North Korea conducts nuclear test

[The Beatles]

No, of course not.

Although couldn't a higher-up blast produce a wave pattern that appeared to originate lower down? I know next to nothing about this, it's just a question.

[Gen. Volkov]

No, it might have been able to do that about 35 years ago, but the newer sensors can pinpoint pretty much anything to within a few feet of where it originated. There would have to be some really unusual rock under that part of the world for it to set up a wave pattern like that. There would have to be an upper level of rock that did not transmit at all, a lower layer that was 100% reflective of waves, that was shaped in a way to focus the waves into a point source, then a layer of rock below the upper layer that did transmit waves. In short, it would be so unusual that it would be flat impossible for it to occur. Mostly because there are no rocks that do not transmit waves. A nuclear blast makes the planet ring like a bell, just at a lower tone than anything but a seismometer can hear. So if they say the source was 6 miles down, it was 6 miles down, and not of human origin.

I cannot find anything that says it occurred six miles down though. Though alot of reports are quoting a yield size far too small to be a nuclear device. The US has had to really work to get nukes as small as 5 kilotons but the estimates of size for the N. Korean blast range from .55 kilotons to 1 kiloton. The Russians say it was between 5 and 15 kilotons, but they are the only ones saying so. To date, the smallest nuke ever tested was a 7 kiloton yield bomb built by the US. The Trinity test was about 11 kilotons, the Hiroshima bomb was about 13, and the Nagasaki bomb was about 20. There's a certain minimum yield that nukes have, because past a certain point, there is not enough nuclear material to keep the fission chain reaction going. 5 kilotons is about the limit as far as we know. It's possible the Koreans just set off a very very very large conventional bomb and are calling it a nuke.

[Freenhult]

*laughs*, sorry Freen.

6 miles deep in the earth??? That was no nuclear blast. Humans have never drilled that far into the ground anywhere ever. Initial readings said it was not natural, but if it was that far down, it was probably just a weird earthquake.

Here is the USGS page report. I might be reading it wrong. Although, I doubt it. I had to use this stuff for Sci Ops when I did remote Sensing. *Shrug* Might be just drunk now. XD

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/rec ... ustqab.php

[Gen. Volkov]

You are.

Depth  0 km (~0 mile) set by location program

This is what has you confused:

Location Uncertainty  horizontal +/- 9.6 km (6.0 miles); depth fixed by location program

It's saying the epicenter has an uncertainty of about 6.0 miles in the horizontal plane, that is where on a map, the depth was fixed at 0 km by the the location program.

It did not occur 6 miles down, making it probably manmade, whatever it was. Most geologic processes which produce seismic waves do not occur very close to the surface, and certainly not right on it. (Except volcanoes which are not prevalent in N. Korea, and there are no known active ones in the area of the blast.) So they did detonate something there. The only question is: was it a nuclear bomb? The estimated yield, based on the seismometer readings, so far suggest it was probably too small for a nuke.

[The Beatles]

I think there's been a nuke yield of only 2-3 kilotons, but I won't look it up now.

Anyways, no way to tell until we get radiation readings in, correct?

[Freenhult]

A minor earthquake was reported by Japan. Japan thinks that it might have been a 2nd Nuclear Test, although S. Korea disagrees. However, it is thought that N. Korea may do another test sometime today or in the next few days.

Hrm... Interesting.

[Gen. Volkov]

Since the natural energy scale for a fission nuclear weapon is of order 10 KT, much lower yield weapons must be sensitive to exacting design tolerances

From a report on mininukes. It's doubtful N. Korea has the capability to produce nuclear weapons with that low a yield, given that they are still in the early stages of weapon development.

But you are correct, the only real way to know is to get radiation level readings.

[Gen. Volkov]

*BUMP* New info.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_nkorea

If link does not work, gist of story is that no radioactive particles were found in the air above the test site. Does not rule out that one happened, but lessens the probability that a nuclear test had occurred.

[The Beatles]

You did leave out some information from the article, which is titled "US: Test points to N. Korea nuke blast"...

It says that measurements of "one type of gas" /are/ consistent with a nuclear explosion. It goes on to say that officials think it was a genuine attempt that failed.

[Gen. Volkov]

No I didn't, the article changed. They keep posting a different article at the same link... stupid yahoo.

[Freenhult]

Just what we need. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/1 ... index.html

[Ruddertail]

Meh... if they want to test all their nukes, that's fine with me. Though we'd still have to do something before they built more... invade, covert strike, something...

[Nuclear Raunch]

The NK nuke tests bring about some interesting changes. I don't subscribe to the "Everyone that does not go hand in hand with the US is a threat to the world" thinking that has been prevalent for some time now, and in the short term I actually like the thought of an independant country having nukes because it provides a disincentive for US policy makers to go to war with random countries. We will bitch and moan about NK having nukes but the reality is it's hypocritical for us to complain about them having nukes when we have thousands of them our own selves. In all honesty if NK is closely allied with a country the US would now be at least somewhat hesitant to attack that country, for fear of going to war with a nuclear armed country. In that respect I like it since I have long felt that we fight wayyyyy too much and this might help slow our colonialistic leaders down a tad.

What I don't like is that war is probably inevitable. On our side, we haven't been able to go more than a couple years without some type of conflict and I doubt our leaders will do a complete about face overnight, on their side they seem to like being at odds with the US in much the same way Republicans and Democrats are perpetually diametrically opposed and our likely to do whatever they can to get under our skin. There is also the fact that the more widely available nukes are, the more likely they fall into the hands of some smeghead that will use them. So in essence, short term this is a good thing, in the long term this is a bad thing.

[The Beatles]

North Korea pulls little to no weight. What countries allied with it would the US be attacking? If they were to attack to intercede on behalf of another cause (ignoring for now the PR issues of the US' hypothetical other war), it would only mean suicide for them, as the US would have justification or an excuse to shell them to oblivion. Their nukes are about as effective as a crate of gelignite, but would provoke a firestorm in the international community if actually used in combat.

Hope this wasn't too disjointed.

Play duels with us!

[Gen. Volkov]

Wot Beatles said. *laughs*.

Sorry, mind is too wasted by lack of sleep for an intelligent post. That and working 6 hours saturday, followed by 4 hours Sunday, not taxing mentally, but that much banality kills the brain.