• USGS says an artificial earthquake occurred in North Korea - indicating a possible nuke test
    112 replies, posted
[QUOTE=McCarthy;39559069]If your avatar is correct and you are from Canada, Please stop saying stupid shit like this. It makes us all look bad.[/QUOTE] I think not. I was pointing out the irony in Ramses' statement. The guy literally advocated wiping out an entire country. Read my post more carefully.
[QUOTE=DrBreen;39560762]you really think he's the one behind this, seriously? the military are the ones in charge not kim[/QUOTE] Kim might actually be a normal guy. The military has control o' him
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39558003]UN Security Council is holding emergency session.[/QUOTE] They're trying to decide on the wording of the angry letter. [editline]12th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Solomon;39561479]Kim might actually be a normal guy. The military has control o' him[/QUOTE] Except for that period where he was having military officials killed by firing squad and mortar strike right?
Silly Americans, Its only the sound of the glorious Kim Jong Un on his midnight stroll.
[QUOTE=Deadman123;39557187]Where would they test a nuke that wouldnt fuck the entire country??? Its so tiny![/QUOTE] South Korea
To everyone who wants to war with NK: have a fuck you Nobody wants to war with north Korea. Why? Because it will cause more problems then good. You would end up with North Korea being divided between China and Sout Korea and that would cause trouble for both,they will have a over-developed part of the country and get a uber-underdeveloped part. Financial crisis and a big economy crash would be likely. Uprisings would probably occur too. TL;DR,it would be a short shitstorm with nasty nasty after-effects
[QUOTE=IPK;39561845]To everyone who wants to war with NK: have a fuck you Nobody wants to war with north Korea. Why? Because it will cause more problems then good. You would end up with North Korea being divided between China and Sout Korea and that would cause trouble for both,they will have a over-developed part of the country and get a uber-underdeveloped part. Financial crisis and a big economy crash would be likely. Uprisings would probably occur too. TL;DR,it would be a short shitstorm with nasty nasty after-effects[/QUOTE] On the other hand they are developing nuclear weapons. Thats pretty serious
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;39558699]It wouldn't need to be abandoned unless they made the bomb a lot larger. People still live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[/QUOTE] My limited understanding of nuclear weapons makes me think that's because it was a clean(ish) bomb. The fallout from a dirty bomb could lead to contamination for years. Of course its possible that the North Koreans have actually developed a nice clean modern weapon.
[QUOTE=IPK;39561845]To everyone who wants to war with NK: have a fuck you Nobody wants to war with north Korea. Why? Because it will cause more problems then good. You would end up with North Korea being divided between China and Sout Korea and that would cause trouble for both,they will have a over-developed part of the country and get a uber-underdeveloped part. Financial crisis and a big economy crash would be likely. Uprisings would probably occur too. TL;DR,it would be a short shitstorm with nasty nasty after-effects[/QUOTE] When the time for an actual war comes, I don't think we'll have a choice, sadly.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;39557387]Judging by the magnitude, and comparing to the 2006 and 2009 nuclear tests, it was probably in the range of 3-4 kilotons. Which is low enough that you could fake it, by just piling up a bunch of TNT or other explosives and calling it a nuke. There's suspicion that some of their earlier tests did this. Also, they're supposed to be running two tests around now, from what North Korea said. So expect to hear this news repeated in a few days.[/QUOTE] I'm inclined to believe it was faked if the detonations were yields as low as those. Trinity was a fucking 20 kiloton blast for Christ's sake, and that was the first nuclear bomb ever detonated in human history. I mean even ignoring implosion-type fission bombs for a moment gun-type nuclear weapons don't exactly take a genius (or geniuses (genii?)) to build - hell, give me, or probably any of the people who are doing a physics degree at uni alongside me enough time the equipment and the resources and I, or they, could probably build a pretty effective gun-type fission bomb with a way higher yield than 5 kilotons (hell, I imagine I could even build a thermonuclear weapon utilising the Teller-Ulam design too with the correct apparatus and materials, but that's another matter entirely). The designs for nuclear weapons are actually surprisingly straight forward, ESPECIALLY for gun-type fission bombs. I mean, seriously, all you need to do is get a sample of uranium with a high enough content of U-235, and smack two half spheres of it together using a conventional explosion and BAM, you quite easily have a 16 kiloton explosion (Little Boy). I can't imagine North Korea, with an ego as inflated as theirs, would fail to break the barrier set by some of the first and most rudimentary nuclear weapons ever designed almost a century ago now. That's... insulting.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39561487] Except for that period where he was having military officials killed by firing squad and mortar strike right?[/QUOTE] If anything that further supports the suggestion that he is a puppet for the military. Military dictatorships are known for preventing other people in the military from gaining power.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;39557634] Yeah, Russia was crazy.[/QUOTE] Well especially since Russia went through the phase of, "If we are going down, everyone is going down"
We need to set up background checks and a waiting period for nukes
[QUOTE=sltungle;39561941]I'm inclined to believe it was faked if the detonations were yields as low as those. Trinity was a fucking 20 kiloton blast for Christ's sake, and that was the first nuclear bomb ever detonated in human history. I mean even ignoring implosion-type fission bombs for a moment gun-type nuclear weapons don't exactly take a genius (or geniuses (genii?)) to build - hell, give me, or probably any of the people who are doing a physics degree at uni alongside me enough time the equipment and the resources and I, or they, could probably build a pretty effective gun-type fission bomb with a way higher yield than 5 kilotons (hell, I imagine I could even build a thermonuclear weapon utilising the Teller-Ulam design too with the correct apparatus and materials, but that's another matter entirely). The designs for nuclear weapons are actually surprisingly straight forward, ESPECIALLY for gun-type fission bombs. I mean, seriously, all you need to do is get a sample of uranium with a high enough content of U-235, and smack two half spheres of it together using a conventional explosion and BAM, you quite easily have a 16 kiloton explosion (Little Boy). I can't imagine North Korea, with an ego as inflated as theirs, would fail to break the barrier set by some of the first and most rudimentary nuclear weapons ever designed almost a century ago now. That's... insulting.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure a smaller amount of uranium or plutonium means a smaller explosion. It could be a simple matter of that.
[QUOTE=sltungle;39561941]I'm inclined to believe it was faked if the detonations were yields as low as those. Trinity was a fucking 20 kiloton blast for Christ's sake, and that was the first nuclear bomb ever detonated in human history. I mean even ignoring implosion-type fission bombs for a moment gun-type nuclear weapons don't exactly take a genius (or geniuses (genii?)) to build - hell, give me, or probably any of the people who are doing a physics degree at uni alongside me enough time the equipment and the resources and I, or they, could probably build a pretty effective gun-type fission bomb with a way higher yield than 5 kilotons (hell, I imagine I could even build a thermonuclear weapon utilising the Teller-Ulam design too with the correct apparatus and materials, but that's another matter entirely). The designs for nuclear weapons are actually surprisingly straight forward, ESPECIALLY for gun-type fission bombs. I mean, seriously, all you need to do is get a sample of uranium with a high enough content of U-235, and smack two half spheres of it together using a conventional explosion and BAM, you quite easily have a 16 kiloton explosion (Little Boy). I can't imagine North Korea, with an ego as inflated as theirs, would fail to break the barrier set by some of the first and most rudimentary nuclear weapons ever designed almost a century ago now. That's... insulting.[/QUOTE] India's nuclear test was around 8kt so I wouldn't say it's impossible. [editline]12th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;39562680]I'm pretty sure a smaller amount of uranium or plutonium means a smaller explosion. It could be a simple matter of that.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass[/url]
Some finnish seismologist reported around atleast 12 hours ago that the nuclear test was noticed all the way up in finland.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;39566247]Some finnish seismologist reported around atleast 12 hours ago that the nuclear test was noticed all the way up in finland.[/QUOTE] Technically, with the right equipment, all earthquakes can (in theory) be felt except for those in the 103-140 degree shadow zone: [img]http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_c000f5t0_tt.gif[/img]
Just out of interest, is NK particularly close to any geological hotspots? Just concerned because an atomic explosion over a geological hotspot probably wouldn't be too healthy for the region, assuming the shockwaves have significant effects on fault lines or magma chambers. Then again, I don't know if Fat Man or Little Boy triggered any volcanic eruptions when they dropped in Japan; maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't in proximity to any big hotspots in the country.
[QUOTE=ironman17;39566328]Just out of interest, is NK particularly close to any geological hotspots? Just concerned because an atomic explosion over a geological hotspot probably wouldn't be too healthy for the region, assuming the shockwaves have significant effects on fault lines or magma chambers. Then again, I don't know if Fat Man or Little Boy triggered any volcanic eruptions when they dropped in Japan; maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't in proximity to any big hotspots in the country.[/QUOTE] Other than the (theoretical) [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amurian_Plate]Amurian Plate[/url], no: [img]http://i.imgur.com/OepMBEa.png[/img]
Well that's a relief; hopefully even if the fault line did exist, they wouldn't be crazy enough to kill themselves by awakening an angry volcano. They'd probably be better off awakening an angry Old One; at least those things are like cosmic douchebags rather than unyielding unreasoning forces.
[QUOTE=scout1;39564582]India's nuclear test was around 8kt so I wouldn't say it's impossible.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but India's not a country hellbent on trying to strike fear into the rest of the world like North Korea is. If you're North Korea and you're gonna build a nuke you're gonna try to build a bloody big nuke to scare the shit out of people. [QUOTE=scout1;39564582][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass[/url][/QUOTE] You're both sort of right and wrong. Critical masses are given for a sphere of an isotope at it's natural density and they're probably given at STP/SLC. So if you're using a gun-type assembly you have a minimum achievable yield that you can't go under. Asymptotes, bitch! However in implosion-type fission bombs a sub-critical mass of some isotope (plutonium in the case of Fat Man) is compressed via a shell of explosives around it making the sub-critical mass higher in density which has the side effect of increasing the cross section of the reaction and hey presto you've got run away fission. I imagine in theory you could get ANY mass of ANY fissile isotope to undergo run away fission as long as you compressed a sphere of it to a high enough density, but of course the lower in mass the sphere becomes the more you have to compress it, and you'd eventually wind up hitting a threshold where the conventional explosives compressing the sub-critical mass would actually start providing more of the explosive potential than the actual fissile material (which would make an implosion-type fission bomb of those yields pointless).
artificial earthquakes you say? [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZBE1iSYido[/media]
[QUOTE=sltungle;39570425] You're both sort of right and wrong. Critical masses are given for a sphere of an isotope at it's natural density and they're probably given at STP/SLC. So if you're using a gun-type assembly you have a minimum achievable yield that you can't go under. Asymptotes, bitch! However in implosion-type fission bombs a sub-critical mass of some isotope (plutonium in the case of Fat Man) is compressed via a shell of explosives around it making the sub-critical mass higher in density which has the side effect of increasing the cross section of the reaction and hey presto you've got run away fission. I imagine in theory you could get ANY mass of ANY fissile isotope to undergo run away fission as long as you compressed a sphere of it to a high enough density, but of course the lower in mass the sphere becomes the more you have to compress it, and you'd eventually wind up hitting a threshold where the conventional explosives compressing the sub-critical mass would actually start providing more of the explosive potential than the actual fissile material (which would make an implosion-type fission bomb of those yields pointless).[/QUOTE] Okay see most of the fiction I've read/written about nuclear weapons hasn't involved gun-types (since they're so bloody simple) I'm just going to nod my head now and agree
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.