North Korea did not go nuclear, according to Moonie Times flunkie Gertz

[jefferson_dem]

Source is Sludge quoting Gertz so take it for what it's worth --->

****

U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday, WASHINGTON TIMES star reporter Bill Gertz is set to report in Tuesday editions.

U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that seismic readings show that the conventional high explosives used to create a chain reaction in a plutonium-based device went off, but that the blast's readings were shy of a typical nuclear detonation.

'There was a seismic event that registered about 4 on the Richter scale, but it still isn't clear if it was a nuclear test. You can get that kind of seismic reading from high explosives.'

The underground explosion, which Pyongyang dubbed a historic nuclear test, is thought to have been the equivalent of several hundred tons of TNT, far short of the several thousand tons of TNT, or kilotons, that are signs of a nuclear blast, the official said. Developing...

[sam sarrha]

1. they are just messing with Bu$h.. poking him with sharp stick.. no Nukes!.

:rofl: :nopity:

[Ediacara]

2. That's just not true

A M_w 4.2 (which is what the USGS is still indicating) is what you'd get from a 2.0 kt bomb. Either a very small nuke or a very big conventional bomb. It is a yield of "several hundred" tonnes of TNT, in the sense that 2000 can be considered "several hundred," but there just doesn't seem to be any way to create an earthquake of the size with a smaller bomb than a 2.0 kt yield.

It's entirely possible they blew up a fuckload of normal bombs, or made a really small nuke, or made a bigger nuke that mostly failed, but the earthquake indicates it was the equivalent of 2.0 kt of TNT.

[SPKrazy]

3. CBS Had Different Seismic Readings being reported n/t

[Ediacara]

4. The South Koreans claim it was a Mw 3.5 or 3.58 or 3.8

The USGS said (and still says) it was a M_w 4.2. The yield of these differeing magnitudes is:

M_w 3.50 = 0.18 kt
M_w 3.58 = 0.23 kt
M_w 3.80 = 0.50 kt
M_w 4.20 = 1.99 kt

If the South Korean magnitude estimates are correct, then I think we are definitely looking at a crap load of normal bombs, if the USGS estimate is correct, it could be a very small nuke, or an even bigger crap load of normal bombs

[daleo]

5. Even stockpiling a lot of TNT in one spot

And blowing it up won't necessarily get you a kiloton scale explosion. As I understand it, the explosion tends to interfere with it self - you blow up most of the bomb first, so to speak. According to this source, about 4.5 tons (.0045 kt) is the largest ever conventional explosion.

"Largest Conventional Explosion
The largest single conventional explosive detonation was for the demolition of the German fortifications at Helgoland on April 18, 1947. A charge of 4061 tonnes (8,952,961 lb) was detonated by Commissioned Gunner E.C. Jellis of the Royal Navy demolition team headed by Lt. F.T. Woosnam aboard HMS Lasso lying 14.5 km. (nine miles) out to sea."

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=56021


Whoops - Got my math and reading wrong, that is a big explosion. I guess I am thinking of a "useful bomb" rather than just an explosion. Enemies don't generally let you pile thousands of tons of explosives in their country (the big trench mines of WW1 being an exception).

On edit - To further complicate things, here is a source that says the planned Divine Strake would be the largest every conventional explosion at 500 tons (half a kiloton):

As part of a series conducted by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the explosion will be equivalent to more than half a kiloton or 500 tonnes of TNT, the largest conventional explosion to date.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid060504_1_n.shtml