North Korea, claims they've successfully tested a Hydrogen bomb

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Here's the article:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/un-security-council-to-consider-new-north-korea-sanctions/ar-AAgrbQ9?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=msnHomepage

From the article:

North Korea said it had carried out a "successful" miniaturized hydrogen bomb test -- a shock announcement that, if confirmed, would massively raise the stakes in the hermit state's bid to strengthen its nuclear arsenal.

The announcement triggered swift international condemnation but also skepticism, with experts suggesting the apparent yield was far too low for a thermonuclear device.

If they've actually pulled this off does NK have the capacity to build a "Tsar Bomba" style bomb large enough to use as a threat to take themselves out and everyone nearby with them or can they not produce enough fissile material for such a nightmare?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Some coverage I read (can't remember exactly where) says that the quake caused by the test (there was definitely a test) wasn't big enough for a true H bomb which is why they know it wasn't a true H-bomb.  They are crazy but probably not suicidal enough to use it, and the question is whether China and S Korea are willing to deal with the effects of the further destabilization if we try to do something about it.

[Larry of the Lawn]

*nm*

[Guest]

It seems it was likely not a true H-bomb as the seismic activity was too low. That said, you need a "regular" nuke to set off an h-bomb so it seems they have perfected the former. This is important, as the atomic/h-bomb combo might be small enough to ride on their crap rockets all the way to LA.  This matters.

It also matters as the North Koreans did not forewarn the Chinese, and they have done that on recent past tests. 

Time to take out North Korea. How?

[Altherion]

Some coverage I read (can't remember exactly where) says that the quake caused by the test (there was definitely a test) wasn't big enough for a true H bomb which is why they know it wasn't a true H-bomb.

This CNN article has a similar hypothesis:

North Korea may have been testing something in between the A-bomb and H-bomb, a "boosted" weapon. This basically adds a small amount of tritium, a hydrogen isotope, to an atomic bomb assembly.

The atomic explosion fuses some of this hydrogen, releasing a flood of neutrons that accelerate the fission process, squeezing out more yield from a given amount of a nuclear fuel. This can help reduce the size of a weapon while keeping the yield high. That may have been what the North Koreans were trying to achieve as it could help them shrink the size of the warhead so that it could fit onto the nosecone of a missile.

Even this seems to have failed, as the test had a smaller, not larger, yield than the 2013 test. But because the device may have used hydrogen as part of the explosion, the North Koreans can claim it was a "hydrogen" bomb.

So, not really what one usually means by the term (hence the low yield), but there was some hydrogen fusion there so the claim is sort of true.

[ThinkerX]

xx

For my part, I am skeptical North Korea has regular nukes, let alone H bombs.  Seems too much like a totalitarian 'big lie' PR stunt.

 

[Guest]

They clearly do have regular nukes, the seismic evidence is overwhelming.

[Tears of Lys]

With any luck, whatever they blew off was planted firmly up Kim Jong Un's butt at the time.

[The Marquis de Leech]

North Korea aren't crazy. They know full well that using a device (H or otherwise) against Seoul would result in the entire peninsula glowing in the dark - which means MAD applies.

This is part regime ego-trip, part diplomatic bargaining chip. 

[James Arryn]

North Korea aren't crazy. They know full well that using a device (H or otherwise) against Seoul would result in the entire peninsula glowing in the dark - which means MAD applies.

This is part regime ego-trip, part diplomatic bargaining chip. 

There's been panic anytime any new country gets the bomb, but to date only one was crazy enough to use it.

[MercenaryChef]

Tell those motherfuckers welcome to 1952 now go fuck off. 

Actual quote from my father.  Not sure of the historical accuracy of his statement,  but the sentiment is clear. 

[Altherion]

Your father is correct: the first thermonuclear test was performed in 1952, although the first actual bomb (rather than a structure the size of a building) was only tested in 1953. Note the yields: even the "boosted" design used in the second test produced something nearly a hundred times more powerful than the recent North Korean test. The first link uses a design that is more or less common to all such weapons and is thousands of times more powerful than whatever it is North Korea came up with.

If you really think about it, these things are terrifying. Even testing them is dangerous: the first American test caused significant unintended damage to infrastructure as well radioactive fallout in a wide area where none was expected (at least one person was killed and instances of birth defects increased).

[Free Northman Reborn]

Come on Scot

You're confusing issues of scale here. Even a Tsar Bomba won't come close to taking out an entire country. Unless its Belgium or some tiny place like that.

In fact, I've read recently that even a full thermonuclear exchange between the US and Russia has been vastly overstated as an extinction level event. Far from killing billions, the damage would more likely be in the 4-500 million deaths range, and mostly limited to the countries involved in the exchange.

A few bombs owned by a minnow nation like North Korea - even if one reached Tsar Bomba status, which would be impossible for them to achieve in any case - would mostly endanger the cities targeted and not the entire region or anything apocalyptic like that.

What was the casualty rate of the Mount St Helens eruption? Well, most nuclear weapons don't have a tenth of its yield, and even the legendary Tsar Bomba - which was way too big to ever be delivered to a target by the way - only had twice the energy of the Mount St Helens explosion.

So while nuclear weapons are awesomely destructive, they are not the embodiment of the apocalypse as some try to suggest.

 

 

[ants]

I've read quite the opposite from some people with the backgrounds to know - a US/USSR nuclear exchange would probably have ended human existence on the planet as we know it.

That said, I agree with the capability of North Korea. I'm never sure why destabilising and causing regime change in North Korea isn't more of a priority - better now than in (say) 15 years time when they'll have more potent nuclear weapons.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FNR,

I believe the US had plans for a 100 Megaton warhead but never built it.  Such a device detonated over my hometown would kill most humans in the State of South Carolina.  My thought was what if some crazy person scaled that up and held a large chunk of the planet hostage with such a device? I 

[polishgenius]

 

What was the casualty rate of the Mount St Helens eruption? Well, most nuclear weapons don't have a tenth of its yield, and even the legendary Tsar Bomba - which was way too big to ever be delivered to a target by the way - only had twice the energy of the Mount St Helens explosion.

So while nuclear weapons are awesomely destructive, they are not the embodiment of the apocalypse as some try to suggest.

It's not the explosions themselves that would endanger life on Earth in the event of nuclear war (although they sure would kill a lot of people). It would be the fallout, and the potential catastrophic cooling of the Earth caused by that amount of things burning at the same time (the famous 'nuclear winter').

 

[polishgenius]

 

What was the casualty rate of the Mount St Helens eruption? Well, most nuclear weapons don't have a tenth of its yield, and even the legendary Tsar Bomba - which was way too big to ever be delivered to a target by the way - only had twice the energy of the Mount St Helens explosion.

So while nuclear weapons are awesomely destructive, they are not the embodiment of the apocalypse as some try to suggest.

It's not the explosions themselves that would endanger life on Earth in the event of nuclear war (although they sure would kill a lot of people). It would be the fallout, and the potential catastrophic cooling of the Earth caused by that amount of things burning at the same time (the famous 'nuclear winter').

 

[Horza]

I think you'd have a hard time telling the survivors of a full exchange between the US and USSR that what they lived through wasn't Armageddon.

[sologdin]

no no, nuclear weaponry is quite harmless.  it's been around for 70 years or so and has killed less than one-tenth of the human persons who have died since 1945 in motor vehicle accidents in the US alone.  

if one wants a true apocalypse, one should therefore send a moderate number of US motorists.

[Swordfish]

no no, nuclear weaponry is quite harmless.  it's been around for 70 years or so and has killed less than one-tenth of the human persons who have died since 1945 in motor vehicle accidents in the US alone.  

if one wants a true apocalypse, one should therefore send a moderate number of US motorists.

Armed with a couple cases of mad dog and an unlimited international data and texting plan.