SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Marvin-the-Martian-had-no-comment dept.
We had three Soylentils submit stories about North Korea's claims it had detonated a hydrogen bomb and reports of seismic activity.
North Korea has Conducted a Major Nuclear Test.
North Korea said on Sunday it detonated a hydrogen bomb, possibly triggering an artificial earthquake and prompting immediate condemnation from its neighbors -- despite the rogue regime calling the test a "perfect success." http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/09/03/quake-in-north-korea-may-have-been-nuclear-test.html
North Korea Claims Successful Hydrogen Bomb Test
North Korea claims to have successfully developed and tested a hydrogen bomb. Observers have detected tremors associated with a blast several times larger than previous underground nuclear bomb tests. North Korea also claimed to have developed a hydrogen bomb capable of being fitted on a missile:
North Korea carried out its most powerful nuclear test to date on Sunday, claiming to have developed an advanced hydrogen bomb that could sit atop an intercontinental ballistic missile.
The bomb used in the country's sixth-ever nuclear test sent tremors across the region that were 10 times more powerful than Pyongyang's previous test a year ago, Japanese officials said. While the type of bomb used and its size have not been independently verified, if true, the pariah state is a significant step closer to being able to fire a nuclear warhead to the US mainland, as it has repeatedly threatened it could if provoked.
[...] The device was more than eight times more powerful than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, according to NORSAR, a Norway-based group that monitors nuclear tests. Based on the tremors that followed the test, NORSAR estimated it had an explosive yield of 120 kilotons. Hiroshima's had 15 kilotons. But South Korean officials gave a more modest estimation, saying that Sunday's bomb had a yield of 50 kilotons.
がんばれ! 你能行的!! 화이팅!!!
Also at BBC, Reuters, and NYT.
4.1 Magnitude Seismic Event in North Korea at a Low Depth
Earthquake News Today initially reported that a 5.1 magnitude event designated 2000aert had occurred near Sungjibaegam, North Korea at a depth of less than 1km at 03:30 UTC September 3.
Their updated report 2.5 hours later gave a magnitude of 4.1.
All reporting stations were in the USA.
NPR, formerly Nation Public Radio, subsequently reports
North Korea has claimed to have tested a hydrogen bomb
The blast was picked up by seismic stations all over the world, and it was big.
[...]North Korea's previous nuclear tests have been in the tens of kilotons range. That corresponds roughly to a weapon the size of the ones used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. It's believed that the North's earlier tests were of nuclear weapons that use uranium or plutonium (or both) for their explosive yield.
This time, the North claims to have mastered a far more powerful hydrogen weapon. Some early estimates are putting this test in the hundreds of kiloton range.
[...]Modern nuclear weapons of the sort possessed by the U.S. and Russia are almost all thermonuclear in nature. It allows the weapons to pack a huge punch while fitting in a warhead small enough to be delivered by a missile.
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @08:24AM (3 children)
The NORSAR [norsar.no] link says an estimated yield of 120 kt TNT, which is about in range what is carried by Trident subs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W76 [wikipedia.org] , so possible for a thermonuclear weapon but definitely on the low side. I suppose that lends some credibility to it being designed to be attachable to a missile. For comparison, the first US test, Ivy Mike [wikipedia.org], was 10 megatons (well, there was a partial test of fusion assisted fission that was in the 220 kt range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Greenhouse#George [wikipedia.org] ). The first Soviet test looks to have been in the 400 kt range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_4 [wikipedia.org]
Further reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_yield [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @09:45AM (1 child)
We use the W76 because it is accurate enough to neutralize targets with a smaller blast, and allows more of them to be lofted on a single platform. In contrast, before their aiming got better, the USSR relied on big bangs to compensate for large CEP's.
Either NK's tech is better than we thought, or Saturday's test was, by early thermonuclear standards, a fizzle.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday September 04 2017, @10:22AM
Another reason is that several small explosives waste less explosive energy than a big one of going for area coverage.
In the ball of an explosion the surface struck if roughly a disc, imagine filling the big ball with smaller balls, now rearrange said small balls in a 2D-honeycomb pattern, calculate the surface area covered. Note that the smaller balls actually will have a lower combined yield as well (making up for inefficiencies).
However, if actually going for a 3D-strike (camouflet) then yield is king up until you go into overkill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @05:16PM
The first bumbling steps in history of thermonuclear weaponry were plagued by scientific uncertainties and orders-of-magnitude "rounding errors". The Castle Bravo test shocked everyone who was unfortunate enough to be within range to perceive the fireball and shockwave, including the scientists and engineers who designed the device.
No need to repeat those mistakes, someone else has already made them. The "gadget" recently publicized alongside the Dear Leader looks like what would be, by all standards applicable, a modern miniaturized warhead. Why should it yield more than necessary for a modern warhead?