Comments on: Why it’s so hard to tell if North Korea used a plutonium or (much scarier) uraniam bomb

By: SWalker

SWalker — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:40:46 +0000

Why it’s so hard to tell if North Korea used a plutonium or (much scarier) uraniam bomb

This is the kind of reporting you get when the agenda is more important than the factual information in the story. What kind of detonation it was could be determined by what the value of and various types of seismic waves it produced. Checking the Xeon and Krypton gas concentrations represents a secondary method of confirmation of what the P-wave, S-wave, Lamb wave, Longitudinal wave
Love wave and Surface wave data already indicates.

If you have ever seen a ground penetrating radar image or a geophysical mineral seismogram map you just ought to have some idea what the seismic wave information can tell about any explosion. Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb sat waiting in the basement of the physics department in Berkley, patiently watching a seismograph for the “Castle Bravo” detonation.

Castle Bravo took place at the now infamous Bikini Atoll somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000 miles away from Berkley, and yet Eward Teller and his staff were the first American’s in the continental United States to know not only the the Castle Bravo detonation was a success, but to also know that the Castle Bravo shot had produced a larger explosion that anyone had expected.

By: SC.Charlie

SC.Charlie — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:15:04 +0000

I don’t care what type of bomb they have. I just don’t like the fact that this nutcase of a regime has one and would be more than happen to sell one to anyone in the world. Japan, South Korea and even the United States should be very concerned.

By: iconoclast

iconoclast — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:30:35 +0000

Does it really matter as much as whether the norks are building high altitude electromagnetic pulse weapons? 10kt is the optimum size and there are reports that HEMP technology “leaked” (was sold to) the norks. So the norks might have a delivery system and weapon system that can knock out the electrical grid of any modern country–Japan, S. Korea, USA, Canada.

By: CPT. Charles

CPT. Charles — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:22:22 +0000

JFKY on February 13, 2013 at 11:27 AM

You answered your own question. Yeah, a Pu-239-bomb is harder to build... by comparison, a U-235-bomb is a snap to build, and easier to 'down-scale'. A 'small' Pu-based warhead is for missiles. A small U-based warhead is 'other' uses... and other potential means of delivery.

By: Christien

Christien — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:06:42 +0000

Maybe the Korea expert on Obama’s Asia team can help. Oh, wait, there is no Korea expert on Obama’s Asia team.

By: BL@KBIRD

BL@KBIRD — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:52:46 +0000

Why it’s so hard to tell if North Korea used a plutonium or (much scarier) uraniam bomb

He spelled Iranian wrong.

By: ProfShadow

ProfShadow — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:35:12 +0000

I find it even scarier that “Teh 0ne” really didn’t seem to mind much that North Korea let one go.

And that Hagel might be confirmed.

By: JFKY

JFKY — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:27:32 +0000

Why would a “Uranium” bomb be much scarier? Personally, I find the Pu-239 weapon scarier, because it requires technical sophisication to use.

By: unclesmrgol

unclesmrgol — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:24:30 +0000

This “uraniam” stuff — it’s available down at the local drug store. This is, after all, 2013.