-
#280
by
Websorber
on 30 Aug, 2017 15:58
-
Launch of Hwasong 12
Augsut 29, 2017
-
#281
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 31 Aug, 2017 05:31
-
Screen grabs! You can see the trajectory over Japan. Should be able to work out the expected range from that photo.
-
#282
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 31 Aug, 2017 05:32
-
-
#283
by
StvB
on 31 Aug, 2017 12:10
-
Looks to be the same office seen in the above photos; seeing it made the location of the others more clear to me. Pretty good spot to watch a launch. I had also seen a photo on twitter, taken from the ground, of the latest missile in flight but can't seem to find it now.
-
#284
by
Danderman
on 31 Aug, 2017 16:35
-
What does the proximity of the Dear Leader to the missile being erected tell us about its fueling status, if anything?
-
#285
by
RotoSequence
on 31 Aug, 2017 16:56
-
The shape of the reentry vehicle is reminiscent of Iran's Shahab-3B. Given their history of cooperating on missile technology, and the awkward proportions of the nose, I would not be surprised if the reentry vehicle is a borrowed design.
-
#286
by
Danderman
on 31 Aug, 2017 20:06
-
Shahab-3 is a Scud variant, with a max range of about 1000 km with a heavy payload. Note that it is comparable in size to Hwasong 12, it is smaller, but still in the same class. It is unlikely that the two would share a warhead design, since Hwasong 12 has higher velocities.
-
#287
by
Websorber
on 03 Sep, 2017 08:52
-
Kim Jong Un inspects an H-bomb fitting into new ICBM
-
#288
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 03 Sep, 2017 09:29
-
-
#289
by
Star One
on 03 Sep, 2017 11:02
-
-
#290
by
yokem55
on 03 Sep, 2017 15:26
-
The commentary I've seen has implied that the earthquake was insufficient in size to indicate the testing of a H Bomb?
Also on this side of things they must be having external help, as this progress seems freakishly fast?
Reporting here that yield could be up to 100 Kilotons.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/03/north-korean-nuclear-test-confirmed-in-major-escalation-by-kim-jong-un
If the quake is dialed in to a 6.3 as the USGS says then the only known way to get that kind of power is with a staged thermonuclear device.
If the S. Korean measurements of a 5.6 were right, then it didn't need to be an h-bomb, but the 6.3 is more in line with what the Chinese and other earthquake monitors are saying.
Edit: Here is a bit from Twitter showing the range of yields. The higher yields are possible with fission, but would require a rediculous amount of fissionable material.
https://twitter.com/DrDinD/status/904237781236441088As for how fast they've been moving? They probably have been making progress all along and we've simply misinterpreted their tests. The one a couple years ago was thought to maybe be a bit of a squib, but may have simply been a successful test of a small 1st stage initiator. It took the US only 7 years to go from the Trinity test to Ivy Mike, so for the N. Koreans to take 11 to go from first fission device to h-bomb doesn't sound all that fast.
All that said, the basic dynamics of the situation haven't changed. If they were to initiate a nuclear attack, the damage would be very, very, bad, but the N. Koreans would be utterly obliterated in reply. Kim knows this. All he really cares about is his his own security and position. As terrible as things are in North Korea, simply leaving that status quo alone is the best of bad options. What President Trump thinks of that is to me the scarier question.
-
#291
by
Star One
on 03 Sep, 2017 16:03
-
The commentary I've seen has implied that the earthquake was insufficient in size to indicate the testing of a H Bomb?
Also on this side of things they must be having external help, as this progress seems freakishly fast?
Reporting here that yield could be up to 100 Kilotons.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/03/north-korean-nuclear-test-confirmed-in-major-escalation-by-kim-jong-un
If the quake is dialed in to a 6.3 as the USGS says then the only known way to get that kind of power is with a staged thermonuclear device.
If the S. Korean measurements of a 5.6 were right, then it didn't need to be an h-bomb, but the 6.3 is more in line with what the Chinese and other earthquake monitors are saying.
Edit: Here is a bit from Twitter showing the range of yields. The higher yields are possible with fission, but would require a rediculous amount of fissionable material.
https://twitter.com/DrDinD/status/904237781236441088
As for how fast they've been moving? They probably have been making progress all along and we've simply misinterpreted their tests. The one a couple years ago was thought to maybe be a bit of a squib, but may have simply been a successful test of a small 1st stage initiator. It took the US only 7 years to go from the Trinity test to Ivy Mike, so for the N. Koreans to take 11 to go from first fission device to h-bomb doesn't sound all that fast.
All that said, the basic dynamics of the situation haven't changed. If they were to initiate a nuclear attack, the damage would be very, very, bad, but the N. Koreans would be utterly obliterated in reply. Kim knows this. All he really cares about is his his own security and position. As terrible as things are in North Korea, simply leaving that status quo alone is the best of bad options. What President Trump thinks of that is to me the scarier question.
Do you think they will continue developing the weapons up to higher yields into the Megatons range, or is that likely to difficult or not needed for their purposes?
-
#292
by
yokem55
on 03 Sep, 2017 16:09
-
The commentary I've seen has implied that the earthquake was insufficient in size to indicate the testing of a H Bomb?
Also on this side of things they must be having external help, as this progress seems freakishly fast?
Reporting here that yield could be up to 100 Kilotons.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/03/north-korean-nuclear-test-confirmed-in-major-escalation-by-kim-jong-un
If the quake is dialed in to a 6.3 as the USGS says then the only known way to get that kind of power is with a staged thermonuclear device.
If the S. Korean measurements of a 5.6 were right, then it didn't need to be an h-bomb, but the 6.3 is more in line with what the Chinese and other earthquake monitors are saying.
Edit: Here is a bit from Twitter showing the range of yields. The higher yields are possible with fission, but would require a rediculous amount of fissionable material.
https://twitter.com/DrDinD/status/904237781236441088
As for how fast they've been moving? They probably have been making progress all along and we've simply misinterpreted their tests. The one a couple years ago was thought to maybe be a bit of a squib, but may have simply been a successful test of a small 1st stage initiator. It took the US only 7 years to go from the Trinity test to Ivy Mike, so for the N. Koreans to take 11 to go from first fission device to h-bomb doesn't sound all that fast.
All that said, the basic dynamics of the situation haven't changed. If they were to initiate a nuclear attack, the damage would be very, very, bad, but the N. Koreans would be utterly obliterated in reply. Kim knows this. All he really cares about is his his own security and position. As terrible as things are in North Korea, simply leaving that status quo alone is the best of bad options. What President Trump thinks of that is to me the scarier question.
Do you think they will continue developing the weapons up to higher yields into the Megatons range, or is that likely to difficult or not needed for their purposes?
No, the focus will probably be on keeping size and weight down. They want to get the most out of what they have in terms of fissionable material and how big of a rocket they have to build. Tsar Bomba was impressive, but utterly useless in a real war.
-
#293
by
RonM
on 03 Sep, 2017 16:25
-
Do you think they will continue developing the weapons up to higher yields into the Megatons range, or is that likely to difficult or not needed for their purposes?
Here's what a 100 kt ground blast can do (same as a W-76 warhead). More powerful warheads are not really needed as one of these gets the job done.
You can run your own detonation simulation at the Nukemap site.
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
-
#294
by
Kryten
on 03 Sep, 2017 17:30
-
Also on this side of things they must be having external help, as this progress seems freakishly fast?
China went from their first test to thermonuclear in two years, without much outside help. They had some soviet help to start the program, but that quickly ended due to the sino-soviet split.
-
#295
by
savuporo
on 03 Sep, 2017 17:46
-
Also on this side of things they must be having external help, as this progress seems freakishly fast?
China went from their first test to thermonuclear in two years, without much outside help. They had some soviet help to start the program, but that quickly ended due to the sino-soviet split.
If only the step from fission to fusion was as easy in power generation.
-
#296
by
Star One
on 03 Sep, 2017 18:22
-
Looks like they are going for a singular warhead at the moment, perhaps their current missiles don't have the throw weight to carry anything else. I know the warheads are smaller but the infrastructure to carry and deploy them must weigh a fair bit. Plus they probably don't have the technology to deploy multiple warheads at three moment.
-
#297
by
sanman
on 03 Sep, 2017 19:00
-
If the quake is dialed in to a 6.3 as the USGS says then the only known way to get that kind of power is with a staged thermonuclear device.
If the S. Korean measurements of a 5.6 were right, then it didn't need to be an h-bomb, but the 6.3 is more in line with what the Chinese and other earthquake monitors are saying.
Edit: Here is a bit from Twitter showing the range of yields. The higher yields are possible with fission, but would require a rediculous amount of fissionable material.
https://twitter.com/DrDinD/status/904237781236441088
As for how fast they've been moving? They probably have been making progress all along and we've simply misinterpreted their tests. The one a couple years ago was thought to maybe be a bit of a squib, but may have simply been a successful test of a small 1st stage initiator. It took the US only 7 years to go from the Trinity test to Ivy Mike, so for the N. Koreans to take 11 to go from first fission device to h-bomb doesn't sound all that fast.
Having achieved a 100-kiloton yield, they may do more tests in the future to scale that up further.
i assume that because thermonuclear warheads require less fissile material, that this now means that the number of North Korean warheads would now increase.
EDIT: The rumor that I'd heard was that the latest device exploded by DPRK is a possible derivative of the American W-88 design, which was lifted from the United States through espionage by a 3rd party. Since P-5 powers are all test ban signatories, and sub-kiloton hydronuclear testing is hard to use for design validation, it helps to have a non-signatory friend who can do actual full-scale tests.
All that said, the basic dynamics of the situation haven't changed. If they were to initiate a nuclear attack, the damage would be very, very, bad, but the N. Koreans would be utterly obliterated in reply. Kim knows this. All he really cares about is his his own security and position. As terrible as things are in North Korea, simply leaving that status quo alone is the best of bad options. What President Trump thinks of that is to me the scarier question.
North Korea doesn't have to directly launch a nuclear attack on anyone in order to fundamentally challenge the global power structure. All it has to do is sell its nuclear weapons technology to anyone willing to pay. With upwards of 60 nuclear warheads currently estimated in its fissile material supply, that quantity will only grow into the future, as will its missile repertoire.
How long until it develops the ability reliably launch orbital satellites?
-
#298
by
Joris
on 03 Sep, 2017 21:35
-
thermonuclear warheads require less fissile material
They actually require a lot more, most of it in the tamper. Most of the energy in an H-bomb comes from fission, not fusion.
-
#299
by
ugordan
on 04 Sep, 2017 07:36
-
thermonuclear warheads require less fissile material
They actually require a lot more, most of it in the tamper. Most of the energy in an H-bomb comes from fission, not fusion.
It's been a while since I've read up on Teller-Ulam staged thermonuclear combustion, but from what I remember that's not strictly true, at least in the sense that "fissile" usually implies self-sustaining fission.
Tampers, especially if you're not going for a "clean" bomb can be made of depleted uranium 238 which ought to be abundant to you since you're already either using natural uranium to produce smaller quantities of either Pu-239 or U-235. It doesn't have to be fissile by slow neutrons (self-sustaining fission, i.e. something you can make a bomb out of all by itself) to boost the yield up significantly by fast fusion neutron-induced fission. In this sense, tamper material shouldn't be a very scarce commodity.