Comments on: Norks Threaten Nuke Test https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/03/norks-threaten-nuke-test/ Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:31:19 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 By: CKR https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/03/norks-threaten-nuke-test/#comment-362 Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:31:19 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/norks-threaten-nuke-test/#comment-362 m still not convinced that NK even has a testable device.</p> <p>Tom, the issue would be how the shaft is backfilled (or “stemmed"), and a longer shaft would allow for more backfilling.</p> <p>A longer shaft might allow for hiding the blast signature in various ways. This would be important, particularly if the device didn’t live up to expectations.</p> <p>In fact, I doubt that NK would announce a date certain for a test, just in case of a complete fizzle.</p> <p>It seems to me that a tunnel, rather than shaft, would be preferable for NK. They have lots of mountains and lots of experience in building tunnels. I’m also wondering how ROK intelligence could tell the depth of the shaft.</p>]]> Paul, like you, I tend to believe that this announcement is more for the purpose of getting attention than indicating the liklihood of a test. I’m still not convinced that NK even has a testable device.

Tom, the issue would be how the shaft is backfilled (or “stemmed”), and a longer shaft would allow for more backfilling.

A longer shaft might allow for hiding the blast signature in various ways. This would be important, particularly if the device didn’t live up to expectations.

In fact, I doubt that NK would announce a date certain for a test, just in case of a complete fizzle.

It seems to me that a tunnel, rather than shaft, would be preferable for NK. They have lots of mountains and lots of experience in building tunnels. I’m also wondering how ROK intelligence could tell the depth of the shaft.

]]> By: Andy https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/03/norks-threaten-nuke-test/#comment-361 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:40:27 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/norks-threaten-nuke-test/#comment-361 s par for the course for North Korea though.</p>]]> I find it funny that in virtually the same breath North Korea says it will test a nuke, but work toward denuclearization of a peninsula where they are the only nuclear weapon State. That’s par for the course for North Korea though.

]]> By: Richard https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/03/norks-threaten-nuke-test/#comment-360 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:04:05 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/norks-threaten-nuke-test/#comment-360 . <br />It is then also a reconfirmation that a roughly 20 kt device will be used.</p>]]> Usually it is said that for a modest 20 kt device a 400 m deep shaft ensures containment. So to be on the safe side (venting or seeping often occured), they just doubled the value roughly.
So this is meant with ‘where safety is firmly guaranteed’.
It is then also a reconfirmation that a roughly 20 kt device will be used.

]]> By: Stephen https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/03/norks-threaten-nuke-test/#comment-359 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:33:31 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/norks-threaten-nuke-test/#comment-359 The DPRK statement mentions sanctions and pressure.

Do you think this statement could in part be a response to the additional sanctions Japan and Australia placed on North Korea back in mid-September?

Story

]]> By: Tom https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/03/norks-threaten-nuke-test/#comment-358 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:22:17 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/norks-threaten-nuke-test/#comment-358 s general regard for the environment I would assume it’s more geared towards limiting the intelligence that can be gather than saving the fluffy bunny rabbits but realistically how big a reduction in airborne sampling capabilities would increasing the shaft length produce?</p>]]> Hehe… nice Airplane reference.

but with regards to this quote:

“He said the vertical shaft was more than twice as long as would be necessary, interpreting that as a desire by North Korean scientists to reduce the risk of atmospheric fallout.”

Given the DPRK’s general regard for the environment I would assume it’s more geared towards limiting the intelligence that can be gather than saving the fluffy bunny rabbits but realistically how big a reduction in airborne sampling capabilities would increasing the shaft length produce?

]]>