n. korea

September 11, 2004 9:02 PM

oh my. this is not good for business.
posted by quadrinary (65 comments total)

Is this just a test?
posted by Quartermass at 9:06 PM on September 11, 2004

Ok, read more and answered my own question - happened last week or something?
posted by Quartermass at 9:08 PM on September 11, 2004

Interestingly, the NY Times just published a story expressing concerns about a potential nuke test.

"Thursday was the 56th anniversary of North Korea's founding. The reclusive communist state often stages extravaganzas and big events to mark important anniversaries."

I expect a nuke would count as extravagant.
posted by cedar at 9:12 PM on September 11, 2004

What does it mean for a blast to be "linked" to a nuclear test. How is that different from it being "caused" by a nuclear blast?
posted by alms at 9:14 PM on September 11, 2004

"President Bush and his advisers have received intelligence reports in recent days describing a confusing series of actions by North Korea that some experts say could indicate the country is preparing to conduct its first test explosion of a nuclear weapon, according to senior officials with access to the intelligence."

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4976325.html
posted by marvin at 9:15 PM on September 11, 2004

Whoops, time for Bushy to invade Iran.
posted by Dome-O-Rama at 9:34 PM on September 11, 2004

France, you idiots! France!! Only that will end the threat of people within the administration doing the frog march.

Seriously, not good at all.
posted by Busithoth at 9:42 PM on September 11, 2004

One would think there are sufficient number of Geiger counters (or more useful devices, IANANWE) in South Korea and China to determine in less than three days whether or not this was a nuclear explosion.
posted by billsaysthis at 9:43 PM on September 11, 2004

> Most nuclear tests near the threshold [CTBT] treaty's limit generate seismic magnitudes of about 6 or greater on the Richter scale.

Forensic seismology, as in the link above, may tell us something useful. Note: nothing obvious. There are also certain unmistakable indicators to watch for.

One logical supposition is that this was a test of the nuclear detonator, i.e. the conventional bomb which sends the atomic package into criticality. This may also have simply been a test of the test procedures, using a large conventional weapon.

Of course, like the train explosion, it could also have been a horrible accident.
posted by dhartung at 9:45 PM on September 11, 2004

Yonhap reported that a mushroom cloud up to 2.5 miles in diameter was spotted after the blast in remote Yanggang province in the country's far northeast.

Remote area, huge mushroom cloud... doesn't bode well. And why in the hell isn't this all over the major news outlets?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:48 PM on September 11, 2004

Seismology has historically been the main method of monitoring nuclear tests because such explosions emit large amounts of energy in the form of seismic waves.

You can't hide nuclear tests. If it was a nuclear test, we know about it. Seismic Ears for Nuclear Peace
posted by tomplus2 at 9:48 PM on September 11, 2004

Okay, who gave Kim Jong-Il a copy of True Lies?
posted by solistrato at 9:54 PM on September 11, 2004

And why in the hell isn't this all over the major news outlets?

11:23 fark
12:02 mefi
12:28 slashdot
??:?? cnn
??:?? msnbc

foxnews has the story though, on a side bar...
posted by bobo123 at 9:56 PM on September 11, 2004

A little buried in the world -> asia/pacific section

North Korea cloud 'not nuke blast'... U.S. official said the cloud could be the result of a forest fire.
posted by bobo123 at 10:04 PM on September 11, 2004

A mushroom cloud 2.5 miles wide. Wouldn't this be awfully large for conventional explosives?

Also, I imagine, though I know nothing about this, that an atmospheric test would lesson the seismologic effects?

What I find more disturbing than anything else is that if it was a nuke, any country the size of N. Korea who would set one off within their own borders probably wouldn't have too many qualms about using it elsewhere. I mean, the whole place is about the size of Florida -- it's not like they have a lot of room for this
nonsense.

[On preview: forest fires create mushroom clouds? Not in this firefighters expierience.]
posted by cedar at 10:08 PM on September 11, 2004

a giant explosion caused by a forest fire? of course! north korea poses no immediate threat to the US and shouldn't be worried about. I think everyone knows the real nation we should worry about is.....Morocco.
posted by bob sarabia at 10:09 PM on September 11, 2004

Morocco
posted by bob sarabia at 10:11 PM on September 11, 2004

forest fires create mushroom clouds?

in uranium forests.
posted by quonsar at 10:12 PM on September 11, 2004

Wouldn't seismographic data indicate whether or not this was a nuclear test?
posted by reklaw at 10:34 PM on September 11, 2004

Can we go back to discussing typewriters now? This is not good.
posted by AstroGuy at 10:37 PM on September 11, 2004

Dude, if this is true, we should TOTALLY invade Iraq again! Seemed to fix the problem last time.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:42 PM on September 11, 2004

That was a joke, right, the "forest fire" thing? An attempt to whistle through the graveyard? Because it is, you know, ludicrous.

Astroguy, you're a man obsessed! What, have you been listening to too much Leroy Anderson or something?

Also: I would like to point out that if this does not receive sufficient immediate mainstream press it will be double-posted three days from now, largely because no one will think to search on the text "oh my. this is not good for business."

Just sayin'.

posted by soyjoy at 10:42 PM on September 11, 2004

i'm waiting for someone to come up with a flash presentation that duplicates this alleged mushroom cloud ... it could be a forgery, especially if they used the same color palette ...

seriously, though, this is not good
posted by pyramid termite at 10:44 PM on September 11, 2004

Pic of forest fire mushroom cloud [from kosfiles thread]. Not saying this proves anything one way or the other, but apparently it happens.
posted by falconred at 10:45 PM on September 11, 2004

So, one of two things here?

- another nuclear test
- a forest fire

This isn't bad. This isn't good. This just is. Their bombs work too, and their trees also burn.

Wake me up when they're using them on someone else...
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:55 PM on September 11, 2004

One logical supposition is that this was a test of the nuclear detonator, i.e. the conventional bomb which sends the atomic package into criticality.

IANANS, but I was under the impression that the detonator explosive is fairly small, certainly not enough to cause a blast of such magnitude.

Wake me up when they're using them on someone else...

If you can't sleep because of a very bright light...
posted by Krrrlson at 11:05 PM on September 11, 2004

This is probably very bad news for Morocco.

Or trees.
posted by drezdn at 11:12 PM on September 11, 2004

The shrub's Obfuscation Machine already wants to say it's a mushroom cloud forest fire. I wonder how long CNN, MSNBC and Fox will tow that sad line.
posted by fleener at 11:12 PM on September 11, 2004

Mushroom clouds can happen from any kind of explosion. They don't have to be nuclear, or even particularly large, explosions.

It'd be really, really obvious to any professional observer whether this was nuclear or not. Especially since it happened three days ago, according to the Reuters report (that'd be 8th September). So that leaves us with two possibilities:

1. It was nuclear. Every country with monitoring capability knew about it within a few minutes of the blast. But nobody's talking about it.

2. It was non-nuclear, but someone saw the phrase "mushroom cloud" and jumped to conclusions.

My money's on #2. I'd speculate it's some sort of industrial accident, although the other Reuters article quotes someone as saying it probably wasn't. A forest fire doesn't seem impossible to me, although I'd think you'd need unusual conditions.
posted by hattifattener at 11:16 PM on September 11, 2004

How Kim Jong-il outwited W. on nukes.
posted by homunculus at 11:18 PM on September 11, 2004

**/me breaks California off of the United States and goes and chills with Hawaii with it**

Oh, Alaska can come too. And Iceland, New Zealand, and Amsterdam. Chile. Maybe Belize, if it behaves. Parts of Canada. Parts of the Free Republic of Cascadia, but leave that hippy stank at home, unless that stank is in the form of vegetables.

Everyone else is welcome to visit, but please leave the gadgets at home.
posted by loquacious at 11:25 PM on September 11, 2004

So, one of two things here?

- another nuclear test
- a forest fire

This isn't bad....

Wake me up when they're using them on someone else...

For the sake of conversation, let's say Kim Jong Il's military leaders & scientists were testing a nuke. Just hypothetically. What would it take for the situation to be "bad"? A hundred thousand flash-fried Japanese? Or Chinese? Or Americans? Yeah, then it would be "bad". It would also be "too late".
posted by dhoyt at 11:29 PM on September 11, 2004

Too late, but just in time for Mongolian BBQ?

/me goes straight to hell, does not pass go, and does not collect $200.
posted by loquacious at 11:47 PM on September 11, 2004

Those crazy motherfuckers...
posted by bshort at 11:55 PM on September 11, 2004

(Curious about satellite imagery, I trawled through the Google/dmoz directory of commercial providers. I knew about SPOT, for example, but there are a bunch of them. There are several companies who are willing to sell you pretty high-resolution images of an arbitrary region on demand. You can get a 1-meter-resolution image within three days of a request, for example. One of the advertised uses for this service is damage assessment after a fire or other disaster. If anyone wants a picture of this explosion, they can get one, for just a few tens of thousands of dollars, cheap!)

But to add emphasis to my previous post, is there any evidence at all that this was nuclear?
posted by hattifattener at 11:57 PM on September 11, 2004

I found a U.S. Geological Survey site that features current seismographic data from China, right there next door to Korea. An industrious soul who knows the exact time that the alleged event occurred could conceivably browse back through the site and find the exact seismo readings for that moment.

http://aslwww.cr.usgs.gov/Seismic_Data/heli2.shtml
posted by wsg at 12:25 AM on September 12, 2004

Multiple mainstream sources at this point are reporting that it is unlikely to be a nuclear incident.

I suppose - as always - it remains to be seen if they're right or not.
posted by loquacious at 12:30 AM on September 12, 2004

I could be wrong - probably am, in fact. Anyways...I don't know.

http://aslwww.cr.usgs.gov/Seismic_Data/
posted by wsg at 12:32 AM on September 12, 2004

While researching liquified natural gas, I recently learned that in the right circumstances an LNG explosion could create a four-mile blast radius. That leads me to think possibly 2.5 mile mushroom cloud could be from any of a number of things--including a really big non-nuclear bomb or an industrial accident.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 12:37 AM on September 12, 2004

We cannot let forest fires get into the hands of terrorists.
posted by Dukebloo at 12:49 AM on September 12, 2004

sorry... there's just /no way/ this could be nuclear and not have been known to be nuclear within minutes or at worst within hours... let alone three days later. there are so many ways it would be immediately obvious, from seismic measurements to radiation and fallout. all my money is on "something else" because no conspiracy could be big enough to cover up for something as gigantic as a nuclear test...
posted by muppetboy at 12:55 AM on September 12, 2004

IANANS, but I was under the impression that the detonator explosive is fairly small, certainly not enough to cause a blast of such magnitude.

Ditto. The trigger explosion/implosion is big, but it's not that big by at least one, if not two or three orders of magnitude. At least not if they're doing it right. This falls under 'something else', I think.
posted by Ryvar at 1:02 AM on September 12, 2004

I think it was just a bit of fat exploding in a yakiniku restaurant.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:44 AM on September 12, 2004

skallas, Seismic activity in California could be well... California too.
posted by substrate at 6:27 AM on September 12, 2004

NK even before recently had enough plutonium for a couple of bombs. With the reprocessing of the reactor uranium they started last year, they certainly have more and probably have enough to test and demonstrate. They have natural uranium, but their exact processing ability is unknown but very unlikely to be significant. That is, they have to make the more difficult implosion device using plutonium, not an easy gun device using uranium. They can use their uranium as a tamper to increase the yield, and may have enough processing ability to do a bit more than that.

The high explosive shell used by the Trinity test bomb was a combination of "Composition B" (itself made up of RDX and TNT) and Baratol (barium nitrate and TNT). Altogether, it weighed about 2800 kilograms.

I've not been able to find the TNT-equivalents for these composite high explosives; but they're certainly in the same order of magnitude as TNT. Let's be generous and say the explosive shell was the equivalent of 6000 kilograms of TNT. That's about six and a half tons.

The yield of the Trinity gadget was about 21kt. That's 21,000 tons. Compare that to six tons. That's three orders of magnitude different.

A mushroom cloud that could be mistaken for a nuclear weapon cloud is not going to be produced by only 6 tons of TNT (equivalent).

On the other hand, long before the Trinity test, for various reasons, they blew up 100 tons of HE. That's an order of magnitude closer—perhaps NK did something similar.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:26 AM on September 12, 2004

The USA has the ability to determine, in real time, if a nuclear test has occurred anywhere on the planet.

GlobalSecurity.org has a good blurb on the spaced based Nuclear Detection System (NDS)

The tepid suggestion by US officials, reported on CNN, that it was a forest fire, does not ring true with the confidence one might expect from the NDS system
posted by ALvard at 7:32 AM on September 12, 2004

Anyone with decent seismography equipment and expertise can detect a nuclear test. That's a whole lot of people around the world. If it were a (non-atmospheric) nuclear test, it'd be public knowledge. If it were an atmospheric test, then radioactive trace elements would be detectable in the atmosphere (regional or otherwise). Fewer people have the wherewithal to go looking for that, but as we know from the Chernobyl experience, people do besides the US (and other) governments and we'd hear about it that way, too.

The US gov. has an incentive to suppress information about a NK nuclear test. The rest of the world...not so much. It wasn't nuclear.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:49 AM on September 12, 2004

...not that that should be a comfort to anyone. NK has the materials and tech and expertise to make more than one bomb. They almost certainly already have; and, if not, will. The only thing that would stop them would be huge incentives to not do it. Right now, this mind-bogglingly stupid President and administration is going out of their way not to provide any of those incentives. In that context, NK has even more incentive to get the world's attention with a test.

I don't think it has happened yet, but it will. When it does, it's going to really freak out Japan (among others). This is an enormous foreign policy blunder by BushCo. I'm not sure if the US public is likely to comprehend this. Sigh.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:54 AM on September 12, 2004

Ethereal Bligh, Shrub doesn't care about North Korea until they inherit some yummy oil or the country insults his daddy.

So, cultists nuclear wackjobs are fine in his book. Problem is, which leader am I referring to with that last statement?
posted by fleener at 8:06 AM on September 12, 2004

Did anyone else find this description a little, I don't know, one-sided:

"The reclusive communist state often stages extravaganzas and big events to mark important anniversaries."

Woldn't you say that all governments, reclusive or not, tend to stage big celebrations to mark anniversaries. Certainly not just something the evil communists are up to.
posted by wheat at 8:07 AM on September 12, 2004

Well, based on some of the "I visited North Korea" web sites I've read, we're talking big events. Crazy big.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:16 AM on September 12, 2004

I'm just glad we really ripped Pakistan a new one for selling them nuclear.....oh, never mind.
posted by jalexei at 8:30 AM on September 12, 2004

to continue with the tinfoil -

What if the US did a preemtive strike on what it assumed was going to be a nuclear test site. NK, not wanting to admit that it was going to set off a bomb or embarrassed that the US beat them to punch, is remaining silent on the issue. The US, on the other hand, not wanting to take shit for another preemptive strike, is calling it a forrest fire.

Jus' sayin'.
posted by jmgorman at 8:35 AM on September 12, 2004

Lots of interesting analysis here, and drawing on everyone else's informed commentary, let me suggest :

1) Not a nuclear blast

2) Not a forest fire

3) Possible an accident, but

4) More likely intentional, thus :

5) A NK Psyops stunt with a big package of conventional weapons but with, very possibly, enough radioactive garbage thrown into the mix to create a detectable trace and so overlay a haze of ambiguity about NK was actually experimenting with.

6) Also, don't rule out the "boys with toys" dimension : some people just like to blow things up.
posted by troutfishing at 8:39 AM on September 12, 2004

What does it mean for a blast to be "linked" to a nuclear test. How is that different from it being "caused" by a nuclear blast?

If it's linked, you have to click to get the nuclear blast.
posted by kindall at 9:32 AM on September 12, 2004

hmmm ... possibly it was a much smaller nuke ... or possibly it was an unsuccessful test that didn't go off like they had hoped?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:56 AM on September 12, 2004

Seems like forest fires often create mushroom clouds, try looking up pyrocumulus images.
posted by milovoo at 10:22 AM on September 12, 2004

A meteor strike would be fascinating. Big chunk of space rock blows a crater in and around a sensitive military facility--how do the various players react?

But my money's on a military or industrial accident. My sense is that North Korea doesn't rank very high in either workplace safety or morale.
posted by gimonca at 10:44 AM on September 12, 2004

You know, I'm very dissapointed with the [North] Korean Central News Agency right now, there's absolutely nothing there, not even a reuters link about the story.
posted by bobo123 at 2:13 PM on September 12, 2004

How Kim Jong-il outwited W. on nukes.

A chimpanzee with a flashlight and a banana could outwit W. on just about anything.
posted by camworld at 2:45 PM on September 12, 2004

So Kerry's problem is that he's lacking the banana?
posted by Asparagirl at 4:30 PM on September 12, 2004

Oh, buuuurn.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:15 PM on September 12, 2004

A chimpanzee with a flashlight and a banana could outwit W. on just about anything.

Or a chimpanzee with a turkey farm and a stockpile of anthrax.
posted by filmgoerjuan at 6:55 PM on September 12, 2004

North Korea until they inherit some yummy oil or the country insults his daddy.

Well, but might not NK care about the U.S.?

I'm just sayin'
posted by erratic frog at 1:26 AM on September 13, 2004

Nothing to see here...
posted by drezdn at 10:11 PM on September 13, 2004