for a buck. As has been noted, there are plenty of other low-rent countries that can manufacture cheap, plastic crap. It's kin to the argument that we need illegal aliens. I think if we're too fat and lazy to mow our own lawns we deserve to lose this country. Besides, if we're so smart, why can't we figure out how to manufacture in this country again? What's the problem, America? Too greedy? Too fat? Too lazy? Too corrupt? Too stupid?

As for oil, I tried to lobby my congressman but then he had to go to prison for accepting bribes. I told him the government should give tax breaks for people who telecommute and companies that allow their employees to telecommute. He never replied. I guess he was too busy with his Rolls Royce or his yacht.

But another idea would be solar panels on every rooftop in the country hooked into an nationwide grid. Laugh if you want but why can't we at least get started on something like that? Drill in ANWR if you want but tell me specifially what's wrong with solar panels on rooftops as a requirement in building codes?

Then again there are the ever popular trains and buses.

But Bush prefers to appease the communist bastards who run China and I think that's no better than Neville Chamberlain's cowardice in the face of Hitler. After all, are these people not carrying on in the tradition of Hitler, Stalin and Mao? Why can't we have a leader who can see these people for what they are and tell them to f@*k off?
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2006-10-09 15:39||   2006-10-09 15:39|| Front Page Top

#128 Kim doesn't know how to do underground nuclear tests.

This is how it's done: America, frack yeah ...

Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2006-10-09 15:39||   2006-10-09 15:39|| Front Page Top

#129 Could it be that these are fission tests for developing an H Bomb?
Posted by Thoth 2006-10-09 15:55||   2006-10-09 15:55|| Front Page Top

#130 But another idea would be solar panels on every rooftop in the country hooked into an nationwide grid. Laugh if you want but why can't we at least get started on something like that? Drill in ANWR if you want but tell me specifially what's wrong with solar panels on rooftops as a requirement in building codes?

Large self-sustaining solar arrays that would power an entire residential house cost tens of thousands of dollars. Even here in astronomically expensive Silicon Valley, right where the solar panels are made, it still represents a significant increase in the cost of a new home.

We are nearing the advent of some incredible new technologies. Imagine if the asphalt shingles or ceramic roof tiles covering your house could be made photo-sensitive. During installation, they are connected into a simple two conductor lattice underlayment that is wired into your home's electrical system.

Now, go to the next generation. quantum dot technology is used as a paint pigment so that all surfaces of your entire house become photovoltaic arrays. This is what the near-future holds. It islight-years beyond super-expensive monolithic silicon or even ribbon polysilicon photovoltaic arrays.

Then again there are the ever popular trains and buses.

No there aren't. Inexpensive land in large quantities led to American cities growing out instead of up. Urban, and especially suburban America is entirely ill suited to mass transit. Only when land becomes too expensive will high density housing make mass transit viable.

Consider how we are currently paving over California's Central Valley, which supplies over 50% of America's fruit and vegetables. Only when that land can make more money growing food will it ever revert back to farmland. Until then, cars still rule the day.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-09 16:41||   2006-10-09 16:41|| Front Page Top

#131 #121: The US has demonstrated that nukes have no military value. In terms of the faster, better, cheaper tradeoff, there is no military objective that cannot be accomplished better and cheaper with conventional weapons.

I think there are several differences here. If the country has no nuclear capability, it would be politically better to use conventional, but you need a serious economy to be able to sustain as the US has.

NorK has no economy or ability to project its conventional forces whatsoever. They don't have the luxury of being able to do things the PC way. So this is the most attractive option from Kim's twisted view of the world.
Posted by gorb 2006-10-09 16:43||   2006-10-09 16:43|| Front Page Top

#132 I know nothing about seismic signatures, but seismic wave frequencies are around the 1-10 Hz range aren't they? How are you going to detect rise time differences between, say, 1 millisec and 1 microsec, when you can't see the high frequency components of those impulses?
Posted by HV 2006-10-09 16:56||   2006-10-09 16:56|| Front Page Top

#133 "How are you going to detect rise time differences between, say, 1 millisec and 1 microsec, when you can't see the high frequency components of those impulses?"

My guess (as an EE) would be that the sharp wavefront from an underground nuclear detonation would be very apparent fairly close to the site, but would "blur" at long distances. Unless we have listening devices quite close to NK, it might be hard to distinguish between a nuclear explosion and a conventional one of the same yield.

I should think that either one would be distinguishable from an earthquake, though.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-10-09 17:08||   2006-10-09 17:08|| Front Page Top

#134 Conventional detonations will suffer just as much in loss of rise time as a nuclear one will. I would suppose that both are attenuated pretty much equally as they travel through geological structures. Therefore, if a nuclear blast is dampened into more of a slope, a conventional one will have even greater slope to it.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-09 17:12||   2006-10-09 17:12|| Front Page Top

#135 Unless we have listening devices quite close to NK

You can bet we had some on hand in South Korea. Even if we had to fly over a portable detection platform in the last week.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-09 17:15||   2006-10-09 17:15|| Front Page Top

#136 Zhang - to destroy China one need only take out the 3-Gorges Dam. If China still limps on fighting after that why a few more dams and a city or two. China has lived in a glass house ever since they built the 3-gorges....

Posted by 3dc 2006-10-09 18:19||   2006-10-09 18:19|| Front Page Top

#137 3dc, the area that would be flushed down by a breach in 3 Gorges Dam is not that extensive. It would probably mean several million people dead or displaced, but it would not be an end to China.

Aswan Dam, though, that would be a different story... What would be left from Egypt are the Giza pyramids.
Posted by twobyfour 2006-10-09 19:45||   2006-10-09 19:45|| Front Page Top

#138 Here's another aspect of Chinese assistance to North Korea that's not generally appreciated. The Chinese authors of "Unrestricted Warfare" recommend providing assistance to terrorists in order to cause problems for Uncle Sam. Now, this idea - based on the strategic principle that the enemy of your enemy is at least your temporary friend - isn't particularly new. What China has done is to combine this strategic principle with another one - having one barbarian fight another.

China is helping America's enemies get nukes, hoping to destabilize and wreck the existing defense treaties that protect its allies, while raising the possibility of a terrorist sucker punch with a nuke at an American military installation or city. And all without any means of directly tracing it back to the Chinese. They have plausible deniability, since they made the required disapproving noises about Kim to foreign reporters and diplomats, while (in the background) actually shielding him every step of the way from any negative consequences.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-10-09 22:37|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-10-09 22:37|| Front Page Top

#139 Which is exactly why we need to crash China's economy right away. They have played their little game and all the while we have held the real trump cards of economic power. It is time to put those cards into play while China's military is still relatively undeveloped. Waiting until China is in space with anti-satellite capability and anti-missile defense will only guarantee a much more destructive scenario.

If our politicians were not so bought and owned by Chinese interests, it would be a lot more simple to finally pull the plug on this insanely one-directional trade imbalance and make China eat their cheap plastic crap for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

As I have always maintained, the communist Chinese are the REAL terrorists. They make the Islamists look like green Boy Scouts. So long as we send endless supplies of American money to China, they will use it to destroy us in any way they can. We are idiots to let them.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-09 22:47||   2006-10-09 22:47|| Front Page Top

#140 Lot of talk here, but not much rational thought. If NKor exploded a nuclear weapon and it only generated the explosive force of 550 tons of TNT, it has to be a dud. NKor doesn't have the manufacturing expertise to develop that small a weapon.

Nuclear weapons are machined to 1/50,000 of an inch tolerance OR GREATER. About the smallest nuke warhead you can build without tolerances of 1/100,000 or greater is 15Kt. The size of our nukes used against Japan were limited by two factors - machining standards and method of delivery. We could have built bigger weapons, but only by greatly expanding the size of the bomb. The two nukes we built were about as large as one could fit into the bomb bay of a B-29. The only other way to get greater yield from a same-size bomb is with more precise machining and manufacturing of both the "bullet" and the "target".

The US has the capability of building really SMALL nukes - about 5Kt or so. It takes approximately 2 pounds of plutonium to make a nuke, unless you do some really serious jinking around. A 2lb plutonium weapon will generate about 8.5Kt of explosive power, if it's done right. Any yield less than that indicates that the Norks had a dud, or only a partial explosion. A partial explosion can be accounted for by impurities in the plutinium, lack of precision milling of the various pieces, the "trigger" or "bullet" not being "fired" at sufficient force, and about 30 other things. The nork explosion was a dud. I'm beginning to think that Khan may have been a very clever man and sold an imperfect bomb plan in the first place. Either that, or he knew the people using those plans couldn't satisfy the exacting requirements nuclear weapons demand.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2006-10-09 23:02|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2006-10-09 23:02|| Front Page Top

23:55 Zenster
23:49 Zenster
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:40 JosephMendiola
23:34 Zenster
23:19 xbalanke
23:02 Old Patriot
22:58 Zenster
22:54 Zenster
22:50 Zenster
22:47 Zenster
22:43 tu3031
22:39 Barbara Skolaut
22:37 Eric Jablow
22:37 Zhang Fei
22:19 Zenster
22:16 Frank G
22:11 Jackal
22:08 Jackal
22:07 Jackal
22:05 3dc
22:02 Alaska Paul
21:57 Jackal
21:55 .com









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com