Comments on: A Second Test? https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/11/a-second-test/ Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:26:34 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 By: Gridlock https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/11/a-second-test/#comment-429 Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:26:34 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/a-second-test/#comment-429 Any sign of radionuclides yet? Not seen any updates on this, but the alignment of the Russian announcement (5-15Kt) with the amount of pu needed for this yield (4kg?) and the actual measured results (0.55kt?) would strongly suggest a fizzle.. Are govs laying off calling it a failure to pre-empt a possible second test?

]]> By: Lab Lemming https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/11/a-second-test/#comment-428 Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:52:08 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/a-second-test/#comment-428 ve posted a geologist’s view of yesterday’s <a href="http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-tell-earthquake-from-nuclear.html" rel="nofollow">earthquake</a></p> <p>and Monday’s <a href="http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2006/10/seismology-of-nuclear-test.html" rel="nofollow">test</a></p>]]> I’ve posted a geologist’s view of yesterday’s earthquake

and Monday’s test

]]> By: lawnorder https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/11/a-second-test/#comment-427 Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:34:33 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/a-second-test/#comment-427 Australia news has some details. Apparently an earthquake

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20561827-601,00.html

]]> By: Alex https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/11/a-second-test/#comment-426 Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:26:01 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/a-second-test/#comment-426 Sort of sad that the decades-in-the-making North Korean nuke was a few orders of magnitude smaller tham some routine earthquake in the Sea of Japan.

]]> By: Andy https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/11/a-second-test/#comment-425 Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:53:14 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/a-second-test/#comment-425 t use ships based on the US east coast (like the Eisenhower), especially when we have a carrier strike group based in Japan and the large portion of the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.</p>]]> The reports of ship deployments are routine. Besides, if the Navy was going to institute a blockade of North Korea, it wouldn’t use ships based on the US east coast (like the Eisenhower), especially when we have a carrier strike group based in Japan and the large portion of the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.

]]> By: Springbored https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/11/a-second-test/#comment-424 Wed, 11 Oct 2006 05:56:40 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/a-second-test/#comment-424 The NK test puts all the Naval deployment orders…for ships capable of engaging in blockade operations to be prepped and ready to go by early October…in a new perspective, no?

Perhaps intel IS doing a good job. Maybe somebody in DC is shining a light on—or at least reading timely dispatches from—the old Hermit Kingdom…

]]> By: tfisb https://totalwonkerr.net/2006/10/11/a-second-test/#comment-423 Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:11:42 +0000 http://www.totalwonkerr.net/a-second-test/#comment-423 USGS says there was a 5.8 – off the east coast of Honshu, Japan

]]>