Just heard on radio that US is now saying it was not a nuke

[Bandit]

They are saying that the explosion was not powerful enough to be nuclear and therefor North Korea does not have any bargaining chips. Do you believe this or are we asking for more "proof" like maybe a missile attack on some Pacific Island. :banghead:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Denial's a powerful force.

Meanwhile, Russia's saying it was 5-15 kilotons.

[aquart]

6. Gosh, why would Russia want an excuse for a military build-up?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Gosh.

Why would the Bush WH want to pretend NK isn't that big of a threat?

[aquart]

13. They aren't our problem. They are CHINA's problem.

And China is perfectly capable of dealing with them.

[bluestateguy]

2. I think they are telling the truth

Why? Because if it was a nuke they would excitedly say so, because there is only a month before the election. That way they could play the whole fear, "security" card in the campaign. They've got to be disappointed in the West Wing.

[Skidmore]

4. I don't think they really want to go to war with NK.

Neocons have gotten us so sucked into Iraq that there are no resources to put toward war on the scale that fighting NK would require.

[aquart]

8. They CAN'T go to war with NK.

They can't go to war with a brownie troop.

We are TAPPED OUT.

[Skidmore]

3. I don't believe anything *'s administration says.

I don't know what to think about that explosion, but I do know that the administration will say anything at all to aggrandize *. Whatever this statement means it is definitely sshould be seen as something to cover for * or to prop him up. Nothing less.

[aquart]

5. It probably wasn't. If it was, it failed miserably.

My geek BIL explained it to me last night, and it's all over science blogs and other places. It seems it's harder to make a small nuclear explosion than a bigger one. It would require an expertise these boys have not previously demonstrated.

The richter scale reaction doesn't justify calling it nuclear. Just not enough oomph.

But, of course, the goal of BushCo and its tame media is to scare the bejesus out of us, so they made it this big huge threatening nuclear event. It so wasn't.

Now that they've realized they have absolutely NO manly, impressive response to this, they are willing to admit what the scientists knew pretty much immediately.

[formercia]

7. A conventional blast is possible.

North Korea has the munitions manufacturing capability to produce enough conventional explosives to create a kiloton range explosion. It could even have enough obsolete or outdated material to produce a large blast without even cutting into its ready inventory.

http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/gs-divinestrake.htm

[acmavm]

9. We've come to a hell of a state when you can't believe you

own government because it's run by a bunch of lying thugs.

[leftchick]

11. This may clear it up...

more likely usual lies from bushco...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-2135321,curpg-2.cms

Was N Korea's nuke test a bang or a fizzle?

<snip>

Pyongyang also said immediately after the test that there was no radioactivity in the region – a sign that it was either a very well-conducted test or that they were setting the stage for the con.

But the United States also has a dubious record of exaggerating numbers or events or downsizing it depending on the administration’s agenda. American scientists, to this day, dispute Indian estimates of the yield from its thermonuclear test, and in fact, suggest it was a test gone dud.

According to some accounts, the North Koreans told the Chinese shortly before they tested that it would be a four kiloton event. Initial reports from Russia estimated the yield at between 5 and 15 kilotons. Neither number fitted US estimates.

But what North Korea may have failed to achieve seismically, it managed to do politically, convulsing the United States and its allies, and for a day at least, completely taking away the spotlight from the war on terror, Congressional follies, and school shootings.

[meldroc]

12. 1/2 kiloton conventional blasts happen all the time...

In the U.S. you see blasts of this order of magnitude in coal mines & such, you can see them on the Discovery channel.

I find it entirely plausible that North Korea might have gathered up 500 tons of conventional explosives and detonated them in an underground well, then claimed to have detonated a nuclear device.

Of course, by examining seismograph readings and such, you can tell whether it's a nuclear blast or a conventional blast, since nuclear detonations leave a unique signature.

As for me, the jury's still out...

[BootinUp]

14. A 4.2 richter seismic event

still seems healthy to me. I have my doubts that equals only a 1/2 a kiloton. If I am not mistaken these calculations would depend on the type of geological formations around the test area.

Also it would be interesting to look up seismic data for other known events.

[JCMach1]

15. Perhaps they were testing a small artillery fired warhead

makes sense strategically for them initially.

[roamer65]

16. Probably a dud nuke.

I have heard it said that to get uniform compression of a plutonium or enriched uranium core is a difficult process. It was a challenge for the staff of the Manhattan project and I'm sure it is for NK researchers as well.

[BluePatriot]

17. What's sad

is that I'm not inclined to believe either party is telling the truth.

Thanks, Bushco, for making me think my govt. is lying all the time.

[BootinUp]

18. Heres what a high yield nuke looks like

http://www.iris.iris.edu/HQ/Bluebook/chapter3.html



The 1992 Chinese Test

On May 21, 1992 the Chinese detonated a high-yeild (magnitude 6.6) nuclear explosion at their test site in Lop Nor. University seismologists in the United States accessed data from the IRIS open seismic station in Obninsk (outside of Moscow) via a satellite telemetry link and sent the data across the United States on the Internet system. The figure below, comparing the record from the explosion to an earthquake of similar magnitude and distance, was made within a day of the explosion through the collaborative effort of research scientists in Russia, California, and Colorado. Data was retrieved in a similar fashion for the smaller (magnitude 5.8) Chinese nuclear explosion on October 5, 1993.

[BootinUp]

19. Somebody is lieing!! Dammit!

Based on the info below and the reported 4.2 magnitude I estimate the explosion at 3.4 kilotons.

From the link below:

Explosions of 10 kilotons or greater produce seismic signals of roughly magnitude 4.8.

http://www.iris.iris.edu/HQ/Bluebook/chapter5.magnitude.html

For the initial test of a first generation nuclear weapon with a yield of 10 kilotons or greater, decoupling is not a credible scenario and therefore the monitoring of such activity is simple. Explosions of 10 kilotons or greater produce seismic signals of roughly magnitude 4.8. There are approximately 1,500 such events per year. These events can be readily detected and identified with present capabilities.

If we extend the monitoring requirement beyond the first-time tester to nations with advanced nuclear weapons, or assume that a more sophisticated nuclear weapon could be created or obtained, then the monitoring requirements become more extensive. For example, a one kiloton nuclear explosion creates a seismic signal with a magnitude of approximately 4.0. There are about 10,000 seismic events each year of magnitude four or greater. Even at this magnitude, however, there is little disagreement that all such events could be detected and identified readily with the networks of seismic stations that currently exist or are being installed.

If we extend the monitoring task further to a fraction of a kiloton, or assume that a country could decouple the explosion in a large underground cavity, the monitoring task becomes increasingly difficult. For example, if a country were able to decouple successfully a one kiloton explosion in a large underground cavity, the seismic signal generated by the explosion might be equivalent to 1/70 of a kiloton, or approximately 15 tons. A 15 ton explosion has a seismic magnitude of about 2.5. Although a detection threshold of magnitude 2.5 could be achieved, there are several hundreds of thousands of seismic events each year at or above that magnitude level. Even if discrimination was 99.9% accurate, there could still be many events that are not positively identified. Furthermore, at low magnitudes such as 2.5, one must not only distinguish possible small nuclear tests from earthquakes, but also from chemical explosions used for legitimate industrial purposes. In the United States, for example, there are hundreds of chemical explosions of approximately that size each month.

[BootinUp]

22. Correction

I come up with 1.6 kt not 3 to 4 as I previously estimated.

[formercia]

20. Master Moon's donation fails to get delivered....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3655613.stm

North Korea station 'obliterated'

Foreign aid workers who were allowed to visit the site of Thursday's train blast in North Korea say they found a scene of utter devastation.

They say the area around the station at Ryongchon is totally obliterated and damage extends for four kilometres.

It was feared hundreds had died but the Red Cross says it does not expect the official figure of 154, which includes many children, to increase much.

North Korea says "carelessness" caused the massive blast.

The exact circumstances are still not clear but it appears power cables touched rail wagons loaded with ammonium nitrate fertiliser.

[spanone]

21. Yet, Bolton is STILL calling for sanctions.