Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 10/10/2006 View 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
1
2006-10-10 China-Japan-Koreas
Kimmie's Nukeletts Need Viagra
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 Captain America 2006-10-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Taepo Dong 2 missle - 860lb payload, 2672 mile range. You need a small warhead for a small missle.
Posted by Crorong Ebbort1691 2006-10-10 00:12||   2006-10-10 00:12|| Front Page Top

#2 Maybe they blew up one of those trains they ripped off from the Chinese?

2004-05-17
Ryongchon Explosion Eight Times as Great as North Claims
Japan's Kyodo News, citing numerous diplomatic sources in Vienna, reported Saturday that the force of April 22's train explosion at the North's Ryonchon Station was about that of an earthquake measuring 3.6 on the Richter scale, which would have required about 800 tons of TNT --about eight times that officially announced by North Korea.
Posted by tu3031 2006-10-10 00:14||   2006-10-10 00:14|| Front Page Top

#3 Kimmie's Nukeletts Need Viagra And Elevator Shoes

There. Headline fixed now.
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-10-10 00:18||   2006-10-10 00:18|| Front Page Top

#4 Pre-detonation, maybe. Makes a mess of the test site, and wastes precious fissiles.
Posted by Angie Schultz 2006-10-10 01:05||   2006-10-10 01:05|| Front Page Top

#5 Lol, Angie!
Posted by .com 2006-10-10 01:36||   2006-10-10 01:36|| Front Page Top

#6 Kimmie pre-ejaculates in tunnel...messy film at 11:00.
Posted by Dr Ferdie Pacheco 2006-10-10 01:56||   2006-10-10 01:56|| Front Page Top

#7 Well, I didn't mean to make a joke, .com, but I'm happy to take the credit anyway.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2006-10-10 02:09||   2006-10-10 02:09|| Front Page Top

#8 Captain Ed: Fizzlemas In North Korea
Posted by RD 2006-10-10 02:38||   2006-10-10 02:38|| Front Page Top

#9 seismic readings show that the conventional high explosives used to create a chain reaction in a plutonium-based device went off, but that the blast's readings were shy of a typical nuclear detonation.

All in all, the best possible news. Kim has dropped his drawers for all to see. Premature efizzulation, indeed!
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 02:46||   2006-10-10 02:46|| Front Page Top

#10 This doesn't seem right.

The charges needed to detonate a plutonium warhead aren't that large - it's the timing of the fuses which ignite the explosives which implode the fisile material to critical mass which is crucial.

Thus, it would appear, on the surface, that the detonations were fakes, probably using several tons of ammonium nitrate/diesel fuel mixture in an attempt to appear to have detonated a nuke.

I don't think Kimmie has nukes after all.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg  2006-10-10 03:18|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com]  2006-10-10 03:18|| Front Page Top

#11 The only odd thing is how Kim and crew know damn well that modern seismic monitoring systems would be able to discriminate between a conventional and nuclear detonation. Their attempts to fake anything would be doomed from the outset.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 03:23||   2006-10-10 03:23|| Front Page Top

#12 Lol. Ain't that the way of the world, Angie?

I guess it reflects rather poorly on me, heh. :-}
Posted by .com 2006-10-10 03:49||   2006-10-10 03:49|| Front Page Top

#13 I thought Angie was talking dirty too. In fact, I thought it was one of the cleverest comments for a while. Methinks the denial is modesty (both meanings).
Posted by phil_b 2006-10-10 05:31||   2006-10-10 05:31|| Front Page Top

#14 Heh, phil_b. Intentional or not, it's Snark of the Week quality, lol.
Posted by .com 2006-10-10 06:40||   2006-10-10 06:40|| Front Page Top

#15 The US was also worried about a messy predetonation at their first test. A prophylactic was building to save the precious fissile material. Turned out it wasn't used....


Jumbo is still at the Trinity Site.

Posted by Shipman 2006-10-10 07:16||   2006-10-10 07:16|| Front Page Top

#16 That's the same size I use!
Posted by BJ Clinton 2006-10-10 07:20||   2006-10-10 07:20|| Front Page Top

#17 You wish!
Posted by Monica L. 2006-10-10 07:31||   2006-10-10 07:31|| Front Page Top

#18 Steven Den Beste has some speculation (at his Chizumatic site) that the NKors have tried to hurry the Plutonium breeding process too much, and contaminated the Pu 239 with isotopes 240, 241 and 242. You can get a little, pure, 239 if you don't rush, or rather more, not so pure, if you do, he says.
Sounds plausible. KJI could just be an impatient boss. I wonder if the seismographs can pick up the low rumble of physicist's heads right now, rolling around the floor in North Korea.
Posted by Grunter 2006-10-10 08:26||   2006-10-10 08:26|| Front Page Top

#19 Oddly, if you filled a Taepo Dong 2 with explosives and placed the pointy side down and launched it you'd get an explosion just about the size of the one yesterday.
Posted by mhw 2006-10-10 08:39|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]  2006-10-10 08:39|| Front Page Top

#20 "The only odd thing is how Kim and crew know damn well that modern seismic monitoring systems would be able to discriminate between a conventional and nuclear detonation."

Do you know for a fact that they can do so? If so, please cite sources.

Because I have to tell you, as an electrical engineer with 35+ years experience, the last seven of which have been spent designing vibration sensors, I not only do *NOT* "know damn well" that that nuclear explosions can be distinguished from conventional ones by seismic means, I'm very skeptical of the notion.

What is your source for this assertion? Precisely *HOW* is this detection accomplished?

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-10-10 08:49||   2006-10-10 08:49|| Front Page Top

#21 My expertise is in intelligent software, among other things, and not in EE. However I share a domicile with someone who has over 30 years' experience in national security matters and he is rather skeptical of Zenster's assertion too.

Citation please, Zenster, if you want to stick by that assertion. The people I've asked might have missed something, but based on their security clearances and the jobs they've held I'm going to go with them on this unless there is new evidence they're/I'm not aware of.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-10 09:01||   2006-10-10 09:01|| Front Page Top

#22 T be more precise:

my understanding is that SOME nuclear blasts can differ from SOME conventional explosions in a variety of ways that might include their seismic signature. But that does not at all mean that this is always the case.

You can get that kind of seismic reading from high explosives.

What the unidentified "official familiar with intelligence" reports, too.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-10 09:03||   2006-10-10 09:03|| Front Page Top

#23 Seismic processing can discriminate between earthquakes and nuclear explosions with 90% certainty. But I highly doubt seismic detectors can discriminate with at most a few tens Hertz bandwidth can discriminate between conventional and nuclear explosions.
Posted by ed 2006-10-10 09:14||   2006-10-10 09:14|| Front Page Top

#24 What is proven by a 20KT vs 2KT vs 0.2KT nuclear explosion? Is there some minimum threshold below which the results of a test are not meaningful/useful? What is that minimum threshold?

If it is expensive to produce the fissile material, why waste it on getting bigger bang if it doesn't provide significantly greater information?
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-10 09:18||   2006-10-10 09:18|| Front Page Top

#25 There is a minimum mass of plutonium to get to criitcal mass. I think it is about 4kg. The US Fat Man bomb used a bit over 6 kg. That amount can be brought down using external neuton sources, but I haven't read anything that says NK has that capability.
Posted by ed 2006-10-10 09:31||   2006-10-10 09:31|| Front Page Top

#26 I would guess "big enough to not fuel speculation that it was a fake with conventional explosives". At least 4 KT, I'd offer as an ill-informed WAG. Elsewise, your display of martial prowess will get deflated by snide comments.

Such as this one.
Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H.  2006-10-10 09:34|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]  2006-10-10 09:34|| Front Page Top

#27 We at Rantburg had our doubts as well.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2006-10-10 09:45||   2006-10-10 09:45|| Front Page Top

#28 It is possible the reaction was too fast, and blew apart the critical mass before much of it was consumed in the reaction.

Much of our design efforts with nukes has been to slow down the reactions to allow more mass to energy conversion.

I doubt NK has much in this area, as it takes time with actual nukes to learn how to dope them to get the most energy out.
Posted by bombay">bombay  2006-10-10 09:52||   2006-10-10 09:52|| Front Page Top

#29 bombay, shut up, Kimmy might be reading this.
I think his powder was damp.
Posted by wxjames 2006-10-10 09:56||   2006-10-10 09:56|| Front Page Top

#30 "But I highly doubt seismic detectors can discriminate with at most a few tens Hertz bandwidth can discriminate between conventional and nuclear explosions."

Even more bandwidth-limited than the sensors, is the propagation medium: from what I've gathered by Googling around (mainly here), the high-frequency spectral components of a seismic event are much more rapidly attenuated with distance than are the low frequencies. Frequencies higher than 30 Hz or so don't survive more than a few thousand meters from the event, and it is the high frequencies that would be vital in any plausible means of distinguishing between nuclear and non-nuclear blasts.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-10-10 09:59||   2006-10-10 09:59|| Front Page Top

#31 What is your source for this assertion? Precisely *HOW* is this detection accomplished?


Well, the majority of the voices said they were there. But I think they are lying!
Posted by AlmostAnonymous5839">AlmostAnonymous5839  2006-10-10 10:13||   2006-10-10 10:13|| Front Page Top

#32 Just some devil's advocate...

Apart from the pragmatic belief that knowledge is gained even from failed tests, is there value to intentionally conducting such a low yield test?
Posted by Hyper 2006-10-10 10:27||   2006-10-10 10:27|| Front Page Top

#33 Maybe. Some possiblilites I've seen:

1. Proof of concept test
2. Barganing chip
3. Small nukes for sale to bidders (terrorists)
4. Hit areas outside of tunnels to blow holes in DMZ defenses.

With the failure of his Dong, I bet the nork scientists screwed the pooch again.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2006-10-10 10:30||   2006-10-10 10:30|| Front Page Top

#34 Throwing some pretty graphs in.

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/199953.php
Posted by Anon4021 2006-10-10 10:36||   2006-10-10 10:36|| Front Page Top

#35 Can a .55KT nuke actually work?? Sounds to me like it takes something larger just to fire. If that's not possible then it must be a fizzle or a fraud.
Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan  2006-10-10 10:39||   2006-10-10 10:39|| Front Page Top

#36 Yes it can. Artillery nukes were about at the .88-1.2 kT range.

.55 is more than likely a fizzle though.

Unless they just blew the core.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2006-10-10 10:48||   2006-10-10 10:48|| Front Page Top

#37 Should have read Donald Sensing before posting the above question...
Posted by Hyper 2006-10-10 10:59||   2006-10-10 10:59|| Front Page Top

#38 Ya I read that after I posted also, woops. I heard it will take up to 72 hours for the aircraft to get downwind tests, or whatever they do, to ID the type of bomb it was. Who knows how long it will take for the US to release the info.
Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan  2006-10-10 11:21||   2006-10-10 11:21|| Front Page Top

#39 My view is that it didn't go quite to plan. Or even if it did go to plan for the N.Kor then we should take the mikey out of them (propaganda) and laugh at them. I mean I reckon that somewhere U.S. Generals are planning an invasion already, so the N.Kor have really shot themselves in the foot.
Posted by Addison 2006-10-10 11:55||   2006-10-10 11:55|| Front Page Top

#40 The underground explosion, which Pyongyang dubbed a historic nuclear test, is thought to have been the equivalent of several hundred tons of TNT, far short of the several thousand tons of TNT, or kilotons, that are signs of a nuclear blast, the official said. The official said that so far, "it appears there was more fizz than pop."

for scale: 100 ton Ammonium nitrate Bin

Posted by RD 2006-10-10 12:27||   2006-10-10 12:27|| Front Page Top

#41 Post # 20: David D.

Do you know for a fact that they can do so? If so, please cite sources …

What is your source for this assertion? Precisely *HOW* is this detection accomplished?

Post # 21: lotp

Citation please, Zenster, if you want to stick by that assertion.

First assertion:

North Korea was, at one time, a member of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty). Thus giving reasonable confidence that North Korean scientists were cognizant of verification methodologies employed by agencies tasked with monitoring their activities.

Counterproliferation and Nonproliferation Backgrounder
Charles D. Ferguson

When the NPT entered into force in 1970, a majority of the world's nations banded together to endorse the prevention of nuclear proliferation. (Presently, all but four nations -- India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea - belong to the NPT. North Korea left the treaty regime in early 2003.)

Second assertion:

Seismic monitoring is a published and known cornerstone of NPT compliance verification. As indicated here:

NPT'S LONG-TERM VIABILITY LINKED TO VERIFICATION REGIME

Author: PORTH, JACQUELYN S (USIA STAFF WRITER)
Date: 19950424 - [April 4, 1995]
(NPT: Delegates express concerns, recommendations) (930) By Jacquelyn S. Porth USIA Security Affairs Correspondent United Nations -- The "long-term viability" of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) "certainly rests on the capability and the efficacy of verification methods," says the president of the NPT review conference.

In remarks to some of the heads of NPT delegations on April 20, another VERTIC representative, Richard Gutherie, explained advanced verification techniques which are available in addition to on-site inspections such as satellite imagery, seismic monitoring and placing tags and seals on critical equipment and materials.

And here:

Repairing the Regime: Stopping the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction


Opened for signature in New York on September 24, 1996, the CTBT prohibits nuclear
test explosions of any size and establishes a rigorous verification system, including
seismic monitoring and on-site inspections, to detect any violations.

Third assertion:

That it is possible to discriminate between nuclear and conventional underground explosions.

Non-Proliferation, Arms Control, and International Security

The Nonproliferation Experiment


A Comprehensive Test Ban (CTB) treaty is being negotiated at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, Switzerland. One important issue in the CTB deliberations is how to distinguish nuclear explosions from nonnuclear ones and from earthquakes. In September 1993, LLNL conducted the Nonproliferation Experiment, which provided direct information on this topic. For the first time, we compared seismic and other signals from a large chemical explosion to nuclear explosions of similar yield, which had previously been conducted under similar geologic conditions. Our studies showed that most signals from these two types of explosions are similar, but close-in electromagnetic measurements differ in their onset and rise times. These results indicate that remote discrimination between some non-nuclear and nuclear explosions could be very difficult, that non-nuclear explosives could be used to calibrate discriminants between nuclear explosions and earthquakes, and that confidence-building measures could be instituted if close-in monitoring is permitted on large, announced chemical explosions.


Finally, for your further delectation, I present you with an exchange that occurred here at Ranburg over two years ago regarding a massive explosion in North Korea

If you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe Oldspook.

#10 Nothing to see here. If it were, N Korea would have Juche-Salad spread all over the news. You'd at least get a few good days of propaganda from the Bouffant Dictator's press guys. And as far as a "fool the sensors" type of conventional explosion, not that easy: the intensity and gradient of the thermal activity in a nuclear detonation is unmistakable, and virtually impossible to fake (no real way to get conventional stuff to flash that intensely in that short a time then have the wavefront move at the right velocity), not to mention the absence EMP from a "fake". You'd have better luck trying to fake a TOW missle using a sh*tload of bottlerockets.
Posted by OldSpook 2004-09-12 1:15:44 AM|| Front Page|| Top

#25 #10 And as far as a "fool the sensors" type of conventional explosion, not that easy: the intensity and gradient of the thermal activity in a nuclear detonation is unmistakable, and virtually impossible to fake (no real way to get conventional stuff to flash that intensely in that short a time then have the wavefront move at the right velocity), not to mention the absence EMP from a "fake".

Listen to the man who knows. Our network of seismic detectors can pinpoint a nuclear test anywhere on earth within minutes. The "wavefront" that OldSpook mentions is the one that travels through the entire planet. It's kind of hard to miss that sort of event when it shows up at every single USGS seismic monitoring station in America. Never ascribe to malice that which can be accounted by incompetence. I'd heard this one as: Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by simple stupidity. An extremely cynical sort of Occam's razor. As Frank pointed out, this latest caper is just another watery turd on communist China's living room carpet, courtesy of their underfed Rottweiler. Too bad the politburo is so obsessed with global domination that it will take something much more severe (e.g., a Cherynoble-style meltdown) to get their attention.
Posted by Zenster 2004-09-12 2:55:49 PM|| Front Page|| Top


#27 Zenster...you didn't hear the wavefront and wave envelope from me. Nope. not from me. I didnt say that. Glad you did.;-)
Posted by OldSpook 2004-09-12 4:47:09 PM|| Front Page|| Top


#28 Thank you, OldSpook. Always glad to help dispel any false assumptions. Your JDAM and bottle rockets analogy was spot on. Envelope analysis is a critic feature in assessing seismic events. The oil industry has been using this methodolgy for many decades. Similar to the acoustical envelope (as opposed to harmonic overtones) largely responsible for the distinctly different voicing or timbre of various musical instruments, the envelope of seismic waves illuminates much about their origin. In musical terminology an envelope has several components. They are, in order of sequence:

1.) Attack: The risetime of an acoustic signal from zero value (silence) to peak amplitude (full volume).

2.) Sustain: The duration or period of time which the note then remains at peak amplitude.

3.) Decay: The time required for the note played to diminish back to zero volume.

4.) Release: A special term designating an intentional clipping of the note's length of decay period.

The key term here is attack. Under no circumstances are conventional explosives able to mimic the massive and instantaneous energy release of a nuclear weapon's detonation. Chemical bombs have a much lengthier time of combustion as they explode. It is this one key difference that results in easily distinguishable attack signatures for the departing wavefront from such large explosions. The leading edge of a nuclear bomb's acoustic pulse signature will show a significantly steeper angle of rise from its baseline. It will also exhibit a much sharper "knee" as it undergoes a transition between the attack and sustain components of its envelope. The slower combustion rate of conventional explosives produces a less acute angle of attack and nowhere near the sharpness of knee when compared to a nuclear blast wave's risetime and peaking. The number of times a wavefront reverberates around the entire world and the speed at which it does this also assists in discriminating between nuclear and conventional explosions.
Posted by Zenster 2004-09-12 5:43:02 PM|| Front Page|| Top

#31 Zenster, you know much about FFTs and their first real-world application area? If you do, I'll suspect you of having either worked a lot in certain parts of west Texas or else that you're living in northern Virginia near a nice small town. (grin)
Posted by OldSpook 2004-09-12 6:48:48 PM|| Front Page|| Top

So, what do I know? If you don't believe Oldspook, that's not my problem.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 12:36||   2006-10-10 12:36|| Front Page Top

#42 I'll add one final and rather simple point. I've little doubt that we have a KH-12 parked over North Korea. Not only does such observation allow us to detect the North Koreans removing thousands of tons of earth for their test bore, but the same surveillance would also detect them moving in kilotons worth of conventional explosives.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 12:41||   2006-10-10 12:41|| Front Page Top

#43 heh!
Posted by RD 2006-10-10 12:41||   2006-10-10 12:41|| Front Page Top

#44 That does it, Zenster. Do you have an ungodly large Favorites list, or do have a way of searching Fred's archives that I would dearly love to learn?
Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-10 13:02||   2006-10-10 13:02|| Front Page Top

#45 Except its actually harder to build subkiloton devices than the larger ones. In the case of nuclear weapons, 2 things are true, 1)"Close only counts in horse shoes, hand grenades, and nukes." and 2)building larger yields, until you get to megaton yields, is easier to do than building compact sub-kiloton yields.
Posted by Valentine 2006-10-10 13:18||   2006-10-10 13:18|| Front Page Top

#46 That does it, Zenster. Do you have an ungodly large Favorites list, or do have a way of searching Fred's archives that I would dearly love to learn?

It's a combination of pachydermic memory and Googling finesse. Fred's stupendous archives are a big help, too. My memory is so good, I can remember the night I went out with my father and came home with my mother.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 13:23||   2006-10-10 13:23|| Front Page Top

#47 Zenster, you're quoting things _out of context_.

The event that was being discussed in the previous thread you quoted was an _aboveground_ explosion. (Specifically, the train explosion that missed the Dear Leader's train by about half an hour). Being that it was an aboveground explosion, the electromagnetic spectrum emitted by the bomb was visible. (This would not be the case in the recent test).

I believe you have seismic waves confused with electromagnetic waves.
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-10 13:26||   2006-10-10 13:26|| Front Page Top

#48 If you want to see what oldspook said on the subject of the recent test, you can check his comments at http://rantburg.com/bb.php.
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-10 13:27||   2006-10-10 13:27|| Front Page Top

#49 I've little doubt that we have a KH-12 parked over North Korea.
Nope. Too low.
Posted by Shipman 2006-10-10 13:38||   2006-10-10 13:38|| Front Page Top

#50 Um no Zensters pretty much spot on. Seismic waves from any nuclear detonation will have certain S and P wave characteristics in the timing between the leading wave and followon, there will also be a certain ratio of P and S waves to each other, to give you an idea of the scope of what we're talking about you can get a quick summary here..

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Walter.html
and
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Zucca.html

You'll notice the major comparisons of the P and S waves and their ratios in those graphs towards the bottoms of the page?

For comparison here are yesterdays Inchon's seismograph readings

http://aslwww.cr.usgs.gov/Seismic_Data/telemetry_data/INCN_24hr.html

You can make your own confirmation but how these explosions are mapped and studied is pretty much how Zenster says.
Posted by Valentine 2006-10-10 13:42||   2006-10-10 13:42|| Front Page Top

#51 Zenster, I don't understand why you included your "First Assertion" and "Second Assertion" in there; they aren't, and haven't been, at issue.

As to the Third Assertion, I think you misread what I wrote: what I was questioning was your original statement that "modern seismic monitoring systems would be able to discriminate between a conventional and nuclear detonation."

That's seismic monitoring. AFAIK, seismic monitoring alone cannot reliably distinguish between nuclear and non-nuclear detonations except at short distances; and the material you quoted from The Nonproliferation Experiment is in line with my understanding that the signals from nuclear and non-nuclear explosions are similar.

As for the discussion with Oldspook in September of 2004, IIRC that was an above-ground explosion that was being discussed, and I believe what OS was commenting on were the unique characteristics of the light & thermal output of a nuclear explosion-- NOT its seismic signature.

What I am asking you relates to the assertions you make in the comment #28 you quoted from that discussion, regarding attack/sustain/release/decay, in particular the final, long paragraph you wrote in that comment. Could you point me to something authoritative on that, that I could read? Thank you.

"So, what do I know? If you don't believe Oldspook, that's not my problem"

Please lose the sarcasm. It's insulting. I don't treat you that way, and I'd appreciate it if you'd return the favor.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-10-10 13:45||   2006-10-10 13:45|| Front Page Top

#52 Thanks, Valentine, I'll check it out. Looks like that might be what I was after.
Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-10-10 13:48||   2006-10-10 13:48|| Front Page Top

#53 Zenster, you're quoting things _out of context_.

The event that was being discussed in the previous thread you quoted was an _aboveground_ explosion. (Specifically, the train explosion that missed the Dear Leader's train by about half an hour).

AS, please click the Rantburg link I provided. It does not deal with the Ryongchon train explosion of April 22, 2004. The link I provided relates to a massive explosion of undetermined nature on or about September 9, 2004 that took place near Yongjo-ri. It is safe to assume that this was an underground or mining explosion of some sort by the nature of later disclosures. There is speculation that it may even have been a calibrating detonation for their recent attempted nuclear test.

Ryanggang explosion

The suspected explosion was located near the town of Yongjo-ri in the county of Kimhyŏngjik in Ryanggang.

North Korea initially denied that the explosion was nuclear. When prompted for an explanation, North Korea's foreign minister, Paek Nam-sun, officially stated that the explosion "was in fact the deliberate demolition of a mountain as part of a huge hydroelectric project".

Additionally, I am aware that my third cite more specifically refers to electromagnetic components and not seismic measurements being used in blast analysis. That is why I searched out the exchange with Oldspook regarding seismic discrimination between nuclear and conventional explosions. Oldspook’s credentials are pretty well established hereabouts and he confirms my own statements regarding this.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 13:58||   2006-10-10 13:58|| Front Page Top

#54 Please lose the sarcasm. It's insulting. I don't treat you that way, and I'd appreciate it if you'd return the favor.

That wasn't meant to be sarcastic. I was just a little weary after spending two solid hours or more chasing down all of these details. I hope that my sincere efforts to substantiate what I posted count for something.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 14:01||   2006-10-10 14:01|| Front Page Top

#55 Zenster, I don't understand why you included your "First Assertion" and "Second Assertion" in there; they aren't, and haven't been, at issue.

The preliminary assertions are made to establish a solid connection between how North Korea's scientists could not have possibly avoided foreknowledge of seismic monitoring being in place and the use of that methodology by those agencies tasked with monitoring North Korea. Their prior knowledge of this was part of my assertion, that is why I connected it up.

"The only odd thing is how Kim and crew know damn well that modern seismic monitoring systems would be able to discriminate between a conventional and nuclear detonation."
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 14:14||   2006-10-10 14:14|| Front Page Top

#56 As for the discussion with Oldspook in September of 2004, IIRC that was an above-ground explosion that was being discussed, and I believe what OS was commenting on were the unique characteristics of the light & thermal output of a nuclear explosion-- NOT its seismic signature.

I've done my best to establish that the Yongjo-Ri explosion was of an underground nature. While there was some surface release (i.e., a mushroom cloud), all further explanations given presented the incident as having been sub-surface. If you have proof of it being entirely above ground, please provide a link.

Oldspook specifically refers to "wavefront and wave envelope" and concurs with my description of acoustic envelopes and their relation to seismic detection methods. His mention of thermal, EMP and flash effects does not contradict my statements.

Using 20/20 hindsight, it's pretty clear that the Yongjo-Ri event was probably a calibrating run. If that were true, then the detonation would have most certainly been sub-surface.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 14:26||   2006-10-10 14:26|| Front Page Top

#57 What I am asking you relates to the assertions you make in the comment #28 you quoted from that discussion, regarding attack/sustain/release/decay, in particular the final, long paragraph you wrote in that comment. Could you point me to something authoritative on that, that I could read? Thank you.

My observations in that paragraph were based upon years of reading done decades ago whose sources I cannot possibly retrieve at this time. I should think that my efforts of today would assure you that I'm not trying to cop out with this last statement.

I've little doubt that we have a KH-12 parked over North Korea.

Nope. Too low.

Please explain, Shipman. Our Rhyolite series can be slotted anywhere from an atmosphere-scraping low earth orbit that requires constant re-boosting out to total fully geosynchronous positions.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 14:32||   2006-10-10 14:32|| Front Page Top

#58 Why would you put an optical spy satellite 23,000 miles from Earth?
I'm not certain of the weight of a KH-XX but it's gotta be at least as much as the Hubble Space Telescope, I don't think we have the boosters for that kinda lift.

Posted by 6 2006-10-10 14:41||   2006-10-10 14:41|| Front Page Top

#59 Upon further review...

HST mirror v. the James Webb Space Telescope mirror. Radically lighter, so perhaps a KH-XX could make geosynchronous orbit - it would be optically foolish.

Posted by Shipman 2006-10-10 14:53||   2006-10-10 14:53|| Front Page Top

#60 (1) Our Rhyolite series can be slotted anywhere from an atmosphere-scraping low earth orbit that requires constant re-boosting out to total fully geosynchronous positions.

Well, speaking as someone who has read some of the work on satellite orbit maneuvers, I can say that what is possible is very often not practical or cost-effective. Satellites carry a very limited, non-renewable amount of fuel for maneuvering and going to very low orbits means GREAT expenditure to go back up to high orbits, or even to avoid drag when you get low enough.

2. I respect Old Spook. I equally, if not more, respect my source who was in the black world for a long time and whom I know outside of the Burg.

Zenster, I respect your enthusiasm, energy and general smarts. But on this topic you are trying to draw conclusions without having the full set of info and experience to draw on. Pushing hard on an assertion for which you yourself do not have expertise is, in this case, not doing yourself as much credit as you normally do.

Seismic monitoring is ONE source of information which, combined with other info, is used to infer whether a blast came from a nuclear detonation. By itself it may not, and often IS NOT, adequate -- which is why the US and other governments have NOT stated conclusively that there was (or was not) such a blast in North Korea yesterday.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-10 15:24||   2006-10-10 15:24|| Front Page Top

#61 Read "Deep Black" by William Burrows, Ship. He specifically mentions how we have placed KH-11s in geosynchronous orbit when needed. For what a sore spot North Korea is, we might well have them under constant surveillance. The optics on those beasties may be a lot better than you think. Plus, that position would give us a lot of China's most important coastline to look at as well.

I've also heard, and I seem to recall Burrows mentioning, that the Hubble Telescope was based on or copied by the KH-12's optics. I don't know their weight, but they're the size of a Greyhound bus.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 15:24||   2006-10-10 15:24|| Front Page Top

#62 Yes, Zenster, yes .... but will you at least admit that there are some rather significant parameters you do NOT know the values for, which make a big difference when drawing conclusions on this topic?

Sorry if I sound exasperated. I know we all want to know what's going on and to draw policy conclusions from it. But there's a point where speculation becomes fruitless without key information which, I warrant, no one here a) has or b) of they have it, will speculate / assert here based on it.

I speak as the spouse of someone who for many many years could say very little about what he did each day in uniform, 'Kay???

HINT: it had to do with unmanned space systems.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-10 15:28||   2006-10-10 15:28|| Front Page Top

#63 Satellites carry a very limited, non-renewable amount of fuel for maneuvering and going to very low orbits means GREAT expenditure to go back up to high orbits, or even to avoid drag when you get low enough.

lotp, perhaps you misinterpreted my post. Nowhere do I say that our KHs migrate from geosynchronous down to LEO or vice versa. While the latest models carry much greater quantities of fuel, they would still exhaust it quite soon trying to make such a maneuver, if at all.

Again, without wishing to be obscure, I'm also very confident that our government is not telling us even one tenth of what they know about North Korea's test. Revealing that it was merely conventional explosives may tip our hand about domestic capabilities to the NPT or IAEA people in ways we do not wish to.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 15:33||   2006-10-10 15:33|| Front Page Top

#64 That avoids my larger point, Zenster. You have now repeatedly asserted that North Korea knows unequivocably that we can distinguish a nuclear from a deliberately intended-to-deceive conventional blast based on seismic data alone.

Dave D., who has some expertise in the topic, doubts that that is possible and asks for a clear citation to back up your assertion.

I, who do not have direct expertise but live with someone who is rather knowledgeable in the wider topic, also have reason to believe the assertion is unsupported.

What the government knows and is not telling is one thing.

Your assertion that North Korea knows it COULD NOT get away with a fake "nuclear blast" because the seismic data ALONE would inevitably and unambiguously give it away .... is a rather different and more central issue.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-10 15:38||   2006-10-10 15:38|| Front Page Top

#65 so what I can gather from the above you need seismic monitors CLOSE to the explosion site to differentiate. How far is the test site from Vladivostok. Russians are affirming that it WAS a nuke, while US intell sources are skeptical. What reason would Russia have for misstating, in this instance?
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-10-10 15:40||   2006-10-10 15:40|| Front Page Top

#66 FWIW, Keyhole and Rhyolite are two completely different satellites.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-10-10 15:43||   2006-10-10 15:43|| Front Page Top

#67 Thank you, you're right, David D.. Rhyolite was the ELINT vacuum cleaner while the Keyholes were predominantly optically based.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 16:20||   2006-10-10 16:20|| Front Page Top

#68 Your assertion that North Korea knows it COULD NOT get away with a fake "nuclear blast" because the seismic data ALONE would inevitably and unambiguously give it away .... is a rather different and more central issue.

Agreed, and that is why, after scouring the Internet for two solid hours I was forced to resurrect Oldspook's confirmation of my previous posts on this topic. I had even reviewed the links that Valentine posted during my initial search and did not feel that they provided enough confirmation.

While no one is ever obilged to make the best decisions, North Korea's scientists, like most others on earth, would just as likely know that attempting to falsify a nuclear test could come back to bite them in the very worst way.

I also think that we are subjecting North Korea to intense surveillance and would have used those observations to show them carting dumptrucks of fertilizer and Deisel into the test bore. Discrediting Kim would serve innumerable of our interests at present.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 16:21||   2006-10-10 16:21|| Front Page Top

#69 That's what I keep looking at LH. Pooties junk is much closer to the site of the explosion than USGS stuff, unless...... Why wouldn't we have equipment in SK? I bet we did, and someone just ain't tellin'. Yet.
Posted by Mike N. 2006-10-10 16:24||   2006-10-10 16:24|| Front Page Top

#70 Two things

1. Did our sats pick up the excavation and explosives entering the hole for the "calibration run"?

2. Just wait a few days and the New York Times will have the final and definitive answer, leaked from Langley - as long as it can be spun to make Bush look bad.


And 'dud' or not, I bet Kimmie is having fun with all the confusion!
Posted by Bobby 2006-10-10 16:43||   2006-10-10 16:43|| Front Page Top

#71 One thought with regard to the North Korean scientists. They are much in the same position as Lysenko under Stalin -- the immediate choices are:

1. Tell the truth and get killed now

2. Tell the required lie now, of course fail, and get killed when Stalin notices

3. Lie now, and through an inexplicable miracle somehow make it come true... at which point the process starts again.

North Korea has been under the thumb of the Kims for a long time, time enough that almost all of the scientists will have grown up with those choices ground into their bones. Those that need absolute scientific truth didn't make it much into adulthood. The rest aren't likely to let a little thing like the tut-tutting world being aware of their falsehoods get in the way of keeping from being killed by the nearby and much more serious threat of Kim's displeasure, should they tell him they can't give him what he wants when he wants it. And quite possibly they wouldn't tell him he can't have his nuclear explosion as planned, soley on the grounds that they aren't capable of it yet.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-10 16:52||   2006-10-10 16:52|| Front Page Top

#72 #71 TW: Let's start a rumor to try to make sure option #2 comes to pass! :-)
Posted by gorb 2006-10-10 17:04||   2006-10-10 17:04|| Front Page Top

#73 Does anyone remember a year ago or so when there was a big event in NorK that registerd on seismometers around the world? NorK explained it away as a civil project like a dam or something. Could this be realted to events these days? Are there any signs of a dam being worked on for the past year?
Posted by gorb 2006-10-10 17:07||   2006-10-10 17:07|| Front Page Top

#74 Related to Zenster's post 53, and my question No. 1 in #70 - but still a good one.

Where did the norks get the capital for a dam project? WJ Clinton?
Posted by Bobby 2006-10-10 17:12||   2006-10-10 17:12|| Front Page Top

#75 1. Did our sats pick up the excavation and explosives entering the hole for the "calibration run"?

So far, the only candidate being mentioned for a "calibration run" is the Yongjo-Ri explosion in Ryanggang back in September of 2004. Wikipedia makes no mention of surveillance data regarding that event.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 17:19||   2006-10-10 17:19|| Front Page Top

#76 Yep, that's what I'm remembering. I haven't heard a peep about any hydroelectric facility in NorK, and you think that would be all over the papers if they were going to try to do anything like that.

They were probably either covering up a mining accident (unlikely with an explosion as big as the article implies by having nations react to it), or it was some kind of practice run for whatever it is they are up to today (more likely, in my mind).
Posted by gorb 2006-10-10 17:25||   2006-10-10 17:25|| Front Page Top

#77 TW,
Consider this - there is a growing school of thought that Kim tried detonating a Pakistani design yesterday, one identical to a weapon that fizzled some years back. If that's the case, then his scientists are now busily pointing fingers at Karachi and Khaaaaaaaaaaaaan!...

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-10-10 17:26||   2006-10-10 17:26|| Front Page Top

#78 If I had to make some SWAGS right now, I would come up with something like this

Prob******Scenario
Med*******Dud
V Low*****Conventional explosive switcheroo
Low*******Engineered low yield device (includes suitcase nuke, tactical nuke, and that even Kimmie might not want to make so big a device to contaminate a major portion of a small country.)

It seems that since we had indications and warnings of this test that we would be watching pretty closely and would have some idea if boxcars of ANFO were being dumped in a mine, which is why I rated that scenario very low.

I don't know much about fast fourier transforms, but it does seem to me that the explosive velocity of a nuke would be so high that it would have a pretty distinctive seismic signature. I've long since learned that just about any public domain information about nukes is likely to be disinformation, so basing any conclusion based on that information is likely to be a bad conclusion. I've also learned that seismologists always seem to revise event magnitudes by .5 to 1.0 points in the weeks after the event, so I 'm not getting too invested in the 4.5 number just this yet.
Posted by 11A5S 2006-10-10 17:29||   2006-10-10 17:29|| Front Page Top

#79 Here's what I think _might_ have happened: Kimmie could use not-quite-enriched-enough material in a bomb test, to see if the results from his "physics package" match up what the simulations tell him the yield will be.

This lets him know if his designs are any good, while all the chattering classes can go around talking about how he doesn't really have anything and noone in the west needs to take notice, and by the way have you heard the latest about Mark Foley? OOH, shiny thing! POING, Poing, poing...
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-10-10 17:34||   2006-10-10 17:34|| Front Page Top

#80 I have to say, as a long time lurker, and occasional snarker (with varying degrees of success):) , Rantburgs discussion on this NK topic and many others before it is amongst the best on the Internet. I am constantly amazed at the level of discourse and informed opinion
Bravo.

P.S. I was reading Belmont Club, where Wretchard threw out the "Suit Case" nuke possibility. Anyone here think that is plausible?
Posted by Dunno 2006-10-10 17:43||   2006-10-10 17:43|| Front Page Top

#81 From the CIA Factbook on North Korea:

Natural Resources:

coal, lead, tungsten, zinc, graphite, magnesite, iron ore, copper, gold, pyrites, salt, fluorspar, hydropower

Economy Overview:

North Korea, one of the world's most centrally planned and isolated economies, faces desperate economic conditions. Industrial capital stock is nearly beyond repair as a result of years of underinvestment and shortages of spare parts. Industrial and power output have declined in parallel. Despite an increased harvest in 2005 because of more stable weather conditions, fertilizer assistance from South Korea, and an extraordinary mobilization of the population to help with agricultural production, the nation has suffered its 11th year of food shortages because of on-going systemic problems, including a lack of arable land, collective farming practices, and chronic shortages of tractors and fuel. Massive international food aid deliveries have allowed the people of North Korea to escape mass starvation since famine threatened in 1995, but the population continues to suffer from prolonged malnutrition and poor living conditions. Large-scale military spending eats up resources needed for investment and civilian consumption. In 2004, the regime formalized an arrangement whereby private "farmers markets" were allowed to begin selling a wider range of goods. It also permitted some private farming on an experimental basis in an effort to boost agricultural output. In October 2005, the regime reversed some of these policies by forbidding private sales of grains and reinstituting a centralized food rationing system. In December 2005, the regime confirmed that it intended to carry out earlier threats to terminate all international humanitarian assistance operations in the DPRK (calling instead for developmental assistance only) and to restrict the activities of international and non-governmental aid organizations such as the World Food Program. Firm political control remains the Communist government's overriding concern, which will likely inhibit the loosening of economic regulations.

Industries:

military products; machine building, electric power, chemicals; mining (coal, iron ore, magnesite, graphite, copper, zinc, lead, and precious metals), metallurgy; textiles, food processing; tourism


Exports:

$1.275 billion f.o.b. (2004 est.)

Export Commodities:

minerals, metallurgical products, manufactures (including armaments), textiles, fishery products
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 17:47||   2006-10-10 17:47|| Front Page Top

#82 "...but it does seem to me that the explosive velocity of a nuke would be so high that it would have a pretty distinctive seismic signature."

Up close, within a few km, I think that's indeed the case; but from what I've read (see my comment #30) and what I know of wave propagation as an engineer, the high-frequency components of the seismic wave that would make that distinctive signature detectable don't propagate very well over long distances: after a few km, all that tend to be left are the low-frequency components. So from far away, I should think a nuclear detonation and a non-nuclear detonation would tend to "sound" the same-- especially for small detonations.

I'm keeping an open mind on this, but right now I'm still a bit skeptical of the notion that nuclear and non-nuclear explosions can be distinguished by seismic means alone (other than by the sheer magnitude of the vibrations, in the case of a multi-kiloton nuke).

I know I'm being a pain in the ass about this, but on this particular topic I'm trying very, VERY hard to maintain a clear distinction between a) what I actually know for a fact and b) what I can only suspect.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-10-10 17:49||   2006-10-10 17:49|| Front Page Top

#83 "P.S. I was reading Belmont Club, where Wretchard threw out the "Suit Case" nuke possibility. Anyone here think that is plausible?"

Nope. Not a beginner's project.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D.  2006-10-10 17:51||   2006-10-10 17:51|| Front Page Top

#84 Suit case yield? sure. Suit case size? No way. Not out of the starting gate.

I still think Kimmie/Iran are constrained for nuclear material, both for test and production. These could well be designed low yield, high fallout weapons for terrorist use at maximum number of locations in minimum time delivered by container or in al-Q operated ships of which there are reported to be many (dozens). Think about a half dozen or so of these going off in the world's major ports on the same day. The terror effect would be devastating.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-10 17:53||   2006-10-10 17:53|| Front Page Top

#85 Michael Yon's sources say there was no evidence of nuclear activity in the blasts ... which doesn't say anything about whether (as is likely) they intended there to be.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-10 18:22||   2006-10-10 18:22|| Front Page Top

#86 I was hearing on Rush today that they are sending results from Okinawa to a lab back in Washington to check for specific decay nuclides that would prove disprove the fact whether Kimmy had nukes.

The tests are supersensitive and have to be done in DC????
Posted by BigEd 2006-10-10 18:58||   2006-10-10 18:58|| Front Page Top

#87 Eventually the WC-135s will sniff out the fact. Might take awhile tho.
Posted by Shipman 2006-10-10 19:06||   2006-10-10 19:06|| Front Page Top

#88 Yes. But the point is that so far there just isn't the evidence to assume they DID successfuly set off a nuclear device.

Which is what most of the press and discussion has been taking at face value today.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-10 19:10||   2006-10-10 19:10|| Front Page Top

#89 While I don't think siesmic analysis can tell the difference between chemical and nuclear explosions for the reason's Dave D outlined. There are other possibilities.
1. Detection of Very Low Frequency(VLF) and Extremly (E)LF E-M waves which do pass through rock. Submarines extending their VLF antenna could see a spike. With 2 subs, the origin can be triangulated.
2. Neutino spike in Japan's Super Kamiokande detector. The detector can also determine the direction of the neutrino flux.

Of course, I have no knowledge if the signals are strong enough to be detected. But correlated with seismic detectors, they would provide conclusive proof. For a fizzle, the EMP would be too weak, but a neutrino flux would still be produced.
Posted by ed 2006-10-10 23:51||   2006-10-10 23:51|| Front Page Top

#90 I has also wondered about a neutrino flux as well.

I'll also note that Oldspook dropped by the 'Burg today.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-10 23:56||   2006-10-10 23:56|| Front Page Top

23:57 ed
23:56 Zenster
23:51 ed
23:46 trailing wife
23:43 Zenster
23:42 Clkethel OHlkdj
23:42 Zenster
23:40 Galloways Outcropping
23:33 Zenster
23:32 anonymous2u
23:30 twobyfour
23:28 tipper
23:26 Zenster
23:17 anon
23:14 anon
23:12 bombay
22:59 Alaska Paul
22:49 JSU
22:47 ed
22:24 Hupolump Ebbanter6416
22:18 Lancasters Over Dresden
22:14 Bobby
22:12 Lancasters Over Dresden
22:11 Lancasters Over Dresden









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com