North Korean Hydrogen Bomb??
 

North Korea nuclear test: regime says it has successfully detonated hydrogen bomb

What we know so far

North Korea claims it has successfully detonated a miniaturised hydrogen bomb.

The underground test took place on Wednesday at 10am local time (1.30am GMT/Wednesday 12.30pm AEDT/Tuesday 6.30pm ET) at a known nuclear test site at Punggye-ri, in the east of the country. An announcement on state television claimed the test “worked perfectly” and was “self-defence against the US having numerous and humongous nuclear weapons”.

If true, this would be North Korea’s fourth nuclear test, and its first using a hydrogen bomb, significantly more powerful than an atomic bomb. There has been no independent verification of North Korea’s claims.

An artificial earthquake of magnitude 5.1 was detected close to Punggye-ri. The UN organisation monitoring the world for signs of nuclear testing confirmed it had detected “an unusual event in the Korean peninsula”...............

Should we believe North Korea’s claims to have tested a hydrogen bomb?

John Carlson, the former head of Australia’s nuclear safeguards and non-proliferation Office, said the veracity of the claim would be difficult to determine “until we can analyse any gases emitted, and it could take several days for those to show up, if it all”.

He said it would be a “major challenge” for the North Korean regime to develop a thermonuclear weapon, particularly a miniaturised version, which required even greater expertise. “Their claim would be far more convincing if it was a larger size,” he said.

Carlson, who headed Australia’s safeguards office for more than two decades, said it was possible Pyongyang had actually produced a lower-yield “boosted explosion”, in which the hydrogen isotope tritium undergoes partial fusion, allowing them to describe the device as a hydrogen bomb. “I think it’s feasible that they’ve done that and they’re claiming that they’ve done more,” he said.

If NK have used a boosted fission weapon to join the "megaton club" then they wouldn't be the first. The UK did much the same during the early "Grapple" trials in May 1957 exploding a large boosted fission warhead (Orange Herald) to cover the fact that the true two-stage device (Short Granite) had massively underperformed. It took another 6 months or so to detonate a genuine radiation implosion two-stage weapon.

Quite ironic that, if true, Corbyn has appointed an anti-Trident Shadow Defence Secretary on the same day. Wonder if Dave was on the blower to the Supreme Leader asking if he could let off a firecracker?

Now, if only it led to a giant sink hole under Pyonyang...

.....or Westminster.

With a bit of luck, the nuke test will lead to a major sinkhole or earthquake occurring over the border in China - resulting in financial/personnel losses in that country - and some very angry Chinese leaders will hot-foot it to Pyongyang to put the Little Fat Wun over Chinese knees for a good paddling.

Can't really blame NK for pursuing Nuclear weapons after witnessing how gullible the electorate were with Iraq and how the US&A don't need a reason.

Along with hundreds of UK service deaths, ISIS, chalk this against Teflon Tony's other great successes.

This is really up there with the weirdest response ever. What the hell are you gibbering about ??

Bit complicated for you???

Your knee jerk cracks at folks on the western side of the pond are understood, but why you threw that into this thread may not be clear to all posters here.

You're drawing a very long bow there, Ms Viaduct. Despite the machinations and hidden agendas of numerous devious Western political leaders - the leadership of NK is a deviant family of thugs who will utilise any justification to proceed down a path of aggrandisement, provocation, and upscaling of armaments, to ensure constant sabre-rattling, that reinforces their dictatorial position.

Nothing that any Western political has done, or could do - good or bad - would alter this familys stance, nor the stance of its militaristic supporters, one iota.
They would regularly find offence at some approach or attitude, by anyone, to ensure that they have reason to up the armaments development and pressure.

One can only hope that some sudden, unforeseen event transpires, that results in the sudden destruction of this evil family group and their coterie. With some luck, that will be the premature explosion of one of their evil advances in armaments.

We all know they're a bit cuckoo in NK, but the point's well made that these days, the school bully prefers to kick sand in the faces of those who it judge will be unable to kick it back.

Now, I know, quite a lot of countries have turned out to be jolly good at resisting the advances of the cousins- but if one has nukes, maybe the cousins will call on someone else instead?

It's perfectly rational thinking, and such a mindset has definitely been encouraged by recent history.
Let us not forget that General MacArthur had dozens of Atom bombs actually pre-positioned to Korea and would likely have been reaching for the matches and the blue touch-paper to melt large areas of North Korea, had he not been sacked.

I'm no apologist for Kim, but you can kinda see where he's coming from, can't
ya?

It's what the shrinks call 'learned behaviour'.

AtomKraft
 

If Uncle Sam wants to interfere with a country and considers it important enough to do so, there are a number or ways to do so. An open invasion is nice and impressive but an internal uprising has its merits too.

Plus the good old MAD doctrine functions only in large scale - a country with two or three or even 10 weapons and no suitable long range delivery vehicles has little chance against an army with the nuclear arsenal the size of the US.

Rwy in sight.
Perhaps it would be better all round if "when Uncle Sam wants to interfere with a Country" he just left it alone.

Instead perhaps, just interfering with himself.

Btw, Uncle Sams 'open invasions' usually end with Sam getting his ass kicked, however impressive they look at the start

Call me 'old fashioned', if you will? ;)

Per the streetwise Professor

Beyond that, our local ally (South Korea) is not keen on invading north. That alone makes "US invades the North" contingent upon serious aggression by the North as a prequel. The Kim family know that.

Lonewolf is correct - I've been around the table a few times with South Koreans and they all have a different take on the North - some want to free their fellow countrymen, some want to do down a dictator, some don't want to risk a war and some think the standard of living of everyone would go though the floor

It's always been a pretty even spread of views TBH

I see what you mean. Those D-day invasions on Omah, Utah, etc beaches all ended in a major asswhooping of the USA. And all those invasions of all those islands in the Pacific resulted in the same thing. And that invasion of occupied Kuwait? Same thing. Those crazy Americans just never learn.

"Uncle Sams 'open invasions' usually end with Sam getting his ass kicked, however impressive they look at the start

Call me 'old fashioned', if you will?"

I won't call you any names, but it's not the invasions that get Sam's ass kicked (as KenV noted so well), its the mistaken notion that we can win hearts and minds and create a stable, just democratic government for someone else after failing to win their hearts and minds. We still have this hopeless "counter-insurgency/nation-building" myth filling our doctrine. I'm not sure anyone has ever really succeeded with a counter-insurgency. If they have, the US certainly hasn't learned the lesson from them. The best nation-building we have done was actually nation-restoring - the Marshall Plan. Perhaps one can point to Gen MacArthur's beneficent role in post-war Japan as a success, I won't argue against it, but that was a very atypical situation.

We needed to go into Afghanistan after 9/11. We should have done what we needed to and then got out. We should not have kept getting our brave and obedient troops killed trying to hold the walls up. It just doesn't work.

NK is a dangerous place in a world increasingly full of dangerous places. A wacko having authority over nuclear weapons is nightmare matched only by a group of thugs like ISIL having it.

The invasion of Mexico in 1846-1848 ended up in defeat of its army and a following peace treaty that passed a nice chunk of territory out of the hands of a corrupt feudal society based on Latin/South of the alps social models, and into the hands of a modestly corrupt, Enlightenment/North of the Alps society.

This is from an objective point of view the best thing that could have happened for Europe other than the Union winning and preserving the Union during our civil war.


Had it not, this large ally for our various associates across the pond would not have had the heft to help you all over in Europe in your attempts at destroying Western Civ in WW I and WW II.

You're welcome.

The UK during the Malay emergency