Quantcast

North Korean Nukes, FOBS, and EMP attack

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
1,196
The nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack threat is great when a backwards nation like North Korea, one which would not suffer as tremendously from a retaliatory EMP attack as a much more advanced nation like the US, has the capability to launch an EMP attack on the more advanced nation thereby making a symmetric response from the more advanced nation impossible.

Worse still would the ability of that backwards nation to carry out a surprise attack using what would appear to be the harmless orbiting of a satellite via a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS), a ruse which would likely prevent the use of the US layered ABM system which would most certainly be sent against any missile payload on a threatening ballistic path. The only deterrent is the hopeful realization by NK military and government leaders that such an attack would be a certain death sentence for THEM, an important point since they obviously don't really care about the well-being of their own citizens.

Time to Take North Korean Nuke Threats Seriously
May 8, 2017

https://www.newsmax.com/PeterPry/emp-nuclear-pyongyang/2017/05/04/id/788094/

Excerpt:

Academics and press pundits, who typically know nothing about EMP, mistakenly assert that a high-yield megaton-class (1,000 kilotons) nuclear weapon is needed for an EMP attack, whereas North Korea’s most powerful test was between 20 to 30 kilotons. But a high-yield weapon is not necessary to make an EMP attack.

I am looking at an unclassified U.S. Government chart that shows a 10-kiloton warhead (the power of the Hiroshima A-Bomb) detonated at an altitude of 70 kilometers will generate an EMP field inflicting upset and damage on unprotected electronics.

On April 30, South Korean officials told The Korea Times and YTN TV that North Korea’s test of a medium-range missile on April 29 was not a failure, as widely reported in the world press, because it was deliberately detonated at 72 kilometers altitude.

72 kilometers is the optimum burst height for a 10-Kt warhead making an EMP attack.

According to South Korean officials, "It’s believed the explosion was a test to develop a nuclear weapon different from existing ones." Japan’s Tetsuro Kosaka writes in Nikkei, "Pyongyang could be saying, 'We could launch an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack if things get really ugly.'"

The April 29 missile launch looks suspiciously like practice for an EMP attack. The missile was fired on a lofted trajectory, to maximize, not range, but climbing to high-altitude as quickly as possible, where it was successfully fused and detonated — testing everything but an actual nuclear warhead.

The missile was launched from near Pyongyang, North Korea’s capital, and detonated not far away, over North Korean territory. A nuclear warhead detonated at 72 kilometers altitude would generate an EMP field with a radius of about 930 kilometers, covering all of North and South Korea and reaching far out to sea.


-----

I'll add to the above that if the missile were instead aimed between South Korea and Japan, it could affect both countries with EMP and avoid affecting North Korea. HOWEVER, that trajectory would expose the missile to US ABM systems. Further, I suspect the trajectory taken during the test was one of a "suicidal" strike which could be done as a surprise due to the otherwise non-threatening path of the missile with the additional benefit for NK that it would not be exposed to or, at least, fired upon by US ABM systems due to that non-threatening path. This NK launch if done with a nuclear device onboard would have the same ruse advantage as a FOBS before that much more advanced system is developed. If true, very clever.

The Soviet Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) Program (with photos)

https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Sov-FOBS-Program.html

Dr. Peter Pry, chief of staff of the Congressional EMP Commission, has said that that Soviet system, now deactivated by treaty, was intended to carry out a surprise EMP attack on US military command and control systems via the detonation at orbital altitude of a nuclear warhead that was launched on an orbital, not ballistic path.

North Korea’s FOBS
by Ambassador Henry F. Cooper
April 11, 2014

Ambassador Henry F. (Hank) Cooper is Chairman of the Board of High Frontier, a non-profit, non-partisan educational corporation, formed to examine the potential for defending America against missile attack.

https://highfrontier.org/april-11-2014-defeat-north-koreas-fobs/

The Electromagnetic Pulse Commission Warns of an Old Threat with a New Face (North Korea)
August 3, 2004

https://www.heritage.org/defense/re...ic-pulse-commission-warns-old-threat-new-face
 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
1,196
North Korea’s Missile in New Test Would Have 4,500 km Range
MAY 13, 2017, 9:09 PM EDT

https://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/north-koreas-missile-in-new-test-would-have-4500-km-range

North Korea launched a missile in a test early in the morning of May 14, North Korean time. If the information that has been reported about the test are correct, the missile has considerably longer range than its current missiles.

Reports from Japan say that the missile fell into the Sea of Japan after traveling about 700 km (430 miles), after flying for about 30 minutes.

A missile with a range of 1,000 km (620 miles), such as the extended-range Scud, or Scud-ER, would only have a flight time of about 12 minutes if flown on a slightly lofted trajectory that traveled 700 km.

A 30-minute flight time would instead require a missile that was highly lofted, reaching an apogee of about 2,000 km (1,240 miles) while splashing down at a range of 700 km. If that same missile was flown on a standard trajectory, it would have a maximum range of about 4,500 km (2,800 miles).

New press reports are in fact giving a 2,000 km apogee for the test.

This range is considerably longer than the estimated range of the Musudan missile, which showed a range of about 3,000 km in a test last year. Guam is 3,400 km from North Korea. Reaching the US West Coast would require a missile with a range of more than 8,000 km. Hawaii is roughly 7,000 km from North Korea.

This missile may have been the new mobile missile seen in North Korea’s April 15 parade. It appears to be a two-stage liquid-fueled missile.



 

markkoelsch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,364
Reaction score
148
Anyone not taking NK seriously is foolish.

There are options. None are particularly great.
 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
1,196
"You must be joyous.. or else!" NK TV channel on the latest test, tolerable because of the many still images shown starting at 1:27; launch video at 5:01; telemetry/trajectory screens shown at 9:00 followed by many happy generals thinking "At least I don't get shot today!":

[video=youtube;n0vhO8k3QjE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0vhO8k3QjE[/video]

From the latest Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/) email:

The Hwasong-12 is a liquid-fueled single-stage missile with a liquid divert and altitude capability for accuracy of targeting on its bus capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. It was launched from a transportable erected launcher (TEL) of which it was disengaged from the mobile platform before it was launched. The Hwasong-12 was one of four new missiles displayed in that April 15th parade that had not seen testing; two of the four were new ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missile) and the third, a new maneuverable SCUD short-range ballistic missile.

The Hwasong-12 proved reliability in a liquid-fueled propellant without stabilizing fins like those used on the North Korean liquid fueled Musudan missile that currently struggles with reliability. Further, the Hwasong-12 proves out a first-stage liquid-fuel capability for a North Korean ICBM or intermediate-range missile. The Hwasong-12 marks the second successful lofted trajectory this year following the February 12 North Korean solid-fueled Polaris-2/KN-15 missile launch off a mobile platform.

The lofted trajectory intentionally skirts the lateral distance restrictions by going vertically rather than horizontally while also providing maneuver space for reentry angles of the warhead in creating reliability for surviving the heat from the high speeds of reentry. [In other words, this was a highest heating RV test - W]

In following the North Korean rhetoric drumbeat of launching a missile every week
and a president-elect in South Korea last week this new missile would have been planned for quite some time. However, it is perceived, the second launch and success of a North Korean lofted trajectory ballistic missile test is very close to crossing the threshold of retaliatory action by the United States, Japan and Korea for the precedent enables increased accelerated pace of North Korean nuclear ballistic missile development and deployment.

The Hwasong-12 significantly moves North Korea closer to having surprisingly demonstrated capability to strike the United States that is being first seen and introduced only in a parade less than a month ago.
 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
1,196
I wonder if they use four verniers because the guidance code can then be mostly similar to the crude SCUD-level method they normally use even on their solid propellant missiles - four exhaust deflection vanes.

 

markkoelsch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,364
Reaction score
148
I wonder if they use four verniers because the guidance code can then be mostly similar to the crude SCUD-level method they normally use even on their solid propellant missiles - four exhaust deflection vanes.

Winston, I think it likely four is easier than say three. We have seen it here with a couple different vertical guidance projects- the math/programming for three is likely more complicated.
 

Zeus-cat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
4,595
Reaction score
800
I think the goals of all North Korean ambitions are 1) to be taken seriously and be regarded as an equal in world matters that are important to them, to get concessions to make life better for the NK elite, and 3) to make the U.S. and allies look foolish.

Kim may seem like an idiot, but he is not. He is ruthless and power hungry. He constantly pushes the limits to see what he can get away with. Does attacking the U.S., South Korea or Japan benefit him? Most likely not, for if the attack were serious the response would be devastating. He has to know he can't win a real war. However, he can use nuclear weapons like most countries do; simply threaten to use them. Does it make more sense for the U.S. to give in to his petty demands or to call his bluff and risk a major war?

The big question is what will China do for its ally? If the Chinese stand behind him no matter what, we really don't have a lot of options. And right now, the Chinese will stand behind him as they desperately want North Korea to be a buffer between their border and South Korea, Japan and the U.S. Like the Russians in the Cold War, the Chinese can't tolerate a border with a free Korea. And they also can't tolerate a failed state if North Korea implodes. Either way, they have thousands of people streaming across the border; into China if North Korea fails. Or out of the country if the Koreas unify under South Korean leadership. The Chinese will do a lot to prevent either of these things from happening.
 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
1,196
I think the goals of all North Korean ambitions are 1) to be taken seriously and be regarded as an equal in world matters that are important to them, to get concessions to make life better for the NK elite, and 3) to make the U.S. and allies look foolish.
Actually, the goal is primarily to prevent regime change and, secondarily, to get trade/aid concessions. Ask Saddam and Gaddafi what happens when you give up your nuclear weapons programs. Oh, wait, you can't. They're both dead.

Kim Jong-un has gone much further in the direction of Chinese/Vietnamese "Commie Capitalism" than any of his predecessors and that is supposedly a factor behind his many executions of military and party officials due to their displeasure with disruptions this can cause to their corrupt individual gravy trains and power bases. Unfortunately, he hasn't gone nearly far enough in the Commie Capitalism direction. HOPEFULLY, NK eventually evolves into at least the China and Vietnam models before the SHTF.

Everything You Need To Know About North Korea's Most Successful Missile Launch
The missile fired was displayed a month earlier during North Korea's military parade.

MAY 15, 2017

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...t-north-koreas-most-successful-missile-launch



As an aside, I was recently reading a 1985 Los Alamos analysis of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear yields, the best estimate of the yield at Hiroshima is 15kt (Nagasaki is 21kt) and wondered based upon that how much mass was actually converted to energy in that explosion, something which I did not see in that report because it wasn't the topic of the study.

To my amazement, when I tried "kilotons tnt to joules" on Google to see if there was a Google converter for this as there are for many other measures, there was!

Using the Google converter:

15 kt = 6.276e+13 joules

E=mc^2 where m (mass) is in kilograms and c (speed of light) is 3x10^8 m/s and solving for m:

m = E/(c^2)

m = 6.276 x 10^13/((3 x 10^8)^2) = 6.276 x 10^13/9 x 10^16 = 6.963 x 10^-4 kg

m = 0.6963 grams!

So, while the claims that only 2% of the U235 in the Hiroshima device actually fissioned are impressive due to the amount of destruction from such a small amount, far more impressive is the fact that the conversion of a mere 0.6963 grams (0.0246 oz) of matter to energy destroyed much of a city.
 

Peartree

Cyborg Rocketeer
Staff member
Administrator
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
5,361
Reaction score
846
Location
Alliance, Ohio
So, while the claims that only 2% of the U235 in the Hiroshima device actually fissioned are impressive due to the amount of destruction from such a small amount, far more impressive is the fact that the conversion of a mere 0.6963 grams (0.0246 oz) of matter to energy destroyed much of a city.
Truly impressive.

For those folks who still struggle to visualise how small a gram is, the best reminder from common usage (at least to me) is to remember that a nickle weighs five grams.
 

Cl(VII)

Chris Bender, Lab Rat
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
4,597
Reaction score
840
Location
Garland, TX
Actually, the goal is primarily to prevent regime change and, secondarily, to get trade/aid concessions. Ask Saddam and Gaddafi what happens when you give up your nuclear weapons programs. Oh, wait, you can't. They're both dead.

Kim Jong-un has gone much further in the direction of Chinese/Vietnamese "Commie Capitalism" than any of his predecessors and that is supposedly a factor behind his many executions of military and party officials due to their displeasure with disruptions this can cause to their corrupt individual gravy trains and power bases. Unfortunately, he hasn't gone nearly far enough in the Commie Capitalism direction. HOPEFULLY, NK eventually evolves into at least the China and Vietnam models before the SHTF.

Everything You Need To Know About North Korea's Most Successful Missile Launch
The missile fired was displayed a month earlier during North Korea's military parade.

MAY 15, 2017

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...t-north-koreas-most-successful-missile-launch



As an aside, I was recently reading a 1985 Los Alamos analysis of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear yields, the best estimate of the yield at Hiroshima is 15kt (Nagasaki is 21kt) and wondered based upon that how much mass was actually converted to energy in that explosion, something which I did not see in that report because it wasn't the topic of the study.

To my amazement, when I tried "kilotons tnt to joules" on Google to see if there was a Google converter for this as there are for many other measures, there was!

Using the Google converter:

15 kt = 6.276e+13 joules

E=mc^2 where m (mass) is in kilograms and c (speed of light) is 3x10^8 m/s and solving for m:

m = E/(c^2)

m = 6.276 x 10^13/((3 x 10^8)^2) = 6.276 x 10^13/9 x 10^16 = 6.963 x 10^-4 kg

m = 0.6963 grams!

So, while the claims that only 2% of the U235 in the Hiroshima device actually fissioned are impressive due to the amount of destruction from such a small amount, far more impressive is the fact that the conversion of a mere 0.6963 grams (0.0246 oz) of matter to energy destroyed much of a city.

EDIT of EDIT: Another way to look at the destructive power.

Most of the matter is not destroyed in U235 fission (U235 + 1 Nu fission gives K92, Ba141 & 3 Nu particles...only about 0.2 amu of matter is consumed in the event).

1 atom of U235 + 1Nu fission of the type in the atomic bombs yields 202.5 MeV = 3.24x10^-11 J
15kt = 6.276x10^13 J
6.02x10^23 atoms/mol
1 mol U235 = 235g

So... 6.276x10^13/3.24x10^-11 = 1.937x10^24 atoms

1.937x10^24/6.02x10^23 = 3.218 mol

3.218 * 235 = 756.2 g U235

For an idea of size, the density of Uranium is ~ 19.1 g/cm^3

756.2/19.1 = 39.6 cm^3 or about the volume of 1/10th of a soda can.
 
Last edited:

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
1,196
I'm not sure, but I don't think this is the correct calculation. Most of the matter is not destroyed in U235 fission (U235 + 1 Nu fission gives K92, Ba141 & 3 Nu particles...only about 0.2 amu of matter is consumed in the event).

EDIT: Found it.

1 atom of U235 + 1Nu fission of the type in the atomic bombs yields 202.5 MeV = 3.24x10^-11 J
15kt = 6.276x10^13 J
6.02x10^23 atoms/mol
1 mol U235 = 235g

So... 6.276x10^13/3.24x10^-11 = 1.937x10^24 atoms

1.937x10^24/6.02x10^23 = 3.218 mol

3.218 * 235 = 756.2 g U235

For an idea of size, the density of Uranium is ~ 19.1 g/cm^3

756.2/19.1 = 39.6 cm^3 or about the volume of 1/10th of a soda can.
No, 0.6963 grams (696.3 milligrams) is correct:

Numbers: Nuclear Weapons, From Making a Bomb to Making a Stockpile to Making Peace

https://discovermagazine.com/2010/jul-aug/24-numbers-nuclear-weapons-bomb-stockpile-peace

"The amount of matter converted to energy in the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 700 milligrams, less than one-third the mass of a U.S. dime."

Before I found that confirmation by Discover magazine and before I even made my post above, I did a related calculation to confirm it using 100% antimatter/matter annihilation and got the same result.
 

Cl(VII)

Chris Bender, Lab Rat
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
4,597
Reaction score
840
Location
Garland, TX
No, 0.6963 grams (696.3 milligrams) is correct:

Numbers: Nuclear Weapons, From Making a Bomb to Making a Stockpile to Making Peace

https://discovermagazine.com/2010/jul-aug/24-numbers-nuclear-weapons-bomb-stockpile-peace

"The amount of matter converted to energy in the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 700 milligrams, less than one-third the mass of a U.S. dime."

Before I found that confirmation by Discover magazine and before I even made my post above, I did a related calculation to confirm it using 100% antimatter/matter annihilation and got the same result.
Yes, that is the amount of matter that gets converted to energy, but isn't the amount of Uranium needed to supply that matter. Most of the Ur nucleus isn't destroyed it is converted to other particles. We are both actually saying the same thing. You are speaking in terms of only what is destroyed, and I am speaking in terms of the amount of the entire nuclei it came from.
 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
1,196
Yes, that is the amount of matter that gets converted to energy, but isn't the amount of Uranium needed to supply that matter. Most of the Ur nucleus isn't destroyed it is converted to other particles. We are both actually saying the same thing. You are speaking in terms of only what is destroyed, and I am speaking in terms of the amount of the entire nuclei it came from.
Wasn't that exactly what I said, the amount of matter converted to energy? By golly, it was. You know why that was the figure I bothered to calculate and quote here? Because that is the astoundingly amazing one. 696 milligrams of matter converted to energy destroyed a city.

Your first post began with the claim that my calculation wasn't correct. It was. And while your calculation of the amount of U235 required to fission to convert that much matter to energy is interesting, it wasn't what I was after.

In your second post you then move the goal post as if it was by saying, "Yes, that is the amount of matter that gets converted to energy, but isn't the amount of Uranium needed to supply that matter." As I said, that's what I was after, not the amount of Uranium which needed to fission to accomplish that. My 2% U235 fissioned comment was, as I implied, claims made by others which I didn't attempt to confirm because that's not what I was after.
 

Cl(VII)

Chris Bender, Lab Rat
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
4,597
Reaction score
840
Location
Garland, TX
I believe you are reading a malice that was not intended. As someone who spends a lot of effort trying to lay-proof scientific information I wanted to speak to a really common misconception about nuclear fission I have heard, and that is the idea that you can get the total energy of any fission event by using E=mc^2 where m is the mass of fissile material. In any event I see where you are/were coming from, and my intent was only to frame the matter to energy conversion within the context of a uranium fission device which was the context of the 15 kton start of the calculation. Like I said, I see where you were coming from, and I have edited the my original post to reflect what I was really trying to convey.

Sorry for the offense. Life is too short for interwebs arguments.
 
Last edited:

Cl(VII)

Chris Bender, Lab Rat
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
4,597
Reaction score
840
Location
Garland, TX
I believe you are perceiving a perception of malice that isn't there. :)
This is one reason interwebs conversations descend so often into anarchy, no way to tell tone. :handshake:

Either way you look at the matter needed for the 15 kton explosion it is an amazing (and terrifyingly) small amount of material needed to level a city and end countless lives. There is a lot of pent-up energy in the universe.
 
Last edited:

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
1,196
The primary threat to the US imposed by any hostile nation with ANY kind of nuclear weapons and crude delivery capability, especially a country with a crude, undeveloped civilian technological infrastructure of its own like North Korea's, is an ASYMMETRIC one - the hostile nation can carry out an extremely damaging and costly EMP attack on the US, directly killing no one during the attack, while the US cannot respond precisely in kind.

The only protection is ballistic missile defense which definitely has huge disadvantages against a large attack, but which can do the job against an adversary with very limited numbers of ICBMs:

https://www.mda.mil/system/system.html

This is the web page of the guy responsible for much of the content on the excellent Wikipedia page on EMP. He summarizes the huge amount of tech data and reports on the topic on his excellent site and provides innumerable links to those reports:

https://www.futurescience.com/emp/

From one of those pages:

Nuclear EMP is actually an electromagnetic multi-pulse. The EMP is usually described in terms of 3 components. The E1 pulse is a very fast pulse that can induce very high voltages in equipment and along electrical wiring and cables. E1 is the component that destroys computers and communications equipment and is too fast for ordinary lightning protectors (although devices that are fast enough are routinely being produced, but are rarely used in the civilian infrastructure). The E2 component of the pulse is the easiest to protect against, and has similarities in strength and timing to the electrical pulses produced by lightning.

The E3 pulse is very different from the E1 and E2 pulses from an EMP. The E3 component of the pulse is a very slow pulse, so slow that most people would not use the word "pulse" to describe it. The E3 component lasts tens to hundreds of seconds, and is caused by the nuclear detonation heaving the Earth's magnetic field out of the way, followed by the restoration of the magnetic field to its natural place. The E3 component has similarities to a geomagnetic storm caused by a very severe solar storm.

Elaborating using his other web page content, as a general rule even very low yield nuclear weapons can cause damaging E1 pulses over very large areas while the E3 pulse which can destroy electrical power distribution grids requires high yield weapons.

With our consumer electronic items using ever tinier components, they are becoming ever more susceptible to E1. Comm infrastructure like cell phone towers are only, to my knowledge, protected against lightning strikes which the E2 pulse has a similar characteristics to, but protection which the much faster rise time E1 pulse would get by.

On the Hardtack-Yucca balloon shot which proved the E1 threat from very low yield nuclear devices:

https://www.futurescience.com/emp/EMP-history.html

https://www.futurescience.com/emp/YuccaBalloon.gif

The result of that test:

The much higher-frequency components of the Yucca E1 high-altitude EMP meant that the energy was somehow being concentrated into a very fast-rising narrow pulse. Calculations have shown that the area covered by the Hardtack-Yucca EMP should have been within a radius of approximately 350 miles (565 km.) from ground zero.

Many non-scientists still argue that EMP requires multi-megaton weapons. That first indication of the dramatic effects of high-altitude EMP, however, was obtained by a weapon of only 1.7 kilotons launched by a primitive helium balloon in 1958.
(and at a FAR less than optimum burst height! - W)

A video of that test is linked to below. What is interesting is that there is audio on this video whereas the same video found on YouTube has no narration, usually indicative of censorship of classified content at least in the other released nuclear test report videos. As far as I can tell, nothing that isn't known from the test report he quotes from on the related web page is heard in the video, so I think this may have been a case of "Censor anything about the nasty EMP effects of very low yield weapons detonated at far less than ideal altitudes" while the information had already been released by someone else in another form, the text report. Also interestingly, the image in the video is the only image I can find of the W-25 warhead itself although I've only done a very short Google search for it.

https://www.futurescience.com/emp/Yucca.wmv

From the video, the W-25 warhead used:



The warhead used in the AIR-2 Genie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie



About the W-25:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W25_(nuclear_warhead)

The W25 is 17.4 inches (44 cm) in diameter and 26.6 inches (68 cm) long, with a reported weight of 218-221 pounds (98.8 - 100.2 kg) .[3]

The W25 was described as a composite pit (utilizing both uranium and plutonium), unboosted, and the first US sealed pit design. A sealed pit means that a solid metal barrier is formed around the pit or nuclear material components inside a nuclear weapon, with no openings. This protects the nuclear materials from environmental degradation and helps reduce the chances of their release in case of an accidental fire or minor explosion.
 

dhbarr

Amateur Professional
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
1,458
EMPs don't strictly require nukes.
 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
1,196
EMPs don't strictly require nukes.
Yep, but for really widespread damage they do because of the energy required.

US CHAMP project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power_Microwave_Advanced_Missile_ Project

[video=youtube;0mjua2e8Y7k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mjua2e8Y7k[/video]

China's new microwave weapon can disable missiles and paralyze tanks

https://www.popsci.com/china-microwave-weapon-electronic-warfare

On ballistic missile defense:

We Don't Know Much About the Fitzgerald Collision and That Seems Odd - Authorities have been tight-lipped about the accident and the strange details we do know have quickly giving rise to conspiracy theories
June 19, 2017

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...t-the-fitzgerald-collision-and-that-seems-odd

What's interesting besides the cargo ship's highly bizarre, radical maneuvers which seem to be leading up to an intentional collision with the Fitzgerald is something that the mainstream media isn't mentioning anywhere I can find but which the Ballistic Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance has mentioned: the USS Fitzgerald is assigned to that area as part of the ballistic missile defense system against North Korea.
 

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
1,196
NK missile success: "By most accounts at this time, the missile's range if it were to have flown a shallower, range-optimized launch profile would be somewhere between 4,000 miles and 5,000 miles. This would put the missile either just inside the top-end of the intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) category, or more optimistically at the bottom of the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) category."

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ile-flight-as-us-says-it-spied-on-launch-site

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ean-awes-with-massive-missile-capability-leap





U.S. and South Korea Say 'We Have Missiles Too!' (conduct joint excercise drill firing missiles)

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-u-s-and-south-korea-say-we-have-missiles-too

ATACMS launched giving a nice shot of what I assume can be taken to be the ATACMS deployed color scheme. I'd have thought it would be olive drab (OD) although since it's containerized, why OD?:



South Korean Hyunmoo-2A launch photo below (looks very much like a Russian 9K720 Iskander / SS-26 Stone)

According Aviation Week: "Russia or other former members of the U.S.S.R. seem to be likely partners. South Korea is relying on Russian technology for its space-launcher program. Hyunmu 2 looks much like the Russian Iskander short-range ballistic missile, one version of which can reach 500 km."



Ruskie version:



Nice launch video of US/SK launches:

[video=youtube;grGKscNTbEQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grGKscNTbEQ[/video]

However, for a HEMP attack, one doesn't need a long range missile. Here's a video of an Israeli system recently tested, undoubtedly to send a message to their local adversaries. The Russians have a nice CGI video on YouTube of the version of something similar they want to build.

Israel Just Launched A Containerized Ballistic Missile From The Deck Of A Ship
Long-range weapons the size and shape of shipping containers can turn almost any ship quickly into an impromptu missile boat.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...zed-ballistic-missile-from-the-deck-of-a-ship

[video=youtube;8NN2yI5bGYE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NN2yI5bGYE[/video]
 

XolveJohn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
340
Reaction score
5
So if the ISS orbits at about 200 miles, Kim could have shot it down!

It is time NASA develops a defense. Maybe fab one more shuttle into a cruise missile, and fly it into his house.

How much longer are we going to put up with this nuts antics? It is time for real action. War or not, the longer we wait,

the more severe will be the penalties. Take him out! :bangpan:
 

RIB

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
The question remains: Did the reentry vehicle survive reentry? The first two Soviet R-7 "successes" ended with the reentry vehicles destroyed. If they can't get the re entry vehicle to the target, all they have is a big expensive firecracker.
 

XolveJohn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
340
Reaction score
5
Well, it is not as hard as they say, if you have a carbon-carbon cone. Note do not search on that or try to buy some from Grainger, you will end up on a gov list. I heard they are steered by altering the CG. NK will not have the proper inertial guidance units unless the bozo's that gave them the nuke and missile tech provide it. We can fly half way around the world and hit something within 30' or so, not too easy. There is some sensor ball floating in fluid. Of course with a nuke they only have to get within 10 miles to cause problems.rv.jpg

On subs, all the missiles have 2 windows. Once a year, a laser is shined thru them, of all the missiles, and a device tied to the subs guidance platform. It aligns the missiles to the sub. So they know where they are. Scary stuff.

And on nukes, maybe a gram is used up when detonated with fission bombs, but fusion ones use up all the fuel.

The H-bomb is like an engine with a fuel tank. The first one used liquid deuterium, looked like a big water heater.

They are like a star, keep burning fuel until it runs out. Warhead designers actually study stars.
 

jderimig

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,302
Reaction score
728
They are like a star, keep burning fuel until it runs out. Warhead designers actually study stars.
Actually I understand that there are no fusion bombs in our arsenal. They are all boosted fission devices. There are fusion pits that generate a massive amount of neutrons that fissions much much more of the fission material increasing yield. Even the U238 fissions and adds significant yield in this arrangement.
 

Nytrunner

Pop lugs, not drugs
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
7,773
Reaction score
3,404
Location
Huntsville AL
Actually I understand that there are no fusion bombs in our arsenal. They are all boosted fission devices. There are fusion pits that generate a massive amount of neutrons that fissions much much more of the fission material increasing yield. Even the U238 fissions and adds significant yield in this arrangement.
If by boosted fission you're referring to a Teller-Ulam device, I could stretch to see what you mean, but the role of the fissable portion is just to start the larger fusion reaction (which causes the most damage). Since that fusion reaction generates most of the device's destructive......product?......I would classify that as a fusion weapon.

In fact, modern weapons reach this direction in an attempt to Reduce the amount of radioactive byproducts created by fission weapons.
 

jderimig

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,302
Reaction score
728
"Information about the W88 has implied that it is a variation of the standard Teller–Ulam design for thermonuclear weapons. In a thermonuclear weapon such as the W88, nuclear fission in the primary part causes nuclear fusion in the secondary part, which results in the main explosion. Although the weapon employs fusion in the secondary, most of the explosive yield comes from fission of nuclear material in the primary, secondary, and casing.[5]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88

This was (and similar references) is the source of my statement that most of the yield is due to fission.
 

Nytrunner

Pop lugs, not drugs
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
7,773
Reaction score
3,404
Location
Huntsville AL
When it comes to numbers, I generally don't trust public internet sources like wiki and nuke archive for information about modern nuclear weapons. That being said, I consider any warhead that employs fusion (primary or secondary) a fusion warhead.

In your eyes this is only boosted fission, and that's fine. But to say the US has no fusion weapons is inaccurate in my opinion.

The only logical way to end this is to trek over to Pantex, ask them to drop one on us, and report on whether the fission or the fusion hurt more :cool:
 

Peartree

Cyborg Rocketeer
Staff member
Administrator
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
5,361
Reaction score
846
Location
Alliance, Ohio
When it comes to numbers, I generally don't trust public internet sources like wiki and nuke archive for information about modern nuclear weapons. That being said, I consider any warhead that employs fusion (primary or secondary) a fusion warhead.

In your eyes this is only boosted fission, and that's fine. But to say the US has no fusion weapons is inaccurate in my opinion.

The only logical way to end this is to trek over to Pantex, ask them to drop one on us, and report on whether the fission or the fusion hurt more :cool:
Most of us do not know, or understand (even those of us with science and engineering backgrounds) the physics well enough to quibble. We just refer back to the way that we learned it:

Uranium = Atomic bomb = fission
Plutonium = Hydrogen bomb = fusion

I realize that this lacks "finesse" but it works.
 

markkoelsch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,364
Reaction score
148
If by boosted fission you're referring to a Teller-Ulam device, I could stretch to see what you mean, but the role of the fissable portion is just to start the larger fusion reaction (which causes the most damage). Since that fusion reaction generates most of the device's destructive......product?......I would classify that as a fusion weapon.

In fact, modern weapons reach this direction in an attempt to Reduce the amount of radioactive byproducts created by fission weapons.
A Teller Ulam device is a fusion bomb.
 

Nytrunner

Pop lugs, not drugs
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
7,773
Reaction score
3,404
Location
Huntsville AL
A Teller Ulam device is a fusion bomb.
Thats my interpretation as well.

As Peartree wisely points out, this isnt my area of expertise, and I have no interest in stoking the fires of debate over thermonuclear semantics.

Although when jderimig and I have our nuke tasting party, you're more than welcome to join us as a 3rd opinion! ;)
 
Top