North Korea: Kim Jong Un observes missile-ready hydrogen bomb

[Auxora]

It sounds like anecdotal reports from people that felt this and prior tests are also confirming that this test was much larger than the prior ones.

[PACOX]

NK is clearly being helped

[Skroe]

Its big. Around 100kt would be at the low end of the US arsenal for dial-a-yield warheads (though they go much lower). Most US warheads are around 300kt-400kt. Our biggest warheads (bombs actually) are 1.2Mt.

This is I think a time worth reminding folks that size doesn't matter nearly as much as you may when it comes to a nuclear explosion. The first generation of thermonuclear warheads built by the US and Russia were enormous, and they tested even larger ones. 5Mt, 10Mt, even 20Mt were all part of the arsenals. However the blast radius of a nuclear explosion isn't nearly as large as one may think. While one nuclear warhead could destroy downtown Los Angeles, it would take dozens to destroy the greater Los Angelas Metro area. Nuclear explosions are big. But the sprawl of human civilization is gargantuan.

Large nuclear warheads certainly have bigger blast radius than smaller ones, but the purpose of that in the 1950s and 1960s was to make up for the lack of precision in the warheads and bombs at the time. If your warhead or bomb was going to miss it's target by 1 or 2 kilometers (which was the Circular Era probable of the warheads of of the time), then it better have a 5+ kilometer blast radius to hit its target even if it is "off" by an enormous amount.

By contrast, the next era of Nuclear Warheads the US is beginning to work on, to replace the legacy Cold War systems, will all be by far the smallest nuclear warheads built since the dawn of the nuclear age. But with modern guidance, GPS and "superfuses", they'll be by far the most precise, which makes them the most potent. It will also be consistent with the trend of the major nuclear powers since the 1970s - as their guidance systems became more precise, the warhead yields got far smaller.

For an in-depth article discussing this, read this link: http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclea...ing-super10578


With respect to North Korea, the important part is the technical hurdles it had to leap to get here. The magnitude is less important, besides perhaps hinting at a lack of precision. If North Korea builds and deploys 5 Megaton warheads in coming years, and there is no reason why they couldn't at this point, it indicates a lack of confidence in the precision of their warheads.

[Venant]

Its big. Around 100kt would be at the low end of the US arsenal for dial-a-yield warheads (though they go much lower). Most US warheads are around 300kt-400kt. Our biggest warheads (bombs actually) are 1.2Mt.

This is I think a time worth reminding folks that size doesn't matter nearly as much as you may when it comes to a nuclear explosion. The first generation of thermonuclear warheads built by the US and Russia were enormous, and they tested even larger ones. 5Mt, 10Mt, even 20Mt were all part of the arsenals. However the blast radius of a nuclear explosion isn't nearly as large as one may think. While one nuclear warhead could destroy downtown Los Angeles, it would take dozens to destroy the greater Los Angelas Metro area. Nuclear explosions are big. But the sprawl of human civilization is gargantuan.

Large nuclear warheads certainly have bigger blast radius than smaller ones, but the purpose of that in the 1950s and 1960s was to make up for the lack of precision in the warheads and bombs at the time. If your warhead or bomb was going to miss it's target by 1 or 2 kilometers (which was the Circular Era probable of the warheads of of the time), then it better have a 5+ kilometer blast radius to hit its target even if it is "off" by an enormous amount.

By contrast, the next era of Nuclear Warheads the US is beginning to work on, to replace the legacy Cold War systems, will all be by far the smallest nuclear warheads built since the dawn of the nuclear age. But with modern guidance, GPS and "superfuses", they'll be by far the most precise, which makes them the most potent. It will also be consistent with the trend of the major nuclear powers since the 1970s - as their guidance systems became more precise, the warhead yields got far smaller.

For an in-depth article discussing this, read this link: http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclea...ing-super10578


With respect to North Korea, the important part is the technical hurdles it had to leap to get here. The magnitude is less important, besides perhaps hinting at a lack of precision. If North Korea builds and deploys 5 Megaton warheads in coming years, and there is no reason why they couldn't at this point, it indicates a lack of confidence in the precision of their warheads.

Your information is outdated, the earthquake was a 6.3 which means over a megaton

[Deleted]

Its big. Around 100kt would be at the low end of the US arsenal for dial-a-yield warheads (though they go much lower). Most US warheads are around 300kt-400kt. Our biggest warheads (bombs actually) are 1.2Mt.

How many md (megadeath currency to count nuclear bomb victims) do these kt/mt bombs equal to roughly? And what purpose do these different bombs have?

[Shadowmelded]

Your information is outdated, the earthquake was a 6.3 which means over a megaton

The guy he's quoting already mentioned that in part 3 of the chain. He then goes on to use a better equation.

[Faldorian]

Supposedly there is a "major" announcement by North Korea at 0230 EST.

[Skroe]

NK is clearly being helped

Probably by Russia. And that's not being Anti-Russia. That's geography. Consider this map.




What's Russia's chief geopolitical goal? In part shared by China? To push the United States out of Eurasia. The foundation of US foreign policy since 1918 has been preventing the rise of hegenomic powers in Eurasia that threaten our interests, and eventually our security. Twice in the last 100 years the United States has directly acted in line with that interests, first in World War II against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, then again in the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

Russia however, views itself is intrinsically a hegemon of it's near abroad, which is Eurasia. So for Russia to be hegemonic in its border lands, it needs to push the US, which surrounds it, out.

So what does this map show? Exactly how Russia is doing that.

First and foremost, in Eastern Europe and the Russian border, Russia masses most of its military forces there. Putting Anti-Air / Area Denial (A2/AD) in Eastern Europe, via S-400 and INF Treaty breaking ballistic missiles, ensures that the United States and its European allies cannot pose a credible military threat to the most important part of Russia's domain (where it is closest to as well). Furthermore Crimea plays a key role in this. Why? Because Russia's weakest point from the cold war to this day has been it's soft underbelly which is difficult to defend and easily attackable by air. This is why Turkey has long been such a vital US ally. Putting A2/AD in Crimea does this:




Next up is the Middle East. This continues Russia's shield building. Namely putting A2/AD in Syria (the red circle on my map above) does this:



Overall it makes it very difficult for the US to operate in Turkey and attacking Russia from it, without first dealing with Syria. A few days ago, Syria joined Russia's integrated air defense.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...fense-networks


Going Eastward, we run into the yellow circle on my map, Iran. Iran which is receiving Russia's S-300 system, has it's own nuclear and ballistic missile program, and has been protected by Russia for years. Iran being Iran, prevents the US from operating close there. More wall for Russia.


Going eastweard still, we encounter the blue circle. Pakistan, India and Afghanistan. Central Asia is very difficult for the US to operate out of, and the US has no plans and infrastructure to be able to strike Russia from Afghanistan, but it's so isolated, and located in a tinderbox of it's own (Pakistan/India) that the very "depth" of Centra Asia acts as kind of a wall (consider: the US has to resupply mostly through air and through land routes via Pakistan). Russia is also arming the Taliban lately.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/asia/t...tan/index.html


Continuing on, we encounter China. China and Russia have their own, significant major security rivalry that I won't get into, but for the purposes of this explanation, it's in effect, a gigantic wall. The US can't operate anywhere near Russia's south-eastern Flank, because China is there.

WHich leaves us the North-West Pacific... Japan and the Koreas. South Korea and Japan are some of the most built up US defense infrastructure in the world, and the US is only going to be building it up further to guard against China. Leaving the US to its own devices in the region would make it the only section of the Russian-"virtual US border" that is unguarded. That seems unlikely. Rather, Russia, like it did during the Cold War (as the USSR), is using North Korea the same way it is using Iran. As a major strategic headache for the US that will, they hope, force US forces in the region to adopt more costly and more elaborate defense positions, that in time, will encourage the US to pull back to Guam, and even Hawaii (as is China's hope).

Russian assistance of North Korea, especially given the similarity with that Soviet-era engine with North Korea's, would greatly service Russian security. A major Conflict in the Koreas would sap money and manpower chiefly from Europe, where Russia's most important interests and security conditions lie. Again, the exact same rationale of the Soviets in the 1950s and 1960s.

That map, in otherwords, represents Russia's grand plan to end a second American century prematurely, and roll back the post-World War II liberal international order. If successful, the US will be unable to project power outside of North and South America for the most part, and will be isolated from the places that most of the world's economy and populations live. In other words, it would be a gigantic reset button the order of the world in the 19th century, where America was essentially the rich hermits on the other side of a very big pond, quirky, but not a major player.

I respect the brilliance of Russia's plan. It's the right thing for them to do. We should (and are going to) still smash it to pieces and make them eat the shards of it, but it's smart.

As a matter of fact, we don't know if Russia is helping North Korea or not. But consider the engine. Consider the history in the Early Cold War. Consider Putin's psychology and goals. Consider the map. If they aren't helping the North Koreans, it would be absolutely in their interests to do so. If they are, which given the circumstantial evidence is possible, then it's entirely consistent with legitimately everything else they've been doing. It would also explain, by the way, why North Korea hasn't been too responsive to Chinese pressure tactics, such as it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Your information is outdated, the earthquake was a 6.3 which means over a megaton

It's not.
https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk

I just cut the tweets where he used a different equation. I'll put the entire thread here so you can see what I mean"



The yield depends on the equation. Initial ones came in at a Megaton. Later ones came in at lower. The difference doesn't matter though because the weapon design is the same.

[Venant]

The guy he's quoting already mentioned that in part 3 of the chain. He then goes on to use a better equation.

Jeffrey Lewis is a policy wonk who has a bias when it comes to downplaying the state of NK nuclear weapons. These tweets are absurd and aimed at minimizing the impact of what is potentially a huge development. Why else do you suppose he would use 'I have to go to sleep' as an excuse to not respond to further developments, considering this is a pretty big story that relates directly to his field.

- - - Updated - - -

The yield depends on the equation. Initial ones came in at a Megaton. Later ones came in at lower. The difference doesn't matter though because the weapon design is the same.

And you are quoting a guy who has consistently downplayed the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation in China and North Korea.

[Skroe]

How many md (megadeath currency to count nuclear bomb victims) do these kt/mt bombs equal to roughly? And what purpose do these different bombs have?

For the US? The modern US nuclear arsenal was designed in the 1970s and 1980s. They got gradually better across that 20 year span, but all of them replaced their predecessors which were the big, dumb thermonuclear bombs I was referencing. Advances include gradually smaller sizes (they're roughly 1 meter tall cones now), dial-a-yield capability, better gudiance systems and saftey features. One safety feature for example is the conventional explosives used to initiate a nuclear reaction. Explosive material ages over time and "goes bad". It needs to be safely disposed of and replaced. Some are senitive to movement or other shocks. The early "modern" warheads used some of these volatile explosives while later ones didn't. It was just progress of the technology.

Furthermore the warheads were linked to specific programs. The US's most advanced warhead, the W88, was part of the Navy's Trident II SLBM. The W87 warhead on the 1980s era Peacekeeper MX was later placed on the Minuteman III after the Peacekeeper was retired (it could also carry the W88).

Another reason, and the reason for the US building three new independent warhead designs, is design security. What if the US made one design, and used that one warhead on all bombs and missiles? What if that warhead's plans were stolen and a way to disable them were found? WHat if a design flaw was located and they had to be taken out of service? The US would have no arsenal until it could design a replacement, which could take years. By having multiple warhead designs, even if one design is "compromised" in some way, two other warhead types can continue to serve.


It's worth explaining why the US wants to modernize as well. It's 1980s design particularly are regarded by experts as being the pinniacle of nuclear weapon design. The reason is cost. Right now the US operates 7 types of nuclear warheads with another 6 types in hedge storage (which means they'd be used in an exchange to some degree). That means a huge and expensive army of maintainers and facilities, each for each type of warhead. It's very expensive. The new plan, which will be completed by 2040, will consolidate the warhead types to 5 from 7, and scrap most of the hedge stockpile. It'll save billions of dollars over the next few decades.

The history of US strategic defense since the end of the Cold War is very interesting because it is very informative about how the Pentagon likes to spend its money. They call the nuclear mission their most important, but they hate spending money on it. Because they're spending money on something that will essentially never get used, unlike a ship or fighter, that will get used, even if its not for attacking Russia or China. So they've had strong incentive to control costs... spent the precise amount they need to and not a dollar more. So for example when the Ohio class was Ballistic Missile Sub was entering service, the Navy rapidly retired its predecessor class, even though they could have served years more, just as to not pay for the annual operating costs of this entirely different class. And they rapidly retired the Trident I SLBM when the Trident II entered service. And perhaps the best story, is that the Air Force retired the very advance (and enormous) Peacekeeper MX ICBM and took their warheads and put them on their older predecerssor, the Minuteman III, which they then modernized, because the the US decided to only put one warhead on it's ICBMs (and keep their SLBM's with multiple warheads), and the Peaceekeper was too big, too expensive and not numerous enough compared to the smaller, cheaper Minuteman III.

[Kellhound]

In 1952 the US dropped a 500kt yield fission bomb. At this junction in time there is no way to tell if the NK bomb was fission or thermonuclear. We also have zero evidence of its physical size or weight, and NK lacks the ability to deliver a very heavy warhead.

[Skroe]

And you are quoting a guy who has consistently downplayed the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation in China and North Korea.

As a Trumpkin I wouldn't expect you to understand this, but math tells plainer stories than the works of fiction you're accustomed to.

Case in point:

He provided the equation.

But regardless your man looks like an idiot yet again for this kind of thing:



Oh look. The National Security Adviser and Secretary of Defense don't want to piss off a crucial US ally, at exactly the time the reason we're allies detonated an H-Bomb.

You sure know how to pick winners Venant. Fucking christ. Thank God that along with General Kelly, the Triumvirate to Save America is there to protect civilization from your kind's serial rank incompetence, starting with the joke-in-chief himself.

[Shadowmelded]

These tweets are absurd and aimed at minimizing the impact of what is potentially a huge development.

Oh, you can read his mind can you?

Why else do you suppose he would use 'I have to go to sleep' as an excuse to not respond to further developments, considering this is a pretty big story that relates directly to his field.

Why do you automatically assume it's an excuse? You got proven wrong, just take it like an adult, no need to get hysterical.

[Skroe]

Oh, you can read his mind can you?


Why do you automatically assume it's an excuse? You got proven wrong, just take it like an adult, no need to get hysterical.

I think Venant "had to go to sleep" too.

Talk about your thermonuclear irony.

[Skroe]

Lol. The dumbest part is, the guy didn't even say he was going to sleep, he was putting his kids to sleep. He started tweeting again like 30 minutes later.

How dare he place his children over the unwashed twitter masses!

[Shadowmelded]

Actually I misread, last part of the tweet chain does say he's going to bed, oh well. Still no reason to assume it's an excuse.

[Skroe]

@Venant
South Korea says 100 kilotons too. It's okay, you can still start sobbing and hide under your bed all the same.

[Nihilist74]

[Fat Mac]

Ohhhhhhhh shit! Look at that door, dude. See that door there? The one marked "Pirate"? You think a pirate lives in there?

[Nihilist74]

Ohhhhhhhh shit! Look at that door, dude. See that door there? The one marked "Pirate"? You think a pirate lives in there?

Charlie Kelly: Wait, you followed me all the way home?
Sun Li: [nods]
Charlie Kelly: So, you saw me eat that Hot Pocket out of the trash?
Sun Li: [nods]
Charlie Kelly: You got any... feelings about that?
Sun Li: [shakes her head no]
Charlie Kelly: Wow, I like you, come on in.