Author Topic: Nuke or Not?  (Read 4139 times)

birdman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,831
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2016, 04:50:34 PM »

So commenting on what you can, question on the "good small one": From what you say of the yield, I infer there is a difficulty or physical barrier to producing a small H bomb. What are the physical parameters that have to be overcome to make a viable small H bomb vs building a "conventional" H bomb?

I would have the same fears as Bill regarding a "portable" H bomb. That seems like a pretty good setup for asymmetrical warfare on the terrorist state side.

Another possibility is that I wonder what the payload capacity of the NorKo SLBM is? Maybe they're miniaturizing to get the most bang for the buck from that platform?

I mean small in terms of yield (a good small yield is hard, a shitty small yield is easy) but physical small is also hard.

Other than that, I wont/can't/shouldn't/couldnt comment further, especially on design.

Other than:
You mean ICBM, the norks don't have an SLBM

As for portability, literally -any- weapon you want to use on an aircraft or missile is "portable" in a vehicle for what you describe.  It's -extremely- hard to make a nuke man portable, and even then, it's stretching the definition of man and portable.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,135
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2016, 05:12:26 PM »

Other than:
You mean ICBM, the norks don't have an SLBM

I thought they recently launched a ballistic missle from one of their subs?
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

KD5NRH

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,926
  • I'm too sexy for you people.
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2016, 05:13:50 PM »
As for portability, literally -any- weapon you want to use on an aircraft or missile is "portable" in a vehicle for what you describe.

Well, within reason.  I mean, my idea of a C5 completely packed full of pigs in high-dispersion suicide vests with little radar altimeters to aerosolize them at 10 feet AGL ain't going to fit in your U-Haul.

(And yes, I realize radar altimeters are overkill and I should just use an impact switch on a 10 foot cord, with some sort of kite tail on the pigs to keep them behind the trigger.)

birdman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,831
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2016, 06:31:38 PM »
I thought they recently launched a ballistic missle from one of their subs?

Attempted to, and it looks like an SS-n-6 or copy...not surprising as many believe they have a few of those, if not are building them themselves as copies.

Big step from where they are to an operational slbm.  That's why I said they don't have one.
ICBM, they have one.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,135
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2016, 06:47:48 PM »
Attempted to, and it looks like an SS-n-6 or copy...not surprising as many believe they have a few of those, if not are building them themselves as copies.

Big step from where they are to an operational slbm.  That's why I said they don't have one.
ICBM, they have one.

Ah, gotchya.

What's the difference between the SS-n-6 and a true SLBM?
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

birdman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,831
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2016, 08:07:21 PM »
Ah, gotchya.

What's the difference between the SS-n-6 and a true SLBM?

Nothing.  It's just a really old, really short range one that they got from other places and are using.  It's throw weight is really limited, and it's range more so. 
So while yes, it's an SLBM, it's utility to them as such is questionable...
Think about it this way:
1. We are -really- good at hunting modern subs
2. We are galactically amazing at hunting shitty subs...except limited range diesel boats in littoral waters
3. The boats we have trouble with can't get close enough to hit us with that type of SLBM
4. If they used SLBMs, they would be taking something rare and valuable to them (compact warheads) and putting them in the easiest place possible for us to wack them.

Hence, my opinion that any push on that front is "hey look what we can do with shiny thing" typical nork behavior.  -especially- when it's "take missile we bought from someome and do exactly with it what it has done hundreds of times...except we will fail at it."

So it's more telling they can't make a proven, nearly 50 year old fully vetted and delivered item do what it's supposed to, rather than any risk.

Now, taking that missile and making a better one on a land mobile platform?  That's strategically valuable as it keeps their jewels close and protected.

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #31 on: January 08, 2016, 02:52:27 PM »
Waveform analysis for the unique double-hump spike always indicative of nuclear tests, and focusing on intensity of the two primary seismic waves (factoring coupled vs. uncoupled, etc):

http://thebulletin.org/seismic-waves-north-korea-suggest-repeat-2013-nuclear-test9042
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"

230RN

  • saw it coming.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,914
  • ...shall not be allowed.
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2016, 05:38:10 PM »
Had to look up "Constant Phoenix."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_WC-135_Constant_Phoenix

Gathered it was a research plane from context, but wanted details.

Good ole Wiki.  For those us not immersed in that stuff on a daily basis.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 11:24:39 AM by 230RN »
WHATEVER YOUR DEFINITION OF "INFRINGE " IS, YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT.

KD5NRH

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,926
  • I'm too sexy for you people.
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2016, 06:15:33 PM »
Can't we just give them some really good if slightly flawed data that will let them build the next Tsar Bomba while thinking they're just doubling their yield?  Let them blow themselves up and then we can point and laugh instead of having to justify swatting the annoying mosquito.

birdman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,831
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2016, 06:46:15 PM »
Can't we just give them some really good if slightly flawed data that will let them build the next Tsar Bomba while thinking they're just doubling their yield?  Let them blow themselves up and then we can point and laugh instead of having to justify swatting the annoying mosquito.

Well, that would literally be giving away the farm.

Easier would be the good ol' castle bravo oops..."regular lithium is just fine...no need to use Li6 enriched"
...oh wait, Li7(n,n)T,alpha.  Oops.  (And island goes away)

dm1333

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,875
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #35 on: January 11, 2016, 07:22:25 PM »
Country is starving and that sawed off bastard wants a WMD.  Great use of your resources there,  short round.

Isn't the country starving because of him?

And his father before him?  I doubt either gave a flying f*ck for Joe Schmo the average NK.

Andiron

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,930
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2016, 12:29:37 AM »
Isn't the country starving because of him?

And his father before him?  I doubt either gave a flying f*ck for Joe Schmo the average NK.

Which is the odd part, because enough of them are brainwashed into being ok with starving while little kim lives the high life and dicks around with nukes.
"Leftism destroys everything good." -  Ron

There is no fixing stupid. But, you can line it up in front of a wall and offer it a last smoke.

There is no such thing as a "transgender" person.  Only mental illness that should be discouraged.

AmbulanceDriver

  • Junior Rocketeer
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,933
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #37 on: January 12, 2016, 12:56:55 AM »
Well, that would literally be giving away the farm.

Easier would be the good ol' castle bravo oops..."regular lithium is just fine...no need to use Li6 enriched"
...oh wait, Li7(n,n)T,alpha.  Oops.  (And island goes away)

Not sure exactly why, but for some reason the way you phrased that just made me laugh my butt off....
Are you a cook, or a RIFLEMAN?  Find out at Appleseed!

http://www.appleseedinfo.org

"For some many people, attempting to process a logical line of thought brings up the blue screen of death." -Blakenzy

never_retreat

  • Head Muckety Muck
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,158
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2016, 09:56:52 PM »
Could they have been trying for something geared towards emp?  [tinfoil]
I needed a mod to change my signature because the concept of "family friendly" eludes me.
Just noticed that a mod changed my signature. How long ago was that?
A few months-mods

T.O.M.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,409
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #39 on: January 12, 2016, 10:18:12 PM »
Just curious if the short little commie bastard will try and get into bed with ISIS.

Can't see this happening.  Shorty thinks he is a god. Doubt your average Islmic Extremist would go along with that point of view.  Maybe sell them a spare nuke, but he's doesn't exactly have a surplus of nukes lying around....I hope.
No, I'm not mtnbkr.  ;)

a.k.a. "our resident Legal Smeagol."...thanks BryanP
"Anybody can give legal advice - but only licensed attorneys can sell it."...vaskidmark

KD5NRH

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,926
  • I'm too sexy for you people.
Re: Nuke or Not?
« Reply #40 on: January 18, 2016, 02:34:14 AM »
Could they have been trying for something geared towards emp?  [tinfoil]

Wouldn't they need electricity to know if it worked?