Report: North Korean nuke test failed?
posted at 11:03 pm on October 9, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Top of the page right now at Drudge. We were tossing this possibility around last night and then again this morning. Even a small nuclear explosion would yield a blast equivalent to a few thousand tons of TNT. This one was in the ballpark of 500.
Here’s what “NPP,” a retired munitions expert, had to say in the comments to the previous post:
It’s definitely possible to make nuclear weapons with yields under 1kt, but it requires a level of expertise and knowledge the NK’s almost certainly do not have…
Although it’s not certain, this “test” is looking more like a dud. I think a solely conventional explosion is unlikely - the NORKO’s wouldn’t claim to conduct a nuclear test then actually conduct a seemingly pointless HE explosion; knowing it would be discovered as a non-nuclear event…
You won’t see any radiation information for a while, if at all. If the test was a dud, then no radiation escaped, so there is nothing to collect. If it was a successful test and the seismic data is innaccurate or wrong, then gas would still have to escape from underground (if the NK’s did their homework, this won’t happen) and then be collected by aircraft east of the peninsula. It will take time to collect and analyze that data and much depends on the weather and wind patterns.
Finally, expect another test. If this one was a dud, it’s likely the North Korean’s have another design or test weapon ready to go.
He wonders why the NorKs would use a plutonium implosion device for their first test instead of a uranium “gun” device. Good question. Gun devices are so reliable that the U.S. didn’t even test one before dropping the bomb on Hiroshima.
Keep your eye on Drudge and the Washington Times. I’ll update once the article is posted.
Update: Steven Den Beste also thinks the test was a misfire. A misfire, or a ruse designed to make us think they’d successfully tested a weapon?
I guess if they’d wanted to do that, they’d have used a lot more conventional explosives and made it more convincing.
Update: Spectacularly depressing analysis from the Times:
“What it tells you is that we started at the wrong end of the ‘axis of evil,’ ” former Senator Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat who has spent his post-Congressional career trying to halt a new age of proliferation, said in an interview. “We started with the least dangerous of the countries, Iraq, and we knew it at the time. And now we have to deal with that.”…
“Think about the consequences of having declared something ‘intolerable’ and, last week, ‘unacceptable,’ and then having North Korea defy the world’s sole superpower and the Chinese and the Japanese,” said Graham Allison, the Harvard professor who has studied nuclear showdowns since the Cuban missile crisis. “What does that communicate to Iran, and then the rest of the world? Is it possible to communicate to Kim credibly that if he sells a bomb to Osama bin Laden, that’s it?”
Update: The Gertz story is up at WashTimes. Quote:
U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that 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…
What U.S. officials have been unable to confirm is whether North Korea received small warhead design information from the Khan network.
Chinese-language documents on how to build a nuclear warhead for missiles were found in Libya and were supplied by Khan network associates. U.S. intelligence officials think Iran and North Korea received similar warhead design documents.
Update: A 500-ton blast would have required a sufficiently large amount of conventional explosives that U.S. spy satellites would have noticed them being brought to the site, notes the Times. WaPo says the NorKs told China that they were aiming for a four kiloton explosion, but by almost all accounts, they didn’t manage even a kiloton and could have fallen as low as 200 tons. More:
Intelligence officials were looking at four possibilities to explain the size of the blast, the most likely of which appeared to be that only a fraction of the device’s core exploded. If that were the case, the test would still be considered successful, officials said, because some plutonium was exploded. But it may also lead the North Koreans to conduct additional tests to determine what went wrong.
It is also possible, two analysts said, that Pyongyang used less plutonium because it has less stockpiled than U.S. intelligence believed.
It’ll be a few days before the atmospheric radiation data is harvested and analyzed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’ve been thinking about this.
The Australian ran a story about a possible low-yield second nuclear test U.S. intelligence may have detected in the 1KT range.
I don’t know whether that’s true or not, but if it is, it’s good news.
It may mean they’re weapons don’t work. And they know it.
Whether it was one fizzle or two, this has to put pressure on North Korea’s regime unless they were merely testing the trigger to a two-stage hydrogen device in which case, well, that would be bad.
Thoughts?
Christoph on October 9, 2006 at 11:10 PM
I should be clear… that’s a second possible low-yield nuclear test U.S. intelligence may have detected in the 1KT range.
Christoph on October 9, 2006 at 11:15 PM
It is very unlikely that NK has the technology for a hydrogen device. As to why not use a uranium gun type? You work with what you have, which frankly suggests to me that NK may have acquired the material from others who weren’t crazy enough to sell them a device to go with it.
Mike O on October 9, 2006 at 11:48 PM
I know less about n-weapon designs than many here.
A question.
Which are smaller and lighter?
Implosion atomic warheads or gun-type designs.
Because the North Koreans may know the limitations of their Taepodong missiles. Perhaps they have payload limitations and this may have influenced their choice of weapon design.
Thoughts?
Christoph on October 10, 2006 at 12:12 AM
Regardless, can we nuke them now?
Defector01 on October 10, 2006 at 12:21 AM
What them thar Norks need is a REAL BADASS Nukyeler Bomb!
Jewel on October 10, 2006 at 12:24 AM
This is almost sad. Like watching an elementary school play. You want to watch, and stay awake, even be proud of the little ones when they do well, but no….they go and fall down, and cry, and well, they make everyone in the science community look bad. It kinda makes you want to disown them. If they couldn’t succeed with Marlon Brando, how can we expect them to succeed with missiles and bombs and suchlike?
Jewel on October 10, 2006 at 12:30 AM
From the NYT:
“…Bush and his aides contend that Iraq was the more urgent threat, in a volatile neighborhood. …”
The difference for you NYT and the simjpletons that read your paper is; that as crazy as Li’l Kim is, He and his people would still like to survive…. And that is our ultimate hole card in dealing with them.
ON THE OTHER HAND; The muslim fanatics worship death; THey tell you so every day, but you don’t have the sense to believe it, even when they prove it. If they ever get the wherewithal to do so, they will happily die to destroy the rest of the world. Bringing Armageddon is the primary goal of Ahmadinejad and his ilk. And even the more moderate of those people would be glad to die for mohammed if they can take a bunch of us with them.
That’s why smart people are more worried about mohammed’s nukes than North Korea’s.
LegendHasIt on October 10, 2006 at 12:37 AM
We must pray fervently that the “Persians” do better, islamotarded as they are.
Jewel on October 10, 2006 at 12:40 AM
This in…
North Korean missile struck the United States…
…3 years ago
Christoph on October 10, 2006 at 12:40 AM
I am certain that the Japanese and Sorks would concur.
Jewel on October 10, 2006 at 12:43 AM
Hey, anyone checked to see if DU or Kossacks are blaming Rove or President Bush for bribing Kim Jong Mentally Ill to set off a nuke to get Foley off the front page? Just idle musing…
austinnelly on October 10, 2006 at 3:11 AM
Assuming a dud (or maybe even two), we can only hope that to punish this failure, Kim has the scientists that failed to give him his propaganda victory get executed.
That way, he won’t HAVE any bomb-making scientists any more! ;^)
georgej on October 10, 2006 at 6:48 AM
The Times (And that means Simpleton Sulzberger) shows that they are simple thinkers.
Some people play checkers, where all pieces are equal, until they reach the other side of the board. All pieces have the same moves.
Some people play chess. The goal is the King, the Queen has all the moves, but to nullify them, you go after the pawns and the knights, and the rooks, and the bishops, until the Queen is dead, and the King is powerless.
Down went Iraq.
Libya gave up there terrorist plans, and planes loads of Nuke stuff was taken to Oak Ridge.
Liberia - Charles Taylor is diposed - not a shot fired.
Syria gets out of Lebenon after a 20 year occupation.
But there is no relationship in the world view of the Times.
Wander on October 10, 2006 at 6:50 AM
The North Korean nuke test was sabotaged by Team America.
pjcomix on October 10, 2006 at 7:05 AM
It does sound like a fizzle, doesn’t it? I think they would have waited to get their ducks lined up to test a device. I liked Josh Manchester’s analysis from last week’s TCS Daily that our financial squeeze is prompting North Korean action. It sounds ot me like they are in a position of wekness. It boggles my mind that our media wonder if their test is a sign of a failure of our policy.
Ennuipundit on October 10, 2006 at 8:55 AM
It’s former DEMOCRATIC senator Sam Nunn, which tells it all. His entire “post-Congressional career” of appeasement has been a failure, so he is trying to blame Bush. Iraq was the most dangerous of the axis of evil. They had a record of actually invading another country. Remember 1991, Senator Nunn? Also, Saddam Hussein is insane; Kim Jong-il is sane.
True, but at least they know Republicans will act when they have to; Democrats never will go to war at any cost, and terrorists and communists know that, which is why they so desperately campaign for Democrats. If Al Gore had been president in 2001, he would not have even invaded Afghanistan. Liberals don’t even like sanctions; they are already complaining that sanctions will “further impoverish” the North Korean people.
januarius on October 10, 2006 at 9:29 AM
Ok, I’m not a nuclear physicist so I need some enlightening. The United States has had the technology and the knowledge for 60+ years to build nuclear weapons. Have we been that good at guarding those secrets?
pullingmyhairout on October 10, 2006 at 9:46 AM
i didn’t finish. sorry about that. What I was going to add was, if we have had the knowledge and technology for more than half a century, why doesn’t NK or Iran have it, too? They’ve had to develop the technology on their own? no one leaked it to them? no one sold it to them? i’m fuzzy on my history here. Can anyone help answer my questions?
pullingmyhairout on October 10, 2006 at 9:49 AM
Hmm. Remember those scary stories about dirty nukes going off in London or Manhattan?
We know two things:
1. The Noks possess Plutonium.
2. The Noks can trigger a large-scale detonation.
Oh, I forgot:
3. US borders aren’t secured.
Niko on October 10, 2006 at 10:01 AM
Well, making these things is insanely difficult. You either have to have preternaturally pure material for a simple design, or less pure material and a more complicated design.
With pure material you could just about use a guy with a big chunk in each hand and have him slam them together…the gun type.
With less pure material, or smaller amounts of pure, you get less of a yield. Either that or you can inject Tritium into the core just prior to the big bang for a really big bang…the implosion type. And getting the nuclear material to compress perfectly thru implosion is very difficult. Imperfect compression is one of the safety devices on these bombs - the core gets blown out the side of the weapon and doesn’t go nuclear (but is messy).
One of our weapons was a backpack type without tritium, but with relatively pure material, and it was rated at about .3kt…designed for SF to take our bridges, etc. It was still a heavy backpack.
You can test compression technologies without being underground, and if the core was damaged by a misfire you should see radiation.
I think it was a fizzle. There was too much NoKo publicity for it to be an interim test. If this yield is what they were looking for, then I don’t think they are as close to a city-buster as they think they are.
And yes, we guarded the weapons closely…on the rare occasion we lost one (see Spain, Thresher, etc) there was a full court press to get it back. The design criteria of them is a different story tho…that could have gotten snagged.
trainer on October 10, 2006 at 10:05 AM
Excuse me?
Tell me oh wise senator, just when did Slick Willie even notice there was evil out there in the world?
As I recall when Bush first used the term “axis of evil” the libs all had their panties in bunch for using such threatening language. You know, we should be nice and talk with our enemies like Billy Jeff and Maddy did, not call them nasty names.
Your boy Clinton set the stage for N. Korea’s nukes. The only axis of evil Clinton ever recognized was Linda Tripp, Ken Starr and that bitch he has for a wife.
STFU Sam Nunn, and go build a house with Jimmah.
What the hell do they put in those peanuts harvested in Georgia?
fogw on October 10, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Senator Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat who has spent his post-Congressional career trying to halt a new age of proliferation, said in an interview. “We started with the least dangerous of the countries, Iraq, and we knew it at the time. And now we have to deal with that.”…
Let’s see, in World War One, they knocked out the least dangerous members of the enemy alliance (the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary) before the most dangerous member (Germany).
In World War Two, they knocked out the least dangerous member of the Axis (Italy) first. Focusing on the least dangerous member made the most dangerous member, Germany, throw away 250,000 troops trying to prop up their weaker partner’s position in North Africa.
Nope, that strategy has never worked and can never work.
Lehuster on October 10, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Doesn’t it seem like the lack of adequate historical study in America is degrading our ability to comprehend and approach military issues? I was reading my dead trees version of National Review last week, and they had a nice piece about the disappearance of military history in college campuses. So instead of thorough dissection of military campaigns we have rioters who deny their fellow citizens the right to speak. The irony is that as the worth of a college education has declined, its cost has gone up and the perceived need for it has increased. Aside from the war on poverty, never before has more been spent with less benefit than what most Americans spend on college educations.
Ennuipundit on October 10, 2006 at 11:34 AM
I respect the former Senator Nunn and while he is not known as being a part of the loony left. As far as his assertion that we started with the weakest link in the chain of countries with nuclear ambitions we could debate that for awhile. I think there was more reasons other then the just the WMD issue for going into Iraq. That was an important one, more from the point of not allowing Saddam and his brood to get the ability to produce these type of weapons and farm them out to the Islamic fanatics who had risen in strength and number. There are several other strategic reasons for going into Iraq, not the least of which was to try and establish a democracy in the heart of the Islamic world.
So Sam has his view and opinion and so do I, as long as he does not over to the dark side and instead engages in reasoned, rational debate I will keep him in the good guys column.
LakeRuins on October 10, 2006 at 12:41 PM
The alternative view to a possible fizzle or a possible fake test is that North Korea actually detonated a subkiloton device. Such a device is more sophisticated that a “Fat Man” or “Little Boy” weapon. The Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs relied on the bulk of their components. A subkiloton weapon relies upon sophisticated timing devices to plunge a small mass of fissile material into criticality. If North Korea has achieved this level of execution then they are far more dangerous than if they had exploded a large mass device. Subkiloton weapons are more concealable than a non-nuke bomb of similar yield and would make a great dispersion engine of a dirty bomb. Hence, subkiloton bombs would be attractive to terrorist orghanizations. As North Korea now has appealing nuclear weaponry for rogue states as well as terrormongers, plus its own arsenal, it is more dangerous than ever.
chsw
chsw on October 10, 2006 at 12:54 PM
Imagine what Sen. Nunn and his adherents would have said/shouted, if Mr. Bush would have started with N. Korea.
fogw, your posts are such a joy - today’s is fantastic.
Lehuster, that was a great reflection on wars, past.
Ennuipundit, the biggest problem is that high-schools don’t have a pre-determined curriculum, combining humanities and sciences. The kids, in their forming years, don’t have the opportunities to establish an educational base. Thus, they end up later specializing in one area or another, never being able to reason, analyze, reflect or simply entertain a conversation with someone of a different view, culture, profession, etc. Never mind specifically knowing the history of the world or their own country’s. Also, they don’t learn to think on their own and to persuade with facts - they’re too easily influenced by teachers and counselors…too long to go on and really for a thread of its own. I understand your post fully and it’s sad for society.
Entelechy on October 10, 2006 at 1:01 PM
Anyone know how much of blast a suitcase nuke would cause. I don’t know anything about nukes but I’m just thinkin of stuff.
..and about criticism for attacking the least dangerous country first, someone else made the point that that has been done before in WWI and WWII. My grandfather is a WWII vet, and I remember him telling me that he used to hear lots of criticism as to why the US went to attack Germany and Italy first when it was Japan that attacked the US. I guess my point is that type of criticism is nothing new.
vcferlita on October 10, 2006 at 1:21 PM
Nunn stated, “we started at the wrong end of the axis of evil” and “We started with the least dangerous of the countries, Iraq, and we knew it at the time.”
What was known at the time we went into Iraq?
Both North Korea and Iraq had aspirations to become a nuclear power and each in their own way were pursuing that goal. And don’t forget Clinton told us everything in North Korea was hunky-dory, no serious threat from Kim Jong Ill - just ask Madeline, she loved the guy.
A major difference between North Korea and Iraq (or Iran for that matter), was Middle Eastern countries were sitting atop millions of gallons of oil and the wealth derived thereof. They had the financial means to accelerate a nuclear program from within and external cooperation coming from the technological advice and nuke hardware provided by their oil reliant “friends”.
Kim Jong Ill was in financial destitute and lacked the ability to draw on any allies who would assist in accelerating his nuclear program. He was in no position to barter oil, or any other commodity, in exchange for help from the outside world. IMHO this made him less a threat.
Democrats like Nunn conveniently forget history and don’t hesitate to jump on the MSM Bush-bashing bandwagon. North Korea claims to have tested a nuke, so now it’s time to blame Bush again.
There have been times where I agreed with the reason and rationale of Sam Nunn. But on this one I have to call him on it. Hogwash.
Perhaps he should have been condemning one of his own for striking a deal with Kim Jong Ill that was violated from the outset. That would have been reasonable and rational. Where was Nunn then?
fogw on October 10, 2006 at 1:34 PM
PyongBANG…I say blow off their ‘dongs if this guy launches another missile barrage…it’s time to stop playing around.
BirdEye on October 10, 2006 at 2:48 PM
I still don’t even buy Nunn’s premise that Iraq was the least dangerous of the three countries in the axis of evil. Kim Jong-il has not invaded another country, Iran has not, yet Iraq under Saddam had. Saddam clearly was delusional and thought of himself as Saladin. Iraq definitely was the most dangerous of the three countries in 2002, especially towards Israel. Now we have democracy and a pro-American regime in Iraq, so what are Dems whining about? Would they have invaded North Korea and prevented them from acquiring nukes?
januarius on October 10, 2006 at 3:13 PM
I heard Rush equate the failure of the nuke test to premature ejaculation. I nearly spit my coffee… he he he
pullingmyhairout on October 10, 2006 at 4:06 PM
Januarius, capabilities matter as much as - if not more than - intentions. As of 2002, Iraq had no real ability to invade its neighbors and no serious WMD programs (though to be sure Saddam intended to reconstitute them eventually). On the other hand, North Korea then, as now, most definitely had highly advanced nuclear, chemical, BW, and ballistic missile capabilities (major stockpiles and research programs). North Korea also had a large military force postured - as it has been for decades - to invade South Korea. It is absurd to say “Kim Jong Il has never invaded his neighbor”, as if this means Kim is no threat, when the US Army has been sitting in South Korea for 53 years for no other purpose than to prevent such an invasion. Quite clearly, the US government thinks that a North Korean invasion of the South is a serious possibility!
From the standpoint of raw capability, Iraq was indeed the least dangerous country in the Axis of Evil, and North Korea the most dangerous. No question about it.
Lehuster on October 10, 2006 at 4:46 PM
I thank the (former) senator from the great state of Georgia for acquiescing to the existence of the axis of evil. The President was ridiculed for even speaking the term for so long, and now, he is ridiculed for choosing the wrong component of it to confront first. Republicans, as usual, will take their victories wherever they can find them.
Iraq had to be faced first. Not for strategic reasons, rather simple pragmatic ones. It wasn’t about which country had more destructive capacity, but about which country could be kept from the brink longer through diplomacy, and which not.
If Iran and North Korea had each proven similar nuclear capabilities on the same day, Iran would have to be confronted first. Ahmed-the-hand-job made it clear that he would consider it a victory to lose half of his population to destroy the west. (Don’t even get me started on the left thinking that the loss of 3,000 service personnel proves we’ve lost) You deal with the most unstable/dangerous foe first. But current intelligence says he doesn’t have nukes just yet.
Most people will never know any details, but many in Iraq’s populace had been privately hoping for a U.S. invasion to remove Saddam for nearly 20 years. Iran’s leadership has changed numerous times since then, and there was always a wish for a more moderate party to take power, which is now beyond hope.
Korea, on the other hand, has always been subject to pressures from more than just the “decadent west”, including China and Russia. If Kim Jong Il has ended any pretense of restraint, then it is his turn and the time is now.
Freelancer on October 10, 2006 at 6:01 PM