Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

China-Japan-Koreas

N Korea's bomb 'would kill 200,000'

2006-10-08

The nuclear weapon that North Korea intends to detonate in an underground test is big enough to kill up to 200,000 people were it ever to be used against a city such as Seoul or Tokyo, Russian military experts have revealed.

They say that the weapon, with the same 20-kiloton yield as the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, is about 10ft long and weighs four tons. It is too big to fit on to any missile Kim Jong Il's regime currently possesses but if it were detonated above ground it could destroy everything within five square miles.

I would say that carrying out a nuclear test any time soon is not to North Korea's advantage.

Russian military officials in Pyongyang say they have received information that North Korea intends to give the US up to three months to lift financial sanctions imposed last year and to begin negotiations before carrying out its threat. "If Americans don't start bilateral dialogue with Pyongyang and lift sanctions, then Kim Jong-il is expected to give the order to carry on with the test, most likely in the second half of December or early January," one official said.

The Russians dismissed reports that the tests would take place this weekend. "Normally, if Pyongyang makes an important and provocative announcement, it tries to heat up the tension to the maximum point, and then suddenly falls silent for a long time," one analyst said. "It needs to carefully monitor the situation, watch the reaction of the rest of the world and weigh all the pros and cons again. I would say that carrying out a nuclear test any time soon is not to North Korea's advantage."

The Russians believe the test, if it happens, is likely to be carried out in a horizontal tunnel more than a mile below ground at Kilju, in North Hamgyon province, in the north-east of the country where US military satellites have detected recent activity.

Posted by:Steve White

#23 Looks like the test may have occured. Search new threads.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-08 23:23

#22 They don't have to keep it on the same ship. They can hand it off to a terrorist group if they want. That's a big part of the reason they don't want rogue states to get their hands on this stuff. That way we won't have so many rogue states to blast when push comes to shove.

Posted by: gorb 2006-10-08 22:04

#21 Supposedly.

Posted by: Pappy 2006-10-08 21:19

#20 Don't we pretty much track every ship coming out of NorK?

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-10-08 21:03

#19 The North Koreans will go with what they can get away with, not refine to achieve maximum effect. If that means bringing the thing in on a ship, and trailing it in the water at her bow rather than a missile to get the in-air explosion, they'll accept worse damage in a more limited area.

Posted by: trailing wife 2006-10-08 20:23

#18 Not true. Counterintuitively, more destruction is caused to drag sensitive targets e.g. buildings, vehicles, etc. with a ground burst. An overpressure wave is caused by a ground burst, and is not nearly as effective with an airburst; It increases the level of ground destruction dramatically. I can find citations for you, but it's Sunday. Perhaps later today.

Uh ... Mark E., did you carefully read your own subsequent post?

However, as the height of burst is decreased, the total area of coverage for blast effects is also markedly reduced. The choice of height of burst is largely dependent on the nature of the target. Relatively resistant targets require the concentrated blast of a low altitude or surface burst, while sensitive targets [like cities] may be damaged by the less severe blast wave from an explosion at a higher altitude. In the latter case a larger area and, therefore, a larger number of targets can be damaged.

We're talking about maximizing the damage to a metropolitan region. As I said (vis a ship-based atomic bomb):

"ground effects and adjacent buildings or structures would constrain a blast's wavefront expansion and significantly limit damage"

The North Koreans wouldn't be going after a hardened military target with one of their puny fission bombs. They would be trying to kill the most civilians possible. My scenario still holds.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-08 17:20

#17 Agree with ed on the Russian "experts".

Fact - the Libyans handed over plans for what is known as CHICOM4, the fourth Chinese test, a missile deliverable, 1 m diameter, implosion weapon using HEU (or modified for Pu) that weighed 500 kg.

The blueprints were wrapped in a plastic bag from Dr AQ Khan's dry cleaners in Rawalpindi. They included copious notes in Urdu and Chinese, explaining fabrication procedures of each componant.

Fact - General Aslam Beg, then head of the Pak army, authorized AQ Khan to trade this design, along with stolen URENCO centrifuge technology, in exchange for North Korean missile technology.

NoKo has the design for a deliverable nuke

Posted by: john 2006-10-08 15:17

#16 OK....I can't write without citations....

Targets in the vicinity of ground zero may actually be subjected to two blast waves: the initial or incident wave, followed slightly later by a secondary reflected wave. This limited region close to ground zero in which the incident and reflected waves are separate is known as the region of regular reflection.

Beyond the area of regular reflection as it travels through air which is already heated and compressed by the incident blast wave, the reflected wave will move much more rapidly and will very quickly catch up with the incident wave. The two then fuse to form a combined wave front known as the Mach stem. The height of the Mach stem increases as the blast wave moves outward and becomes a nearly vertical blast front. As a result, blast pressures on the surface will not decrease as the square of the distance, and most direct blast damage will be horizontally directed, e.g., on the walls of a building rather than on the roof.

As the height of burst for an explosion of given yield is decreased, or as the yield of the explosion for a given height of burst is increased, Mach reflection commences nearer to ground zero and the overpressure near ground zero becomes larger. However, as the height of burst is decreased, the total area of coverage for blast effects is also markedly reduced. The choice of height of burst is largely dependent on the nature of the target. Relatively resistant targets require the concentrated blast of a low altitude or surface burst, while sensitive targets may be damaged by the less severe blast wave from an explosion at a higher altitude. In the latter case a larger area and, therefore, a larger number of targets can be damaged.

A surface burst results in the highest possible overpressures near ground zero. In such a burst, the shock front is hemispherical in form, and essentially all objects are subjected to a blast front similar to that in the Mach region described above. A subsurface burst produces the least air blast, since most of the energy is dissipated in the formation of a crater and the production of a ground shock wave. From Globalsecurity.org

In other words, surface burst increases damage to targets hit, but hits fewer targets....

Posted by: Mark E. 2006-10-08 15:04

#15 "Nothing beats an airburst for unrestricted energy distribution."

Not true. Counterintuitively, more destruction is caused to drag sensitive targets e.g. buildings, vehicles, etc. with a ground burst. An overpressure wave is caused by a ground burst, and is not nearly as effective with an airburst; It increases the level of ground destruction dramatically. I can find citations for you, but it's Sunday. Perhaps later today.

Moreover, if your goal is radiation contamination, a blast a bit under water is your best bet. Again, citations will be researched later.

Posted by: Mark E. 2006-10-08 14:54

#14 I'm calling bullshit on these "Russian military experts". A 10 ft long bomb implies a gun type design (unless it is a hydrogen bomb). Plutonium bombs must use implosion to set it off. The Nork uranium enrichment program fiarly new and unlikely to have produced enough for a bomb. Mostly likely, no one outside NK has a clue what is going on.

Posted by: ed 2006-10-08 14:31

#13 The NKors don't need a bomb that fits into an aircraft or missile, not so long as the world doesn't sink ships leaving NKor harbors as a matter of routine.

Which is why I've long advocated a complete and total blockade of all maritime, ground and aviation traffic in and out of North Korea.

The 200,000 deaths requires an airburst. That means missiles or aircraft.

A freighter based detonation could be augmented by proximity to other flammable sources, like a bulk CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) storage facility, a CNG supertanker or a major petroleum refinery. Still, ground effects and adjacent buildings or structures would constrain a blast's wavefront expansion and significantly limit damage. Nothing beats an airburst for unrestricted energy distribution.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-08 13:56

#12 #11: "And if it's detonated in a Japanese port..."

Then GFL for the NorKs - the Japanese ain't that pacified, constitution or no, and they don't give a rat's ass what the "world: thinks of them.

And you can be sure we'd give them whatever (military) help they needed.

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-10-08 12:38

#11 Don't need the death-numbers if it's detonated in-port. The damage and residue would be significant.

And if it's detonated in a Japanese port...

Posted by: Pappy 2006-10-08 11:52

#10 RC: What would happen to the US economy if a freighter taking on grain for "famine relief" carried a nuke into one of our major harbors?

The 200,000 deaths requires an airburst. That means missiles or aircraft.

Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-10-08 09:32

#9 Here's the catch - without either missiles or aircraft able to deliver it to its destination, there is no way that North Korea can inflict anything like 200,000 deaths.

Remember the story a couple of years ago about a NKor freighter dropping bales of drugs off the Australian coast to be picked up by local drug dealers? The NKors don't need a bomb that fits into an aircraft or missile, not so long as the world doesn't sink ships leaving NKor harbors as a matter of routine.

What would happen to the US economy if a freighter taking on grain for "famine relief" carried a nuke into one of our major harbors?

Our response should be simple: let them know that an underground nuclear test will be met with an open-air test of our own, over Pyongyang.

Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-10-08 08:43

#8 I seem to recall reading that some Hiroshima deaths were from exposure to the black rain.

Posted by: john 2006-10-08 08:26

#7 From the Bikini tests John? Yes but it was short lived and relatively close to GZ.

Posted by: Shipman 2006-10-08 08:23

#6 Didn't the "black rain" that fell in the aftermath contain significant radioactive fallout debris?

Posted by: john 2006-10-08 08:10

#5 A ground burst would create radioactive fallout. I don't know how much.

Now we know how NorK intends to feed its gloriously starving masses.

If the NorKs do end up with a bomb and a mysterious nuclear explosion happens somewhere, even if Iran has a bomb, I feel in all liklihood that anything of any importance in NorK will probably suffer the same fate, as well as Iran.

Posted by: gorb 2006-10-08 01:45

#4 It is, however, damned good propaganda, as it gets everyone rattled like all hell. The NKors will use that for all it's worth.

Posted by: Steve White 2006-10-08 01:09

#3 Deaths from nuclear fallout are an anti-nuclear propagated myth. Link

Posted by: phil_b 2006-10-08 00:58

#2 Article: They say that the weapon, with the same 20-kiloton yield as the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, is about 10ft long and weighs four tons. It is too big to fit on to any missile Kim Jong Il's regime currently possesses but if it were detonated above ground it could destroy everything within five square miles.

Here's the catch - without either missiles or aircraft able to deliver it to its destination, there is no way that North Korea can inflict anything like 200,000 deaths. As to radiation sickness and fallout, let me point out that Nagasaki and Hiroshima have, respectively, twice and three times the populations they had when Uncle Sam dropped A-bombs on them in 1945.

Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-10-08 00:49

#1 North Korea intends to give the US up to three months to lift financial sanctions imposed last year and to begin negotiations before carrying out its threat

Blackmail, writ large. In eight weeks, we need to have import tariffs ready to levy against China. (Too bad all of our politicians are bought off by Chinese interests.) In nine weeks, we need to have strategy in place for a comprehensive bombardment of the Kilju (Kill-Jew?) facility. I vote for a strike using fuel-air bombs during the pre-detonation testing rehersals so we suck the lungs out of their senior scientific staff.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-08 00:31

00:00