Sabre rattling 7-6-5-4-3.....

October 8, 2006 8:46 PM

North Korea pops a cap
posted by hortense (222 comments total)

.
posted by hortense at 8:47 PM on October 8, 2006

Beat me to it; here's the FPP I was working on...

Despite the elephant parade, North Korea has managed to test a nuke.
posted by moonbird at 8:48 PM on October 8, 2006

hortense hears a boom
posted by caddis at 8:51 PM on October 8, 2006 [1 favorite]

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit drinkin'.
posted by keswick at 8:52 PM on October 8, 2006

Yeah that Clinton administration sure did screw up the whole North Korea/nuke issue. So glad we elected some responsible adults to show those guys who's boss.
posted by any major dude at 8:52 PM on October 8, 2006

posted by moonbird at 8:53 PM on October 8, 2006

If this isn't about an elephant, I don't see how it could possibly be important at all.
posted by Effigy2000 at 8:53 PM on October 8, 2006

So... do we believe them?
posted by Artw at 8:54 PM on October 8, 2006

That's what I get for taking extra time and effort at what would've been my first post. Here's what it would've been:

Newsfilter: the AP is reporting North Korea has tested a nuclear bomb, something the Economist describes as "a serious escalation of tension", Condoleeza Rice calls "provocative", and Japan, China, and South Korea all call "unacceptable". The test was underground at approximately 10:30 AM. More at the BBC, the Daily NK. No word yet on how large a bomb was tested.
posted by ztdavis at 8:55 PM on October 8, 2006 [1 favorite]

Lets play the percentages.

Percentage chance the US Threat Level goes to Red tomorrow (Monday)? I say 50%.

Percentage chance Foley gets knocked off the first, second, and third page? 100%

Percentage chance we get a 10-point swing in the polls for the GOP? 75%.
posted by andreaazure at 8:55 PM on October 8, 2006

hmmmmm.....


ummmmm.....


well, fuck me I guess
posted by slapshot57 at 8:56 PM on October 8, 2006

Great, and I just moved to the Pacific Northwest.

I can only hope that whatever slipshod engineers that they have working are slave-driving on their ICBM project keep on sucking. For Pete's sake Kim, don't start feeding them now!
posted by loquacious at 8:58 PM on October 8, 2006

Yeah, this probably will boost Republican numbers a little, but it's not going to make everyone instantly forget the seething discontent.

I wonder how the democrats are going to react?

Also, this is going to be a bit of a derail from our "down with Iran" saga.
posted by ®@ at 9:01 PM on October 8, 2006

Since they now have nuclear tech, perhaps they could invest in some power to their populace. It's interesting to see the dark space above South Korea on this map. That is, if the rest of the world doesn't go in and bomb the whole of the country even further back.

Has China released any statements?

...

I watched a documentary on NK a little while ago, with video taken inside the country and secretly shipped out. Some of the saddest, most degrading, most horrible footage I've seen. Makes Iraq under Saddam look like Wisconsin.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:01 PM on October 8, 2006

I find myself hoping that China invades North Korea. That is depressing.
posted by oddman at 9:02 PM on October 8, 2006

We're all gonna die!
posted by obvious at 9:03 PM on October 8, 2006

oddman: yeah, me too. However it's the only sane option. Putting American troops that close to China is too unsettling for China and detrimental to peace. Same with Japan.

However, this is something I could see Germany and France and other larger powers get behind.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:06 PM on October 8, 2006

No, no, no! TURN IT ALL TO GLASS!!!
posted by washburn at 9:06 PM on October 8, 2006

Two observations:

1) If must not have been very powerful if S. Korea and the U.S. are "unable to immediately confirm" it. Seismic sensors pick this kind of thing up...

2) It must not have worked yesterday. Everyone speculated that it would have detonated on Kim Jung-Il's anniversary. It happened the next day instead. This is good news if you feel at all threatened by his weapons... if you can't get one to go off when you have cables hooked up to a big "ACME"-style controller, it sure as hell won't work when you put it on top of an unstable missile and try to make it detonate 10,000 feet over [your feared target] after crossing an ocean.

In fact, I wonder if it even "worked" today. I seem to remember a spectacularly successful satellite launch that wound up in the Pacific a few years back. It's ancient technology, but it takes a lot to get a full chain reaction going.
posted by trinarian at 9:10 PM on October 8, 2006

I wonder if it really will be a derail from Iran. North Korea has been on the same path towards a nuke since before there was even an "axis of evil". While the UN searched Iraq for WMD before the war, North Korea was talking about its nuclear intentions. While Russia was offering to enrich uranium for Iran to allow nuclear power without the capabilties for bomb making, North Korea was announcing that it had nukes. The Bush adminstration has never had more than seemingly fleeting interest, relative to Iran and Iraq, in North Korea.

All this in spite of it having nukes a five years to a decade for Iraq could have had them or Iran may be able to.
posted by ztdavis at 9:11 PM on October 8, 2006

Just discovered The Korea Liberator earlier this evening. Lots of links to Korea-related blogs, but while I appreciate their mission to "help North Koreans build a clandestine opposition movement inside their country" (exactly what the U.S. should have tried first in Iraq), the heavily conservative take on U.S. politics makes me suspicious - or at least interested in finding other sources. Anyone have any links to knowledgable and/or good non-"expert" sites on this issue?
posted by mediareport at 9:12 PM on October 8, 2006

Seattle was such a wonderful city. Or, at least it will have been once the DPRK figures out how to get that missile to reach here and successfully deliver a nuke.
posted by dw at 9:13 PM on October 8, 2006

The reuters article in the FPP mentions that S. Korea detected a tremor

"South Korea's Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources had detected a tremor of a magnitude 3.58 to 3.7 at 0135 GMT."
posted by dhruva at 9:13 PM on October 8, 2006

Kickstart70: I don't know about post-test, but before the test China wasn't sounding too pleased.
posted by ztdavis at 9:14 PM on October 8, 2006

...while I appreciate their mission to "help North Koreans build a clandestine opposition movement inside their country" (exactly what the U.S. should have tried first in Iraq)...

You might want to look up the name Ahmed Chalabi.
posted by Artw at 9:14 PM on October 8, 2006

1) If must not have been very powerful if S. Korea and the U.S. are "unable to immediately confirm" it. Seismic sensors pick this kind of thing up...

Seoul is now saying it detected a 3.6 tremor, according to MSNBC.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:14 PM on October 8, 2006

October surprise, anyone?
posted by gcbv at 9:16 PM on October 8, 2006

TBH Even with the tremor I wouldn't rule out N. Korea just detonating a shitload of dynamite.

Wouldn't be the first huge conventional explosion there.

Why would they fake a nuke? Pretty much for the same reason they'd explode a real one: They're fucking crazy.
posted by Artw at 9:17 PM on October 8, 2006 [1 favorite]

gcbv, I had the same thought.
posted by gubo at 9:18 PM on October 8, 2006

(exactly what the U.S. should have tried first in Iraq)

Dude, where do you think both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein came from in the first place? Thank you, CIA, may I have another?

At this point I'm pretty sure I'd rather that the US just sent in crack suicide assasin squads to take out whoever the (US created) Problem Despot of the Week was, instead of all this pointless mucking about with land wars in Asia.

But then I guess Halliburton wouldn't win those no-bid "rebuilding" contracts after we carpetbombed the joint.
posted by loquacious at 9:18 PM on October 8, 2006

oddman: China won't invade N. Korea unless the system collapses and refugees and their accompanying instability starting pouring into Liaoning and Jilin provinces. Sovereignty is to modern Chinese foreign policy what counter-terrorism is to current American foreign policy. They don't want anyone telling them what to do about Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, human rights, et al... so they practice as much on the international scene [hence their incorrigible stance towards Darfur]

kickstart: I don't think it's really that unsettling to China. They know we'd never try an invasion. It's just not in the cards. Further south, towards Taiwan, is Okinawa... which might be a different story.
posted by trinarian at 9:19 PM on October 8, 2006

Artw: Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same thing.

Like trinarian says above, maybe the real gadget didn't go off yesterday, and today it was just the backup pilemountain of TNT.

It's a hell of a lot easier to make a mountain of high explosives than it is to make a working nuclear device.

Regardless, I hope they're bluffing. I would rather see Iran holding a sizable stockpile than NK with anything nuclear at all.
posted by loquacious at 9:23 PM on October 8, 2006

dw: im pulling for los angeles, myself.

wait, microsoft is basically in seattle, right?

oh god, decisions, decisions.
posted by keswick at 9:23 PM on October 8, 2006

good work on your post ztdavis.
posted by moonbird at 9:27 PM on October 8, 2006

I say we take off and... what? They've obtained nukes? How!? Goddamnit!
posted by loquacious at 9:31 PM on October 8, 2006

Side note: if you want an easy-to-absorb glimpse inside Kim Jong Il's lunatic world, try France-based animator Guy Delisle's non-fiction graphic novel Pyongyang: A Journey in North Korea. It's a pointed, poignant look at Delisle's two-month job assignment in North Korea. Fans of comics, esp. Joe Sacco, will love it.

You might want to look up the name Ahmed Chalabi

Uh, if I understand your vague comment properly, I know Chalabi just fine, thanks. A shyster like him should have been kept far awar from the kind of intelligent internal opposition the US should have tried first in Iraq.
posted by mediareport at 9:32 PM on October 8, 2006 [1 favorite]

Would you like to play a game?
posted by lalochezia at 9:36 PM on October 8, 2006

I just realized a link doesn't work, but thanks moonbird.
posted by ztdavis at 9:37 PM on October 8, 2006

Looks like this may be the real thing. In 1949 the United States confirmed the first Soviet test from seismic data.

Could it be fake? Yes.

Otherwise, a theoretical design for a weapon is often tested... prior to use.

It's the only way to be sure.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 9:39 PM on October 8, 2006

Somebody set up us the bomb.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:39 PM on October 8, 2006 [1 favorite]

Another bullshit controversy over basically nothing. Bah.

Why has nobody produced IM logs of Kim Jong Il trying to seduce helplessly impressionable, hopelessly naive 16 year old boys? That will get some action!
posted by davy at 9:39 PM on October 8, 2006

Do they have oil? No? Fuck them. Foggetaboutit
posted by growabrain at 9:40 PM on October 8, 2006

don't mean to be a comment hog, but...

When the news of an impending test was first announced I was worried about America launching a strike if the test went off, what with the "N. Korea can test a weapon or have a future" comments and all. It's a bit too existentialist for my taste. As an American working in China, it could change my living situation very quickly if the bombs started raining next door.

What the IHT was reporting yesterday though was that the White House is going to make a bid to start searching - or stopping - every ship coming in and out of N. Korea and perhaps getting the Security Council pass a resolution stopping commercial air traffic. Intense stuff, but not war.

China won't do anything to destabilize the regime to the point of collapse for reasons I mentioned above. It will play along and find some superficial punishments.

The real fear is a domino effect, wherein Japan and S. Korea start their own programs, which isn't all that outlandish. Japanese statesmen have already said "Japan has the ability and only needs the will..." And then China beefs up it's program. Then Russia....

Personally, I don't see the big deal. We've tested 1050 nukes so far, many above ground. Little pricks like this are doing it for the attention. Ignore the troll.
posted by trinarian at 9:43 PM on October 8, 2006

Pyongyang: A Journey in North Korea looks quite amazing, thanks mediareport.

I'm suddenly glad again to be moving away from a large population centre.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:50 PM on October 8, 2006

There you go Hans Blix, you like that you fucking cock sucker...congratulations Team America, you have done nothing.
posted by furtive at 9:52 PM on October 8, 2006

mediareport: Thanks for those links. The reviews were very well done and the book itself sounds even better.
posted by loquacious at 9:53 PM on October 8, 2006

Why has nobody produced IM logs of Kim Jong Il [...]
posted by b1tr0t at 9:57 PM on October 8, 2006

KAHN!
posted by hortense at 9:57 PM on October 8, 2006

posted by pwb503 at 9:57 PM on October 8, 2006

link about Japan's (lack of) nuclear capability, for interest's sake.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:58 PM on October 8, 2006

this is a neo-con ploy to scare people to vote republican.
Kim Jong Il is on Bush's white house payroll.
posted by obeygiant at 9:58 PM on October 8, 2006 [1 favorite]

posted by taosbat at 10:00 PM on October 8, 2006 [1 favorite]

i rike to eat at led robster
posted by obeygiant at 10:01 PM on October 8, 2006 [1 favorite]

Correct me if this is wrong, but this is my understanding from previous reading.

The reason S. Korea, U.S. can't do much about North Korea is that NK has a lot of conventional arms right on the border, menacing Seoul. There's no way any military strike could knock out enough of the artillery, etc. fast enough to save Seoul with its large civilian population from huge casualties.

Thus the lack of blustering on the part of SK/USA/ others, and the other options being always considered instead - diplomacy, now inspection of ships, etc.
posted by jam_pony at 10:06 PM on October 8, 2006

So, does this mean the six party talks are over?
posted by furtive at 10:06 PM on October 8, 2006

Great, and I just moved to the Pacific Northwest.

Quit yer bitchin' I just moved to the Pacific Northeast!
posted by Pollomacho at 10:08 PM on October 8, 2006

Isn't Alaska a better target? I mean it has our strategic ice reserve.
posted by TwelveTwo at 10:12 PM on October 8, 2006 [1 favorite]

Pacific? Isn't that, like, on the other side of the planet or something?

How clever that Bush guy is, directing all attention towards the middle east, bankrupting the US, while the far east prepares a big kaboom. I wonder who he's really working for?
posted by Goofyy at 10:25 PM on October 8, 2006

All this does is prove how farsighted and wise our invasion of Iraq was! And how farsighted and wise our invasion of Iran will be! And it's Clinton's fault, too.
posted by Justinian at 10:32 PM on October 8, 2006

Very scary “While Islamabad and Washington squabbled about the evidence, the Khan network provided sophisticated technology to Libya, North Korea and Iran, three countries the United States considered among the most dangerous. A decade earlier, the Reagan administration had looked the other way on Pakistan’s nuclear program, said Stephen Cohen, a State Department expert on the region from 1985 to 1987. Back then, Washington used Pakistan as a conduit for sending weapons and money to guerillas fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. ‘They were covering up our involvement in Afghanistan, pretending we played no role in Afghanistan, so they expected us to cover up their role in procuring a weapons system they saw as vital to their survival,’ said Cohen, now with the Brookings Institution.”
listen wfmu real audio
posted by hortense at 10:34 PM on October 8, 2006

Dave Emory? Seriously?
posted by keswick at 10:38 PM on October 8, 2006

The two most popular and easiest things to make atomic bombs out of are Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239.

The Manhattan Project had parallel development efforts to create both kinds. The Uranium bomb was considered to be simpler, and ultimately the design was considered to be reliable enough that they didn't think they needed to test it. The first one, code named "Little Boy", was dropped on Hiroshima.

But the design for the plutonium bomb was much trickier, and it was decided that before attempting to use it on an enemy target that they should set one off as a test. So the world's first nuclear explosion at Alamogordo, code named "Trinity", was the first plutonium bomb. The second one, code named "Fat Man", was dropped on Nagasaki.

The reason they were different has to do with a fundamental difference between Uranium and Plutonium: Plutonium absorbs neutrons much more easily than Uranium does. After a critical mass of U-235 is formed, it takes milliseconds for a chain reaction to build to the point of full-scale energy release. So the design for "Little Boy" consisted of a ring of U-235 at one end of the bomb, and a plug of U-235 at the other that would fit into the hole. Explosives drove them together to form a critical mass.

That design wouldn't have worked for Plutonium. The problem is that during the process of forming the critical mass, it can go off early, with much less energy than it is supposed to.

"Little Boy" was long and narrow; "Fat Man" was round. The reason is that it consisted of a series of wedges of plutonium around the outside of that big sphere. Explosives would then force all the wedges into the center at the same time, and if it all went correctly the critical mass would form fast enough to be completed before the plutonium really started responding.

Iran's bomb program is concentrating on U-235. Concentrating the isotope sufficiently is painful, but the bomb design once you have an adequate quantity of sufficiently-concentrated U-235 is quite straightforward.

NK's bomb program is based on Pu-239. Producing the plutonium is easier, but the bomb design is much harder to pull off.

If you screw up the design, what you get when you set it off is a misfire, with far less yield than you should have gotten. There's still a "bang", but not an "earth shattering kaboom", as it were.

The thing to watch for in the next few days is evaluations of whether Richter 3.8 represents a fully successful detonation or a misfire. (I honestly don't know.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 10:52 PM on October 8, 2006 [10 favorites]

That's better than anything the newspapers will print about this event, SCDB. Thanks!
posted by gsteff at 11:06 PM on October 8, 2006

USGS is reporting it as Richter 4.2.

Magnitude 4.2 (Light)
Date-Time Monday, October 9, 2006 at 01:35:27 (UTC)
= Coordinated Universal Time
Monday, October 9, 2006 at 10:35:27 AM
= local time at epicenter Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 41.311°N, 129.114°E
Depth 0 km (~0 mile) set by location program
Region NORTH KOREA
Distances 70 km (45 miles) N of Kimchaek, North Korea
90 km (55 miles) SW of Chongjin, North Korea
180 km (110 miles) S of Yanji, Jilin, China
385 km (240 miles) NE of PYONGYANG, North Korea

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 14.9 km (9.3 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters Nst= 9, Nph= 9, Dmin=369.4 km, Rmss=1.13 sec, Gp= 97°,
M-type=body magnitude (Mb), Version=6
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:10 PM on October 8, 2006

Google Maps
posted by gsteff at 11:16 PM on October 8, 2006

Wikipedia has everything. In their article about the Richter scale, they say that Richter 4.0 is what would be expected from a 1 kiloton atomic bomb. Richter 4.5 would be 5.6 kilotons.

5.0 is about 32 kilotons, and they use the Nagasaki bomb as an example of that. The Nagasaki bomb was "Fat Man", the second American plutonium bomb.

It sounds like the NK bomb did not detonate properly.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:19 PM on October 8, 2006

I don't bring this up to tie the two incidencts together in any way - but out of curiosity what was the Richter value for the WTC collapse? 3.2, 3.4 or something like that?

Thanks for the data and reminders, SCDB. If I'd read somewhere about NK using Plutonium before I'd forgotten. That's even more disturbing.
posted by loquacious at 11:19 PM on October 8, 2006

It sounds like the NK bomb did not detonate properly.

That's what I was pondering with the energy scales comparing it to the WTC collapse. As I understand it, it's harder to design smaller yield devices on purpose.
posted by loquacious at 11:23 PM on October 8, 2006

Distinguishing explosions from earthquakes is pretty much an exact science. The two have subtle but well understood differences and geophysicists have spent much time studying them. For example, a nuke would produce initial compressive wave in all directions while a quake would produce inital compressive waves one way and expansive waves in the other.

The size of the explosion (all we have right now) falls exactly into the "small nuke" range ( see here).

It could be the real thing. Making a bang that big (if it was man-made) is not easy without a nuke.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 11:30 PM on October 8, 2006

Looks like I picked a bad week to quite sniffin' glue.
posted by Football Bat at 11:38 PM on October 8, 2006

I think it was a nuclear explosion. But I think it was a misfire of a plutonium bomb. That would produce a small bang instead of a big one. I don't think it's deliberate.

If I did my math correctly, Richter 4.2 implies a 2 kiloton yield. American nukes that small were difficult to design and involved more than one radioactive isotope at once.

In the 1950's the US did develop some peanut nukes, but the reason was that the Army wanted them and wanted to fire them out of artillery pieces. They had to be low yield so that they didn't kill the men who used them.

But peanut nukes are complicated to design. They involve more than one isotope of more than one element.

I can't think of any reason why NK would go to the effort to develop a low-yield nuke when a medium-yield atomic bomb would be easier and cheaper.

So if they got a low-yield blast, it strongly suggests a malfunctioning medium-yield bomb, not a deliberately-designed low-yield bomb.

The Pakistan nuke test was 12 kilotons.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:39 PM on October 8, 2006

I've got to spend more time proof reading before I post. Sorry about the repetition. (I really did proof-read it; I did!)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:40 PM on October 8, 2006

Here in Japan they seem to be working on the assumption that it was real, and successful. Abe (new PM) hasn't issued a statement yet, but the Asahi Shinbun is reporting that the government is sending a "flurry" of communications to the DPRK.

As for the implication on American politics, I just don't see this helping the Republicans at all. Yes, they've been claiming to be the "security Party", but this sort of thing would seem to indicate that they are failing miserably at providing security. I'm guessing that if Bush is consistant he'll give the Medal of Freedom to the asshole who has been screwing up our DPRK policy for the past 5 years. That seems to be his default reaction to miserable failure: debase the Medal of Freedom and turn it into a booby prize for losers.

There may be a slight surge immediately, but I think that as the "crowd together and show solidarity before the common foe" reaction wears off over the next few weeks we'll see this really hurt both Bush's government in specific, and the Republicans in general.
posted by sotonohito at 11:43 PM on October 8, 2006

This is yet another abject failure of the Bush foreign policy of the first order. Clinton had negotiated a series of carrot and stick policies to keep North Korea from isolating the plutonium from the fuel rods of their nuclear plant. The fuel rods were safely under lock and key and regularly inspected by international inspectors.

Then Bush came into office and instituted his juvenile "opposite of Clinton" strategy. First he threatened the North Koreans with his puerile Axis of Evil speech and then he cut off all talks. The Koreans called Bush's pathetic empty bluff, so in 2002 the Koreans kicked out the inspectors, took out the fuel rods and in short order had their bomb material.

This is because it is much easier to isolate plutonium than U235. It is a simple chemical process. On the other hand, isolating U235 takes thousands of ultra-high speed centrifuges in a cascade working for years to isolate highly enriched U235. It requires enough electricity full time to light a small city -- electricity that North Korea doesn't have.

This is where Bush made his fatal mistake. He was all worked up because the Koreans were performing small pilot centrifuge experiments for U235. It would have taken them many years, if ever, to scale up to make bomb material. So instead Bush pushed them into taking the easy route which was getting the plutonium from the fuel rods. So in just a couple of years, they now have a plutonium bomb. Way to go, George. Is there any foreign policy that he is unable to screw up? The man truly has the anti-Midas touch.
posted by JackFlash at 11:43 PM on October 8, 2006 [4 favorites]

It sounds like the NK bomb did not detonate properly.

Apparently both the US and SK governments are saying the same thing, at least according to news reports on my TV. SK (presumably using their smaller seismic measurement of 3.8) estimates the explosion was around 0.5 kilotons.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:43 PM on October 8, 2006

Dave Emory? Seriously?
posted by hortense at 11:46 PM on October 8, 2006

dw writes "Seattle was such a wonderful city. Or, at least it will have been once the DPRK figures out how to get that missile to reach here and successfully deliver a nuke."

I'd bet it fits in a container.
posted by Mitheral at 11:47 PM on October 8, 2006

India claims to have developed peanut nukes and to have tested them three times. But their first test of an atomic bomb (about 12 kilotons) was in 1974. It wasn't until 1998 that they tested peanut nukes.

I have been assuming that NK's test was underground. If it was atmospheric, then very little of the bomb blast energy would have gone into the ground to be detected by USGS.

If it was an atmospheric test, we'll be hearing about that pretty soon because there's going to be fallout.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:47 PM on October 8, 2006

I can't think of any reason why NK would go to the effort to develop a low-yield nuke when a medium-yield atomic bomb would be easier and cheaper.

I don't understand that, Steven. Couldn't they be using a small amount of plutonium to create a smaller explosion? Their supply is limited, is it not? Apologies if this is ignorant - I'm no physicist and it's very late - but I'm not getting your argument here at all.
posted by mediareport at 11:48 PM on October 8, 2006

Fox News says that NK sought a 4-kiloton yield.
posted by gsteff at 11:50 PM on October 8, 2006

Just to play devil's advocate here, wouldn't the North Koreans want to develop a smaller bomb because their missiles are not capable of transporting the massive weight of a larger one?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:53 PM on October 8, 2006

"If it was an atmospheric test, we'll be hearing about that pretty soon because there's going to be fallout."

That's a horrible thought. It would be entirely characteristic of NK though.

"Couldn't they be using a small amount of plutonium to create a smaller explosion?"

There's a minimum amount required for an easy-to-build bomb. Going up just requires more Pu, going down is hard and involves weird isotopes as SCDB pointed out.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 11:54 PM on October 8, 2006

I have been assuming that NK's test was underground. If it was atmospheric, then very little of the bomb blast energy would have gone into the ground to be detected by USGS.

All the reports have been saying it was underground. In fact, NK's original announcement apparently said that all radioactivity was contained.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:58 PM on October 8, 2006

If it was an atmospheric test, we'll be hearing about that pretty soon because there's going to be fallout.

The DPRK is saying "no radiation escaped," so I think we can assume it was underground.
posted by dw at 11:59 PM on October 8, 2006

I'd bet it fits in a container.

Please don't say that. But then, it would vindicate Maria Cantwell railing against the GOP Congress about port safety, even if it means her voting base is irradiated.
posted by dw at 12:00 AM on October 9, 2006

"While critics of capitalism, conservativism, libertarianism and globalism often see a linear progression from those positions to fascism, Emory and his adherents regard many of the protagonists as literally Nazis, with the anti-Semitic, racial, and religious overtones that go with Nazism. Emory has discussed strong evidence that Nazi (and perhaps CIA) elements conspired with Palestinians to orchestrate the Munich Massacre. Emory decries the theory of peak oil, expressing scepticism about the analysis behind the theory, noting some of its proponents' advocacy of genocide, and the movement's historical and economic links with the Thyssen industrial empire and European royalists."

Seems like a rational guy.
posted by keswick at 12:05 AM on October 9, 2006

Couldn't they be using a small amount of plutonium to create a smaller explosion? Their supply is limited, is it not? Apologies if this is ignorant - I'm no physicist and it's very late - but I'm not getting your argument here at all.

It doesn't work that way. This isn't like TNT where any quantity, no matter how large or small, can be detonated.

The relevant term here is critical mass. Less than a critical mass can't explode. For Pu-239 it's on the order of 10 kilograms. (It varies depending on the purity, shape, presence of nearby neutron sources, and several other factors, but that's a good approximation.)

If you use a much smaller amount, as you put it, nothing interesting happens. You don't get a smaller blast, you get no blast at all.

The Fox news report may or may not mean anything. Everything NK does is a success if you listen to their official announcements, even if it was really an abject failure. They claimed that those missile tests were all successes too, even though outside observers think most of them failed.

If they were trying for 12-15 kilotons and only got 2, it's in character for them to announce, "That was what I was trying to do."
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:06 AM on October 9, 2006

Looks like Kim's behavior may leave him even more "ronery" in the near future.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:25 AM on October 9, 2006

According to this report, the SK measurement was Richter 3.6. If so, the yield was only a quarter of a kiloton, and it was definitely a misfire.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:31 AM on October 9, 2006

I notice that everyone here keeps talking about missiles. Why? Missiles are not the only way to put nukes (or anything else) where you want it, they're expensive, hard to make work, etc. Drop the nuke into a shipping container and sail it into the harbor of your choice, that's the simplist way to do it.

That, I think, is what really has the Japanese worried, well that and medium range missiles. ICBM's are a relic of the Cold War, they're big, expensive, and when you launch them you might as well hold up a big neon sign that says "HEY, WE JUST LAUNCHED A MISSILE!" The result of that is a quick phone call from every other atomic power and a statement that if the missile doesn't self destruct right now then the country that launched it will be turned into glowing green glass. Launch from a small "independent" ship using medium range missiles (SCUD, Cruise, etc) and the launch might not even be detected, even if it is there is at least some shread of deniability (probably not enough to avoid a conventional war, but you never know).

Just two reasons why the whole "Missile Defense Shield" idea is bunk. Also two reasons why Japan is very, very, nervous about the DPRK having nukes. China doesn't much like it, but they aren't really on the DPRK's shit list.
posted by sotonohito at 12:34 AM on October 9, 2006

USGS report of a 4.2 Richer scale seismic "event" in North Korea. You get the actual coordinates, Which you can plug into google maps if you want.
posted by delmoi at 12:43 AM on October 9, 2006

To put this into perspective, a 2kt nuke is equivalent to 13 shipping containers full of TNT. That's not that much.

But obviously it would be a lot easier to sneak in a nuke then 13 shipping containers.
posted by delmoi at 1:01 AM on October 9, 2006

That looks like a relatively fresh and detailed satellite images on both maps.google and google earth, especially when compared to the surrounding areas.

About 2, 2.5 miles NNW of the seismically estimated test site there's a rather sprawling industrial looking facility, which also includes what appear to be some plowed fields. There's also a port and an airstrip to the east. The whole place is riddled with rough looking roads and trails.
posted by loquacious at 1:12 AM on October 9, 2006

There is a lot of coal mining up in that area and has been for many years.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:30 AM on October 9, 2006

One of the main reasons for a nuclear test is to collect data to see if your design is correct. It might have misfired, but they still got a detonation. If it misfired, they know that their design needs to be modified, and we can reasonably assume they will be working on the problem so that it doesn't happen in the future. The next test will be interesting.

As for us, we now know for sure that they have the materials and the know how to actually construct a device. The range of options anyone has for dealing with the country just got a whole lot narrower.
posted by moonbiter at 1:46 AM on October 9, 2006

NK simply reflecting the global mood as promoted by the US - get some protection or be invaded. They are lucky enough to be next to China, who do not want any nuclear weapons detonating on them.
Should have a stabilising effect on the region if they get a working nuclear weapon. Seeing as no-one else is making a go of disarming this seems like a judicious course of action for anyone not in the US/China gang of dollar supporting co-dependents.
posted by asok at 1:59 AM on October 9, 2006

The Fox news report may or may not mean anything. Everything NK does is a success if you listen to their official announcements, even if it was really an abject failure. They claimed that those missile tests were all successes too, even though outside observers think most of them failed.

When I saw all the reports describing NK's missile tests as failures, I was reminded of this:

Iran has conducted tests with its Shahab-3 missile that have been
described as failures by the Western media because the missiles did not
complete their ballistic trajectories, but were deliberately exploded
at high altitude. This, of course, would be exactly what you would want
to do if you were going to use an EMP weapon.

http://cryptome.org/bartlett-060905.txt
posted by vira at 2:16 AM on October 9, 2006

Selig S. Harrison writes in Newsweek:

Oct. 16, 2006 issue - On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." In return, Washington agreed that the United States and North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations."

Four days later, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sweeping financial sanctions against North Korea designed to cut off the country's access to the international banking system, branding it a "criminal state" guilty of counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

The Bush administration says that this sequence of events was a coincidence. Whatever the truth, I found on a recent trip to Pyongyang that North Korean leaders view the financial sanctions as the cutting edge of a calculated effort by dominant elements in the administration to undercut the Sept. 19 accord, squeeze the Kim Jong Il regime and eventually force its collapse. My conversations made clear that North Korea's missile tests in July and its threat last week to conduct a nuclear test explosion at an unspecified date "in the future" were directly provoked by the U.S. sanctions. In North Korean eyes, pressure must be met with pressure to maintain national honor and, hopefully, to jump-start new bilateral negotiations with Washington that could ease the financial squeeze. When I warned against a nuclear test, saying that it would only strengthen opponents of negotiations in Washington, several top officials replied that "soft" tactics had not worked and they had nothing to lose.

via
posted by washburn at 3:04 AM on October 9, 2006 [1 favorite]

Previous evidence here shows that the great US masses are going to react to this by turning to the people least able to deal with it, right?
posted by bonaldi at 4:16 AM on October 9, 2006

Missing from that Newsweek article is the perhaps important fact that on Sept 20th North Korea said it wouldn't halt its nuclear programme until it had a civilian nuclear reactor.

source
posted by edd at 4:45 AM on October 9, 2006 [1 favorite]

It could be argued that one cause of the saber-rattling can be attributed to the Treasury's freezing of Banco Delta Asia's assets, which seems to have really displeased the North Korean government. Assets were frozen under the PATRIOT Act in an attempt to reduce circulation of the Superdollar. North Korea has made 'unfreezing' of these assets a condition of returning to the negotiating table.

Here is a excellent account of the story of the Superdollar - reg. worthwhile, imo.
posted by the painkiller at 4:48 AM on October 9, 2006 [1 favorite]

Honest question: if you had to permit one of either North Korea or Iran to possess nuclear weapons, which would be preferrable?
posted by gsteff at 4:52 AM on October 9, 2006

by turning to the people least able to deal with it, right?

You mean the Bushites? My college bud, trained with the 25th ID for surge into a ROK crisis, is stuck in Camp Anaconda for the next year.

Way to go, Rummie. You're doing a heckuva job.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 4:53 AM on October 9, 2006

Great link, painkiller...except for the part where they demand ~$5 to read the damn article.
posted by Goofyy at 5:04 AM on October 9, 2006

Goofyy - can you clarify? I don't see anywhere asking for $5.
posted by edd at 5:12 AM on October 9, 2006

Honest question: if you had to permit one of either North Korea or Iran to possess nuclear weapons, which would be preferrable?

Iran, no contest. At least the folks in charge there aren't insane.
posted by equalpants at 5:15 AM on October 9, 2006

edd: I get that story behind a pay-for barrier. You don't? Weird.
posted by Goofyy at 5:25 AM on October 9, 2006

Well, I used bugmenot instead of registering. Registration itself still looks free to me, but I'm not sure how nytimes is doing things these days.
posted by edd at 5:31 AM on October 9, 2006

Goofyy: I got no demand for $$$ for the NYT link, either.
posted by the painkiller at 5:46 AM on October 9, 2006

If so, the yield was only a quarter of a kiloton, and it was definitely a misfire.

If NK managed to get a 250 ton criticality event, that's the scariest news I've heard all year. It took the US a *lot* of engineering mojo to get 10-250 ton nuclear weapons to work.

There are three kinds of nuclear weapons failures -- reaction failures, criticality failures, and fizzles.

The last, a fizzle, happens in a multistage device where the primary doesn't ignite the secondary, and you lose most of the yield. Total yeild is in the low kiloton range -- you did set off a bomb, but you should have gotten in low to mid 100 kilotons, possibly megaton range.

The first, a reaction failure, makes a small bang and spreads fissionables around. Here, there was basically no reaction at all.This is usually a mechainical or electronics failure -- either the pit wasn't made right, or the booster explosives didn't go off correctly. Total yeild? About 10-100 pounds of TNT, all in the booster explosives. No useful fission takes place.

The other one is what ScDB posits -- a criticality failure. is when you get a reaction in the primary, but it doesn't run to completion. Usually, this means you didn't force the peices together enough. You do get an explosion, but not a huge one, on the order of 200-500 pounds of TNT. In testing, this would mean almost all the sensors would read off scale low (since they were expecting a much larger explosion), the traditional way the US would rate the power of this sort of failure is "<1 kt.) if, and if, this was a failure, it was a fizzle. it's hard to see a criticality failure s,iesmographs the test range, never mind in another country. getting a reliable 10-1kt detonation is hard. we did it, meet the a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54">W54/Mk54/SADM. But it took a bunch of brain sweat and testing to make it work. Nobody makes a mininuke as their first nuke. Almost everyone (the big exception, IIRC, was the UK) detonates a simple gun or basic plutonium pit bomb in the 10-25Kt range, though France's first bomb was 60kt.

I can easily see how SK would report R3.5, and later have that number raised to 4.2. First read earthquake data is dicey, it is when multiple stations correlate data, and you see the full extent of both the P and S waves that you can get a true measure of the strength of a quake. A single station can get a sample, but you don't know how the sesimic waves are propogating. If you happen to be in a trough, you'll measure a substantially weaker wave.

Thus:

While NK may not have achieved the expected output -- I can't tell because I don't know what that number was, it is clear that they did, in fact, detonate a kilton class nuclear weapon, probably in the 10-15kt range. It may not have been efficient, but it is, for all intents, a bomb.

Questions: How weaponizable is this? The first US multistage device, wasn't a weapon, unless you think you'll be able to sit in the enemy's city for a year while you build it. A large test frame that isn't solid enough to move isn't a weapon. One of the reasons we have the B-52, and it was rugged enough to still be flying, is that it was designed to carry weapons that weighed upwards of 10 tons. Getting the small packages we have today took a great deal of time and effort.

That doesn't mean that it can't become a weapon, but it does mean that the chance of a bomb falling on Seoul or Tokyo tommorow are even lower than you think they are. About the only nation I know that could go from no nuclear weapons to deliverable multistage device on an ICBM in a very short time (basically, oh, two months + time to enhance fissionables.) is Japan.
posted by eriko at 5:48 AM on October 9, 2006 [3 favorites]

This is bizzare over the NYT link. It's an archived article. I'm registered with NYT as it is, and don't normally get trouble with such links.
posted by Goofyy at 6:24 AM on October 9, 2006

1. delivery to South Korea not too difficult. Why worry unless you need parts for your Hundai?
2. Wayh back when, our flks noted that once one nation got it, the rest would follow soon enough.
3. If you were the president of the US what would you have done or do now? Easy enough to scoff, bitch, mock. How would you handle this situation, or not?
posted by Postroad at 6:34 AM on October 9, 2006

I don't think you even need an ICBM to deliver it. Here's a google map of the area. Stick it on a freighter and paddle it to Japan, or if you're intent on getting it to the United States look around North Korea. If you can get it out of North Korea there's a lot of poorly defended borders as well as the potential to get it on a freighter bound for America. If I were intent on provoking somebody to turn my country into a glass parking lot I'd send it overland and try to get it to Pakistan or maybe Saudi Arabia and from there onto a boat.

I'm sure that the land borders of North Korea proper are defended very well, and that particular points in China etc. are, but I can't imagine the entire jigsaw puzzle defended.
posted by substrate at 6:36 AM on October 9, 2006

I think a lot of people are missing the point.IT doesn't really matter if the test was succesful or resulted in a malfunction. We can assume they intended the test to go successfully, and that therefore they intended to set off a nuke. We can also assume that they have probably built more than one.

At some point, someone has to do something to stop this. My bet is they get invaded by China before they get invaded by us.
posted by Pastabagel at 6:38 AM on October 9, 2006

How to handle? Firstly, talk to them with a little respect. Accept the fact that they are extremely messed up for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is sanctions.

Accept that desperate situations demand desperate measures. NK is desperate. Can we stop pretending that isn't the case now?
posted by Goofyy at 6:43 AM on October 9, 2006

The reason S. Korea, U.S. can't do much about North Korea is that NK has a lot of conventional arms right on the border, menacing Seoul. There's no way any military strike could knock out enough of the artillery, etc. fast enough to save Seoul with its large civilian population from huge casualties.

What if we lit up the DPRK side of the DMZ with bunker-busting tactical nukes in one enormous simultaneous strike, say from a wave of cruise missles timed to hit within seconds of each other? Perhaps we could knock out 95% of the artillery, rocket tubes, etc. aimed at Seoul before they were able to fire.
posted by metaplectic at 6:46 AM on October 9, 2006

This is such horseshit.

If N. Korea had a fissable device, they would have detonated it outside for all to see the Might and Intelligence of Their Great Leader.

it sounds like the NK bomb did not detonate properly.

They're obviously working on a device, and my theory is that someone fucked up by telling Kim Jong-il they were further along in the development than they actually were, and when it didn't look like it was going to work on Dear Leader's birthday, they just detonated a shitload of dynamite instead to cover their asses.

But I'm sure Kim Jong-il thinks he's got nuclear capacity.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:56 AM on October 9, 2006

Reading postroad's comment, I'll take a stab at it.

Here's the situation:

The US has a credibility issue in foreign affairs, the Iraq war at the very least in retrospect, seems pointless an unnecessary. Meanwhile Iran is acting in open defiance of the UN and continuing its nuclear enrichment programs.

At the same time, the US has a financial problem of epic proportions. We need cheap oil to keep the economy operating, and we need the Saudi and iddle eastern petrodollars to help buy down large part of the debt. At the same time, the US is faced with a true economic competitor of equal or greater size - China. The fact that we don't have price inflation in consumer goods is because the pegged Chinese currency, and the sheer magnitude of the quantity and diversity of products they make for export to the US, has kept the prices stable. We rely on China to take our dollars and buy up our federal debt with them also.

So we are entangled both in the oil rich mideast and in a symbiotic relationship with China that has obliterated domestic manufacturing but has also given us heretofore unknown low prices.

This is the background. Now NK sets off a nuke.

The US must now act simultaneously on two fronts, we have to deal with NK and we have to deal with Iran because they both present the same question at different levels of severity "We are doing X. What are you going to do about it?"

The danger is that China may decide that NK is too unpredictable, and intercedes in their country in some visible fashion. From a geopolitical standpoint, China is at the stage where it has to act international to defend its vital economic interests, at that means hegemony. Do they invade? Probably not. Do they cause trouble, foment unrest etc.? Undoubtedly.

On the otherhand, the US has to consider the possibility that NK is acting as a Chinese client state. China stands to gain a lot internationally by being the one who solves this problem over the US's failure to. So maybe they needle NK to detonate it, and they step in and talk NK back from the brink?

Who knows, but it doesn't matter from the US's standpoint, because the result in both cases is the same - a diminished global role and a diminshed perception of US power. If we can deal with NK when everyone in the region is ostensibly on our side, how are we going to deal with Iran, in a region where the local populations are probably more on Iran's side?

So what do you do? I think in the short term you kill them with kindness. You can't go in strong into NK and not expect a bloodbath and China to come in against you even covertly. So I think you give them the aid, whatever, but at the same time you start sending people in with the intention of (a) figuring out where the nukes and facilities are, and (b) preparing to take out their government. What you want to do is set up a situation where China has two choices - stand by and do nothing while South Korea (backed by the US of course) intervenes to preserve the political and civil order, or enter China and risk being perceived as an invader. In otherwords, let China get dragged into a morass.

At the same time, you have to give Iran an ultimatum. Drop the weapons program or it gets destroyed.

What will defeinitely be lost is the notion that the US will ever again invade a country and stay to establish a government etc. If the approach in Iran and NK are military, that's all they should be. Make it clear that the destruction is a consequence of something very specific that they did with respect to nuclear weapons, but let the locals pick up the pieces.
posted by Pastabagel at 6:59 AM on October 9, 2006

If this isn't about an elephant, I don't see how it could possibly be important at all.
posted by Effigy2000 at 11:53 PM EST on October 8 [+] [!]

You obviously haven't seen any recent pictures of Dear Leader.
posted by caddis at 7:01 AM on October 9, 2006

From CNN:

South Korea's state geology research center detected a 3.58-magnitude "artificial earthquake" in a remote area of North Korea's North Hamgyeong Province, according to the news agency. Judging from the seismic tremor, the center said the power of the explosion was equivalent to around a half kiloton of TNT explosives, Yonhap reported...

The U.S. Geological Survey Web site recorded a light 4.2-magnitude earthquake in North Korea at 10:35 a.m., about 385 kilometers (240 miles) northeast of the North Korean capital, Pyongyang.
posted by psmealey at 7:03 AM on October 9, 2006

Trinarian, re China: so they practice as much on the international scene Bah. See Aksai Chin and Arunchal Pradesh. They're perfectly happy to toe borders when they can get away with it; Darfur's just right there next to all the African natural resources they want access to.
posted by DenOfSizer at 7:03 AM on October 9, 2006

"Once again North Korea has defied the will of the international community, and the international community will respond"

Is that wordplay Mr Bush? Clearly the situation is escalating.
posted by cillit bang at 7:08 AM on October 9, 2006

If N. Korea had a fissable device, they would have detonated it outside for all to see the Might and Intelligence of Their Great Leader.

and ended up with fallout all over korea ... they are arrogant and stupid, but i don't think they're that arrogant and stupid

At the same time, you have to give Iran an ultimatum. Drop the weapons program or it gets destroyed.

at which point iran pulls the oil industry and much of the middle east, including iraq, down with it, causing chaos in that part of the world and a possible depression in the rest of the world

is it worth it?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:09 AM on October 9, 2006

bush still can't say 'penisula' correctly.
posted by brandz at 7:11 AM on October 9, 2006

Superdollar story via New York Times Link Generator
posted by metaplectic at 7:13 AM on October 9, 2006

"This is yet another abject failure of the Bush foreign policy of the first order. Clinton had negotiated a series of carrot and stick policies to keep North Korea from isolating the plutonium from the fuel rods of their nuclear plant."

What exactly is the point of turning this still ill-known event into bickering between the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties? Should we rename this place PartisanFilter? If you want to score points for your favorite U.S. corporate whore you should go to a partisan blog like Daily Koz or LGF.
posted by davy at 7:13 AM on October 9, 2006

North Korea's inclusion in the "axis of evil" was done for purely political and rhetorical reasons, not due to any coherent foreign policy rationale:

"After much cogitation, [speechwriter David Frum] hit upon the idea of likening what the United States has been up against since September 11, 2001, to the villains of the Second World War. The phrase he came up with was "axis of hatred." Higher-ups changed this to "axis of evil," to make it sound more "theological." Although Frum initially intended his "strong language" to apply only to Iraq, Iran was quickly added. (You can't have a single-pointed axis.)

North Korea was an afterthought. It got stuck in at the last minute, but Frum doesn't quite explain how or why. Perhaps it was meant to echo the global span of the original (Baghdad-Tehran-Pyongyang equals Berlin-Rome-Tokyo). Perhaps it was an application of the rhetorical Rule of Three (our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor; of the people, by the people, for the people; blood, sweat, and tears). Perhaps it was the product of intoxication brought on by an excess of moral clarity. Most likely, it was simply oratorical affirmative action, bused in to lend diversity to what would otherwise have been an all-Muslim list. One thing it was not was the product of careful policy deliberation."
posted by jonp72 at 7:13 AM on October 9, 2006

Okay, apparently I can't write anymore:


At the same time, you have to give Iran an ultimatum. Drop the weapons program or it (the weapons program) gets destroyed.


IRan can't credibly pull the plug on the oil industry. They need to sell it probably more than anyone needs to buy it. Oils is a commodity and we can get it from others. Oil is a $60 a barrel now. IF it goes to 90, we'll survive. It might be a recession, maybe, but the result for iran would be catastrophic.

Also, higher oil prices hurt China too, so to the extent that it is US policy to prevent China from emerging as a superpower competitor, this helps.

I'm realizing that the issue that china presents is quite unique. It's the first time that US national strategic interests diverge greatly from US commercial interests. I wonder how that tension plays out in US politics in the next ten years.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:19 AM on October 9, 2006

They need to sell it probably more than anyone needs to buy it.

The US isn't the only country that buys oil.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:25 AM on October 9, 2006

On BBC radio this morning (here in the US) they reported that the Russians detected activity that suggested an explosion in the 5 to 15 kiloton range. That's pretty contra to everything else that's being reported here, though.
posted by schoolgirl report at 7:38 AM on October 9, 2006

The relevant term here is critical mass. Less than a critical mass can't explode.

Well, that part I knew. I guess what I wasn't getting was your certainty, Steven, that a ~4-kiloton blast absolutely couldn't have resulted from a small plutonium blast that had exceeded critical mass. Again, maybe I've missed it, and please point me to it if I have, but where is there anything in this thread that justifies that kind of certain conclusion?
posted by mediareport at 7:45 AM on October 9, 2006

The US must now act simultaneously on two fronts, we have to deal with NK and we have to deal with Iran because they both present the same question at different levels of severity

This is BS. What distinguishes the 'nuclear threat' of these countries from the nuclear threat from our allies India and Israel?

There's nothing we 'must' do and this is demonstrated by Bush's recent nuclear deal with non-NPT-signatory India.

Non-proliferation is not a goal of the United States. Whether it should be has nothing to do with the fact that we promote nuclear weapons everywhere it fits our short-term interest.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:02 AM on October 9, 2006

Sheena Chestnut's "The Sopranos State" (link to a 2.7mb pdf) has some interesting thoughts on North Korea's nuclear ambitions around page 126.

I suspect this test is designed to attract potential customers for such a device. Menacing the region is just a happy accident.
posted by kickback at 8:03 AM on October 9, 2006

IRan can't credibly pull the plug on the oil industry.

sure they can ... with special attention paid to other countries' oil and not their own ... remember that we're dealing with religious fanatics here who would rather be poor than wrong

and there's another age-old motive at work ... "you may destroy my stuff, but i'm taking as much of your stuff with me as i go down"

Also, higher oil prices hurt China too, so to the extent that it is US policy to prevent China from emerging as a superpower competitor, this helps.

china is not likely to stand by idly and allow that to happen ... in fact, the most likely alternative to china as a superpower is china as a basket case ... which is not going to make the world a safer place

and it certainly won't help us maintain our economy ... like it or not, china is something we have to deal with ... and in the long run, that's more critical than anything we need to do with iran
posted by pyramid termite at 8:05 AM on October 9, 2006

north korea wants congratulations

they certainly have a lot of nerve, don't they?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:09 AM on October 9, 2006

A brief Korea primer from the Agonist, originally written in 2002 but still "spot-on" today, he says.
posted by mediareport at 8:20 AM on October 9, 2006

remember that we're dealing with religious fanatics here who would rather be poor than wrong

I think that's a total misread of the situation in Iran. The people in charge of the government there may be religious fanatics at some level, but they are not ignorant. They know that if the country is cast into economic turmoil, they will be overthrown faster than you can say Reza Pahlevi.

They know that instability in the region gives them extra oil revenue. This in turn, helps them buy more time to enable them to move their nuclear program forward. Once they are succesful with this, they believe this will give them indefinite protection from invasion.

I'm less worried about North Korea and Iran than I am if Musharraf should fall in Pakistan, and giving some truly dangerous people there control over some functioning nukes.
posted by psmealey at 8:25 AM on October 9, 2006

Blazecock Pileon writes "The US isn't the only country that buys oil."

Iran only selling to say China has practically no effect. All the countries are buying from basically the same pool. Embargo is the path of hurt.
posted by Mitheral at 8:32 AM on October 9, 2006

I don't understand why people seem so concerned with NK actually nuking part of the continental US. I'm sure they are totally aware that the result of that would be a fullscale nuke strike on NK. Mututally Assured Destruction still works in the 21st century, and despite what the US media might say, NK isn't totally nuts, just unbelievably repressive. They want this as a barganing chip and a weapon of last resort, they'll never use it offensively in a million years.
posted by freedryk at 8:32 AM on October 9, 2006

They know that instability in the region gives them extra oil revenue. This in turn, helps them buy more time to enable them to move their nuclear program forward.

that's their optimum strategy ... but if the u s should get violent with them, that strategy would no longer work and they would be likely to decide to upset the oil cart

it's called deterrence ... and the reaction of the people of iran to being attacked would probably override their reaction to economic turmoil, because the leaders would blame us for that
posted by pyramid termite at 8:34 AM on October 9, 2006

Well I feel fine.
posted by PenDevil at 8:36 AM on October 9, 2006

metaplectic: thanks much. Great article.
posted by Goofyy at 8:38 AM on October 9, 2006

It's not that Iran and NK both present a nuclear threat, it is that they are both openly defying the international community without a security council sponsor. That's the problem to deal with, not the threat (as you correctly point out, there are threats elsewhere too).

You can't deal with only one of them and not the other, because you need to send a very clear message on the point of nuke proliferation.

Arguably India and Israel (and Pakistan) went off the reservation, but they did so with at least the after the fact approval of a SC member (and before everyone starts accusing teh j3ws, Israel got it's nuke equipment and know-how from France, not us).

I agree that Pakistan is an x-factor, but I have a sneaky suspicion (based on nothing) that we know where Pakistan keeps everything, and should there be trouble, we'll know where to look.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:40 AM on October 9, 2006

And I'm taking it back. The equation is Mb = 4.262 + .973LogW, this works out to somewhere around .5 to 1kt.

It's a criticality failure, but just barely -- they missed maybe four (if you accept the USGS R4.2) or five (if you accept the SK R3.5) doublings, but it does appear to be a misfire. It's not a conventional explosion, we would have seen that quickly -- because of volume issues, exploding 500-1000 tons of TNT looks very different than exploding a nuclear weapon in the .5-1kt range.

However, the real question is what were they testing. If it was the basic U238 gun or P239 pit, it was a miss -- and I just don't see them having the data to build a mini nuke.

However, .5 to 1kt is still a big explosion, and if the package was a weapon, as opposed to a test article, they now have an effective nuclear weapon, if a weak one. Making a nuclear test bomb is one thing, making that into a weapon is another.

However, they may have tried to jump directly to deployable weapon, and it didn't quite work. One can sneer at 1000 tons of TNT, but it will still do a good deal of damage, and given the misfire, it would be a very dirty warhead indeed.
posted by eriko at 9:06 AM on October 9, 2006 [2 favorites]

Mitheral: Embargo is the path of hurt ... ing the poor and still not getting what you want. Hello Cuba, Hi Iraq.
posted by bonaldi at 9:18 AM on October 9, 2006

North Korea's inclusion in the 'axis of evil' was done for purely political and rhetorical reasons, not due to any coherent foreign policy rationale

The whole "axis of evil" thing was very irresponsible and misleading for any US president, and especially for a Yale History major like George W. Bush. The World War II Axis was named by Mussolini in 1936, and there was a formal treaty between Germany, Italy, and Japan. It wasn't a buzz phrase.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:20 AM on October 9, 2006

freedryk, that sort of rational thought does not serve the U.S. government's interests. Best to play the fear card.
posted by NationalKato at 9:25 AM on October 9, 2006

despite what the US media might say, NK isn't totally nuts, just unbelievably repressive.

OK. I think the burden of proof is on you to show that Kim Jong Il isn't "totally nuts". And to show it to the satisfaction of the people of Alaska.

I am not a warlike person. However, I believe there is a small window in time, after weapons of mass destruction have been tested but before they can be reliably used against US soil, when it is appropriate for the US to retaliate with massive force. I think that time may be fast approaching, and will possibly coincide with the DPRK making a successful Taepodong-2 test.

This is not Iraq.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 9:33 AM on October 9, 2006

And if you really think the US's political strategy in recent years has been to play up the threat of North Korea, I don't know what to say.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 9:36 AM on October 9, 2006

lol i said dong
posted by riotgrrl69 at 9:36 AM on October 9, 2006

I think that time may be fast approaching, and will possibly coincide with the DPRK making a successful Taepodong-2 test.

You're not warlike, but you'd yet advocate a pre-emptive "retaliation" with massive force? It's hard to imagine anything more warlike than that.
posted by psmealey at 9:37 AM on October 9, 2006

Well, if you're going to use force, I think Seoul would prefer it to be massive. What with them getting annihilated by artilliery and all. And I think Alaska would prefer it to be "pre-emptive". What with them being... yes, anyway.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 9:41 AM on October 9, 2006

This was an interesting little physics experiment and all the discussion about Richter scale, yields, criticality, etc is intriguing in a pornographic sort of way. But more importantly, this wasn't just a science experiment, it was a political event.

Bush tried to act as a tough guy, making threats about regime change even though he knew it was an empty threat. With all the weapons within a few miles of 10 million people in Seoul, there is nothing he could do militarily.

Now Korea has made a political statement that there will be no regime change, sticking its thumb in Bush's eye.

But the worse thing is that Korea has now put up the "for sale" sign for plutonium. About the only thing Korea has of value to sell these days are arms. They have had a thriving business shipping missiles to the rest of the world, but that is getting more and more difficult because smuggling something of that size is difficult.

Plutonium, on the other hand is trivially easy to smuggle. U235 emits gamma rays which will penetrate anything except thick layers of lead shielding weighing hundreds of pounds. Gamma rays can be easily detected a long distance away, making smuggling difficult. Plutonium emits primarily alpha particles that can be stopped by a sheet of paper. You could easily transport plutonium in a briefcase or diplomatic pouch without detection.

Plutonium is also relatively easy to produce. While U235 requires a huge centrifuge facility, you make plutonium by putting easily available but useless U238 into an electrical generating nuclear reactor and it magically transforms into all the plutonium you could want.

So while this test is an something that gets everyone's attention, the significant event occurred in 2002 when Bush's lack of diplomacy skills pushed the Koreans into removing the restraints on plutonium reprocessing.

When you have a situation in which you have no good options, as in Korea, the only thing left is containment. And containment works. It worked with the Soviet Union, it worked in Iraq and it worked in Iran. But to the Bush administration, containment is much too effete and was replaced with bravado. In just five years the Bush administration has made the world a much more dangerous place.
posted by JackFlash at 9:45 AM on October 9, 2006 [1 favorite]

What exactly is the point of turning this still ill-known event into bickering between the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties?

The point is that the GOP already let the partisan genie out of the bottle, when it comes to national security issues, in order to win the 2002 midterm elections. Just ask Max Cleland if you don't believe me. Bush's addition of North Korea to the Axis of Evil was a purely rhetorical and political move that made no sense as foreign policy either from a moral point of view (isn't Uzbekistan just as evil?) or a realpolitik point of view. The "Axis of Evil" bluster, in addition to the administration's abandonment of South Korea's "sunshine policy" (a policy which Colin Powell supported), are both policies that led us into the current mess, and they are both policies where the blame squarely rests with the GOP. Your critique might hold water if we were talking about a primarily bipartisan foreign policy debacle (e.g., the Vietnam War), but not in the current situation.
posted by jonp72 at 9:45 AM on October 9, 2006

Anyone who thinks China is going to take over North Korea is an armchair general of the lowest order. China has to keep its eye on the prize, namely Taiwain. But how to leverage the situation? Simple, make everyone else get a prize too.

Here is a list of the Asian-Pacific geopolitical prizes available to be won, those who covet them and what can be done to win them:

a) An end to the situation in North Korea; wanted by South Korea, The USA and Japan. To a much lesser extent China. This can be done through a balance of time, military force and massive humanitarian aid. Wait until Ban Ki-moon is head of the UN, giving time preparations of the South Korea/US military campaign and the UN spearheaded humanitarian aid.

b) A chance for South Korea to step up as a bigger player in the Pacific, if not the world; wanted by South Korea and the USA, and of course Ban Ki-moon. China is willing to accept this because:

c) The reunification of Korea will cost so much money that it will set back South Korea's economy the same way the reunification of Germany set back the German (and some say European) economy for 20 years. South Korea wants reunification (the politacal elite do at least), North Korea wants this (minus the political elite), the USA wants this (one less thing to worry about, chance for Bush to take credit for something), Japan wants this (it makes their touchy history with Korea seem just a little bit further in the past). Russia is the hardest one to guage on this point but I think they want it just to show that they can work with the US in certain circumstances and are still a global power.

d) The Humanitarian relief of North Korea; this is wanted by the whole world, but as a corollary this is especially wanted by Ki-moon as head of the UN to show that the United Nations is still useful and can be effective, to differentiate himself from Kofi Annan, and to show he's not just a shy guy. He'll be lucky in that he'll have the backing of China (remember Taiwan), Japan (free security council seat), South Korea and the United States because in exchange for US aid money Bush and Bolton will get:

e) United Nations Reforms; yup. A little money and the already very America friendly Ban Ki-moon will become a puppet to US reform in the United Nations. Lots of people want reform in the UN, but through the regime change and unification of Korea the US will get dictate exactly what reforms it wants in exchange. Ban Ki-moon will have no choice but to comply. Japan also benefits because it will get on the security council, while Russia will get some token gifts in exchange for being a diplomatic pal during the Six Party Talks and for not getting any other real prizes. Maybe it will get the US to convince Japan to let Russia keep those Japanese islands.

f) A legacy for Bush; Bush gets a shiny star for his last two years as president, gets to say he made the world a safer place by fighting the very definition of terror, gets to give at least one example where pre-emptive strikes works, although that's more of a prize for Cheney and doesn't really have to get his hands too dirty because he'll use the US backed Korean army for all the dirty work, with assistance in the form of stealth bombings, military intelligence, etc. The US also gets close the book on Taiwan (was always a part of China, 'nuff said).

g) regional stability; you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs, and to settle Korea and Taiwan would be a real coup. I just worry that China will get really heavy handed with Taiwan, but I bet they could do it as well as Hong Kong if they play their cards right.

You may say that all this talk is nice but doesn't amount to squat because of the sticky military situation between South and North Korea. It's true, this is not an easy puzzle to solve, but I bet you that: if you wait until winter it'll be easier to win the hearts and minds of North Koreans with food, fuel and freedom. I think that if you pump billions of dollars of goodwill at the border you'll have no problem getting the touchiest region to lay down their weapons. Of course, you only get one chance at a thing like this, and plans to evacuate Seoul, and to esure the least amount of retaliation would have to be executed effectively. Hmm... turkey is ready, that's all for now.
posted by furtive at 9:47 AM on October 9, 2006 [1 favorite]