How big of a threat is North Korea?

[QuantumTheory]

At CNN.com:
Shortly after the U.S. response, the Pyongyang diplomat, Han Song Ryol, said six-nation talks were over and that the real issue is whether the United States intends to attack North Korea.

North Korea has offically annouced that it has nuclear weapons for self defence.

-----

How big of a threat is this? tommarrow, I will be 17. I plan on working at a nuclear power plant (What fields would I have to know in colleage for this?), and/or NASA. I'm really paranoid that North Korea will nuke us or japan, I thought I'd post it here because .. well the subject is Nuclear Engineering and you people seem to know a lot about nuclear power. If korea did bomb us, what would it do?

Would the bomb have enough power to wipe out a big city such as LA, or the entire country? How powerful would this bomb be?

I know the basics of how a atomic bomb works, but I'd like to know more information.

 

[kapton]

If someone will attack the U.S (out of any country that could), you can bet that it will be Nth Korea, especially now that they have gone nuclear...

You can blame your President for that, he's a filthy terrorist.

Regardless of my views the only possible country that looks to have the ability against the all powerful U.S is Korea. Nothing you can really do at the moment - but try to get that idiot of a President out of there.
_________________________________________________________________

The problem is that politics controls the armed forces...
If only the Armed forces controlled all military applications, then some sense would prevail and war would only occur if a country tryed to attack another.
But that's not the case, and this is a Nuclear Engineering Forum.

So let's talk Nuclear - not Politics
_________________________________________________________________

Not sure what type (or what Yield) nuclear weapons Nth Korea claim to have. Probably fission triggers, maybe thermonukes - but that is unlikley.
It really depends how much nuclear weapons were detonated over land - to make any accurate predictions of what type of destruction would occur. Even after the hypocenter and blast zones - the most deadly is the radiation - and the wind will carry these partciles quiet a long way. These particles will probable cause adavanced leukemia. But that is if they detonate them. With a President like Bush, who needs enemies.

 

[hitssquad]

Basic information regarding nukes and small-scale nuclear attacks

nuclear weapons

How big of a threat is this?

Being nuked is not as big of a threat now as it was in the eighties. There are things you can do to prepare for a small-scale nuclear attack that can make life more pleasant than it might otherwise be for you after the fact.

I plan on working at a nuclear power plant (What fields would I have to know in colleage for this?)

If you want to be a reactor operator, you will need a high-school diploma. If you want to be a nuclear engineer, you need to select a school that grants accredited degrees in that field. Here is a list:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/neutronics/todd/frame/universities.html

All nuclear engineering departments in the United States are jonesing for students. Call or write to any of those school's NE departments and they will send you free information packets. They will also offer free campus tours. You should take them up on those offers. At many schools, high-school students are invited to and able to sit down and talk with nuclear-engineering professors. You can ask them what their programs are like, what you need to do to achieve your particular goals, and what kinds of jobs are out there for nuclear engineers. Todd Palmer (of the Oregon State University department of nuclear engineering), for one, is a young nuclear engineering professor with a lot of energy and enthusiasm. He loves to talk to prospective NE students. Here is his academic web page with his office phone number:
http://ne.oregonstate.edu/people/faculty/palmer.html

Don't be afraid to call him. He's a very nice guy.


Here is a list of every class that you have to take to graduate from Oregon State University's four-year nuclear engineering program:
http://catalog.oregonstate.edu/MajorDetail.aspx?major=327&college=16

Basically, like in any engineering field, you need to take a lot of calculus. You should study as much calculus as you can before entering college. It would also help for you to learn at least one computer math program such as Matlab, Mathematica, or Maple; learning all three of those would be excellent.

I'm really paranoid that North Korea will nuke us or japan

I talked to professor Jack Higginbotham at the Oregon State University department of nuclear engineering about this and he told me it is highly likely the U.S. will be hit by a sole nuke sometime in the next few decades. One nuke (or two or three) won't be a big deal if we are prepared. It would have about the same effect or less as a Florida hurricane, and I don't know of anyone suggesting that Florida should be permanently evacuated simply because it is prone to hurricanes.

How powerful would this bomb be?

North Korea is trying to keep details secret (in order to maximize its bargaining/diplomacy power), so we can't know that. For perspective, however, both India and Pakistan have been testing nukes that only yielded a few hundred tons of TNT equivalent. Hiroshima was about 15,000 tons of TNT equivalent, for comparison. I wouldn't expect North Korea to do any better than India, so we may be looking at very weak nukes here (if any exist at all; North Korea has never tested a nuclear device and may not have any devices at this time). It should also be considered that if North Korea tries to deliver a nuke in a ship, as opposed to an airplane or a missile, what will occur is a ground burst instead of an air burst, and ground bursts are much less effective than air bursts at destroying property.

I know the basics of how a atomic bomb works, but I'd like to know more information.

Megawatts and Megatons by Garwin and Charpak:


Also, the number one best place on the web for all types of information concerning nuclear power and nuclear weapons is Jim Hoerner's Yahoo discussion group Know Nukes:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/

 

[russ_watters]

Would the bomb have enough power to wipe out a big city such as LA, or the entire country? How powerful would this bomb be?

To put hitssquad's numbers in perspective (I actually didn't know nukes could even be that small), Hiroshima and Nagasaki were small to medium-sized cities. A total of maybe 150,000 were killed. A similar-sized bomb in LA could kill a similar, if somewhat higher, number of people. A bomb that could "wipe out" LA would need to be hundreds of times larger and there is no chance that North Korea could make such a bomb for some decades. No single bomb exists that could wipe out our entire country - though the Russians have (if the bombs still work) enough bombs to do that.

Another issue is delivery: North Korea's delivery systems are still relatively primative: think Scuds. There is some debate over the actual accuracy of such missiles, but certainly they won't have the range to even reach Hawaii for some time.

Japan and South Korea have the most to fear from a North Korean nuke.

 

[enigma]

N. Korea's missiles can hit Alaska as well, although S. Korea and Japan would be my guess for targets as well...

 

[Morbius]

I talked to professor Jack Higginbotham at the Oregon State University department of nuclear engineering about this and he told me it is highly likely the U.S. will be hit by a sole nuke sometime in the next few decades. One nuke (or two or three) won't be a big deal if we are prepared. It would have about the same effect or less as a Florida hurricane, and I don't know of anyone suggesting that Florida should be permanently evacuated simply because it is prone to hurricanes.

Your professor Higginbotham doesn't know what he's talking about!

A nuclear weapon - even a crude one that a rogue nuclear state or
terrorist group could deliver is going to have a much greater impact
than that of a Florida hurricane. Perhaps you misunderstood him.

A typical hurricane has a total energy that would exceed many nuclear
weapons - but it delivers that energy in an extended period of time.
A nuclear weapons delivers its energy quickly - a sizeable fraction of
which forms a blast wave that mows down everything in its path - to say
nothing of the fireball that vaporizes everything within its radius.

Although large hurricanes can cause tremendous damage - they don't
level cities the way Little Boy leveled Hiroshima.

It is foolish to underestimate the impact of a rogue nuclear weapon
this way - and Prof. Higginbotham is doing a grave disservice.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Astronuc]

Fat Man and Little Boy, both weapons of unparalleled destructive power, were actually quite different. Little Boy, fueled by highly enriched uranium-235, was triggered by a simple "gun" mechanism; a small, slug-shaped piece of uranium was fired down a barrel into a larger, cup-shaped piece. This elementary design generated a destructive force of about 15 kilotons—the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT.

A much more complex implosion-type device triggered Fat Man. It consisted of a plutonium core surrounded by high explosives wired to explode simultaneously. The shock waves from these conventional explosions triggered the fission of the plutonium, which yielded a 22 kiloton explosion.

from http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hiroshima1.html

It's hard to know how much yield to expect from a North Korean warhead, but I would expect that they were trying for a bomb similar to Nagasaki.

The decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the first and last use of atomic weapons in combat—remains one of the most controversial in military history. Altogether, the two bombings killed an estimated 110,000 Japanese citizens and injured another 130,000. By 1950, another 230,000 Japanese had died from injuries or radiation. Though the two cities were nominally military targets, the overwhelming majority of the casualties were civilian.

An air burst (like those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) over a populated area like NY City or LA, would probably kill several hundred thousand or even in the millions very quickly, and many hundreds of thousands would die within years.

The damage to the economy and infrastructure would be in the $100's billions. Immediately, there would be many more fires and no way to extinguish them, except in the peripheral areas not directly affected by the blast. Medical facilities within 60+ miles would be overwhelmed, and essentially unable to treat all the victims.

As Morbius indicated, do not underestimate the severity of a nuclear attack.

This thread is not of a technical nature and is more appropriate for the Politics and World Affairs forum.

 

[Morbius]

The damage to the economy and infrastructure would be in the $100's billions. Immediately, there would be many more fires and no way to extinguish them, except in the peripheral areas not directly affected by the blast. Medical facilities within 60+ miles would be overwhelmed, and essentially unable to treat all the victims.

As Morbius indicated, do not underestimate the severity of a nuclear attack.

Astronuc,

Correct you are.

Look what happened after 9/11; the FAA grounded commercial air
traffic for fear that terrorists would repeat the type of attack on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Imagine that terrorists are able to smuggle a nuclear device into the
USA via cargo container on a ship, or in the back of a truck, or...

The response to such an attack would be to immediately close the ports
to shipping, close the borders to ground shipments... - in other words to
totally shutdown international commerce for fear that another one of
those shipments contained another nuclear device!

This is a very serious problem - and you can be sure that scientists are
stepping up to answer the challenge:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/May04/Slaughter.html

http://www.llnl.gov/str/September04/Labov.html

What we don't need are those that don't understand the problem and
try to minimize those impacts.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

f
An air burst (like those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) over a populated area like NY City or LA, would probably kill several hundred thousand or even in the millions very quickly, and many hundreds of thousands would die within years.

Astronuc,

If a crude nuclear device - like a Nagasaki bomb - were to be exploded in
a city with the population density of New York City; then we're probably
looking at something like 3 million casualties.

[If memory serves, a report to that fact was released some time back.
The makers of the movie "Peacemaker" must have read that report -
in one scene, the 3 million casualties figure is cited if the nuclear bomb
in the possession of the terrorist they are pusuing in Manhattan; is
detonated. ]

In other words, a nuke delivered on the island of Manhattan will be
roughly a thousand times worse than the World Trade Center attack.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[whatzzupboy]

Damn Big of a threat! I'm a army brat so at times I'm a little more at speed than the genrall public is about the army and the global commuinitte and in my honest opinion i believe we need troops on the boarder of south korea and in the waters surrounding n. korea as well as in other nabboring countries and then we need to attack them because one not only do they have tese weapons but there is evedence that they are selling them to terrorist groups like Al-Quida so I say we as a global commuinitty need to give them the choice of life or death (either they give up the wmd's or we attack them)

 

[hitssquad]

Clarification of what Higginbotham has said regarding present nuclear attack danger

Your professor Higginbotham doesn't know what he's talking about!

http://ne.oregonstate.edu/people/faculty/higginb.html (paraphrased by hitssquad) ----> ...it is highly likely the U.S. will be hit by a sole nuke sometime in the next few decades.

Chris Allen (hitssquad) ----> One nuke (or two or three) won't be a big deal if we are prepared. It would have about the same effect or less as a Florida hurricane, and I don't know of anyone suggesting that Florida should be permanently evacuated simply because it is prone to hurricanes.

 

[ohwilleke]

How big of a threat is this? . . . I'm really paranoid that North Korea will nuke us or japan, I thought I'd post it here because. . .If korea did bomb us, what would it do? . . . Would the bomb have enough power to wipe out a big city such as LA, or the entire country? How powerful would this bomb be?

How big of a threat is this?

It depends on (1) Does the bomb actually work (I'm not aware of much testing conducted by N. Korea, and without a test it is something of a hit and miss proposition to use a new military system even for U.S. defense contractors)? (2) Does N. Korea really want to use it (it has used its nuclear capabilities as a bargaining chip before and could easily be doing so again)? and (3) What delivery mechanism does it have?

Assuming (1) and (2) are in the affirmative, Japan and S. Korea are most at risk from a N. Korean missile attack, although one could imagine a seaborne N. Korean missile brought into a U.S. port in e.g. a shipping container, or on a submarine. Seoul and Tokoyo are far more at risk than Anchorage or Oahu or L.A. or Seattle or Portland. New York City would likely be attack by North Korea only via a shipping container style attack. It is hard to imagine a N. Korean attack on an inland target like Phoenix or Denver even if it did have a working nuclear missile.

A small nuclear bomb could level the core of a city and kill a like amount with radiation afterwords, it would not, however, destroy the entire country. It would take hundreds of state of the art sized nuclear bombs to "wipe out" the entire country. The deaths would be largely a product of population density because a bomb of a given size "wipes out" only a particular land area. An attack in San Francisco would kill far more people than an attack in Anchorage.

Still the numbers would be in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in a high density urban area and would be far worse than any hurricane. By comparison, the worse peacetime disasters in the history of the world from man made sources like Bophal and Chernobyl have killed several thousand people, the Titanic killed 1,503 people, the deadliest sunk ships in history (in 1945) killed 7,000-9,000 people (the Wilhelm Gusloff and the Goya), the worst tornado in history killed 689 (March 18, 1925), and the "Perfect Storm" that formed the basis for the movie in 1900 killed about 8,000 people in Galveston (this and Hurricane Mitch which killed about 10,868 in 1998 were the highest death toll storms in North or South American history). There have been a number of Bangladesh cyclones, Chinese floods, major earthquakes and volcano erruptions that have killed numbers of people similar in death tolls comparable to a nuclear blast, but most have impacted intensely poor areas with residents who lived there and failed to take precautions simply because they had no other options.

(1) and (2) are hardly sure things. Certainly, N. Korea could be annilated in retaliation, although it isn't clear that a U.S. President would want to kill millions of N. Koreans with nothing to do with the attack just out of spite. One would expect an effort to counter-attack first the vicinity of the launch site.

Also, (2) doesn't serve much of a military purpose if directed at a major population center. Blow up Los Angeles or Tokoyo or Seoul, and you insure massive vengenece and no negotiations. The N. Korean government would be gone in a flash. An attack on even a less populated target, say Juneau or Maui or Nagasaki (cruel irony) would also produce a Pearl Harbor like reaction. The idea of a nuclear weapon is to threaten further action and convice the opposition you're crazy so as to bring them to the table. More plausible targets would be the Kuril Islands (Russia), Ryuku or Okinawa Islands (both Japan, the later with a large U.S. military presence), or some other small island in the East China Sea or Sea of Japan. Indeed, a nuclear test on N. Korean soil might be even more effective. Recent non-nuclear ballistic missile tests by N. Korea seem to be aimed at the same effect.

I think a nuclear attack is also far less likely by the current regime, as the current leader has shown a strong desire to install his son as ruler, establishing a dynasty and indicating long term thinking which might see that the long term interests of the regime would not be served by a nuclear attack, than it would be, e.g. by a coup regime or provisional regime, installed after the assassination of the ruling family, which would be in a state of panic, not looking at the long term, and eager to establish their authority both at home and abroad.

Also, the target of an attack could be influenced by a proposed missile defense system. An attack might actually be more likely if the U.S. has a missile defense system, and a N. Korean ruler might conclude that a defeated missile attack would provoke less of a response than a successful one, but over estimate the effectiveness of the defense system (which so far doesn't work: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/12/national/main666433.shtml). But, if there is actually a missile attack, you'd be glad we had a missile defense system, if it worked.

Personally, a missile seems like a rather unlikely method of deliverying a nuclear attack by a N. Korea or terrorist group. Why invest in sophisticated missile technology that your opponent has invested billions in countering to deliver a nuclear attack, when a suicide bomber on a cargo freighter or fishing boat or yatch could do the same thing?

 

[Morbius]

How big of a threat is this?

It depends on (1) Does the bomb actually work (I'm not aware of much testing conducted by N. Korea, and without a test it is something of a hit and miss proposition to use a new military system even for U.S. defense contractors)?

ohwilleke,

What if N. Korea got their weapon design from Pakistan's A.Q. Khan?

Recall that one of the Pakistani weapons scientists, one A. Q. Khan;
had been selling nuclear technology that the Pakistanis had developed.
If Khan sold N. Korea a complete weapon design - then they have a
tested weapon design - Pakistan tested it in the mid '90s.

(2) Does N. Korea really want to use it (it has used its nuclear capabilities as a bargaining chip before and could easily be doing so again)? and

Nuclear weapons in the hands of N. Korea means that they can use it as
a bargaining chip - perpetually.

(3) What delivery mechanism does it have?

There's always "clandestine delivery" - you don't need a missile or a
bomber; you just ship the weapon to your adversary.

Courtesy of UCLA, consider the following from a speech by UCLA's
Chancellor Albert Carnesale, a former professor of nuclear engineering:

http://www.ucla.edu/chancellor/scholar/scholar_rethink_5.html

"We must also address the security of our borders. For example, the
cargo containers that come into our country every day - by ship, by rail,
and by truck - are large enough to hold many nuclear weapons. A nuclear
weapon could fit in the trunk of your Toyota. You don't need a cargo
container. Approximately 2% of cargo containers are inspected when
they enter the United States. And what about all of the trucks, trawlers,
and people that enter our country? The prospects for sealing our borders
are not encouraging."

Assuming (1) and (2) are in the affirmative, Japan and S. Korea are most at risk from a N. Korean missile attack, although one could imagine a seaborne N. Korean missile brought into a U.S. port in e.g. a shipping container, or on a submarine. Seoul and Tokoyo are far more at risk than Anchorage or Oahu or L.A. or Seattle or Portland. New York City would likely be attack by North Korea only via a shipping container style attack. It is hard to imagine a N. Korean attack on an inland target like Phoenix or Denver even if it did have a working nuclear missile.

A small nuclear bomb could level the core of a city and kill a like amount with radiation afterwords, it would not, however, destroy the entire country. It would take hundreds of state of the art sized nuclear bombs to "wipe out" the entire country. The deaths would be largely a product of population density because a bomb of a given size "wipes out" only a particular land area. An attack in San Francisco would kill far more people than an attack in Anchorage.

(1) and (2) are hardly sure things. Certainly, N. Korea could be annilated in retaliation, although it isn't clear that a U.S. President would want to kill millions of N. Koreans with nothing to do with the attack just out of spite. One would expect an effort to counter-attack first the vicinity of the launch site.

Also, (2) doesn't serve much of a military purpose if directed at a major population center. Blow up Los Angeles or Tokoyo or Seoul, and you insure massive vengenece and no negotiations. The N. Korean government would be gone in a flash.

You are, of course, ASSUMING you can attribute the nuclear destruction
of New York to a given entity - the North Koreans. If a big chunk of
New York city disappears in a mushroom cloud - what degree of
assurance does the President need in order to retaliate against the
proper perpetrator? The responsible party or parties may not
claim responsibility.

Personally, a missile seems like a rather unlikely method of deliverying a nuclear attack by a N. Korea or terrorist group. Why invest in sophisticated missile technology to deliver a nuclear attack when a suicide bomber on a cargo freighter or fishing boat or yatch could do the same thing?

Which is why the missile defense is not being designed to mitigate attacks
due to clandestine delivery. The missile defense system is for an entirely
different scenario. There are multiple defenses for multiple scenarios
and attack modalities - don't confuse them by running them together.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Gokul43201]

I haven't read any of the posts here but the OP's, so forgive me if this is redundant.

As far as I know, the Taepodongs (I and II) are not capable of delivering a chemical, biological or nuclear payload. I believe only the short range Nodongs can take nuclear warheads.

 

[russ_watters]

I talked to professor Jack Higginbotham at the Oregon State University department of nuclear engineering...

Wait, did he used to be a Navy submarine officer? I learned differential equations from a LtCdr. Higginbotham (sp?) at the Naval Academy about 5 years ago. He was the weps officer on a sub that ran aground - not his fault, but it its still a career-ender. He is a nice guy though - and one of the best teachers I've ever had.

(1) and (2) are hardly sure things. Certainly, N. Korea could be annilated in retaliation, although it isn't clear that a U.S. President would want to kill millions of N. Koreans with nothing to do with the attack just out of spite.

It remains our stated policy to respond to a WMD attack with, essentially, total annihilation. However, I would like to think that any President actually faced with such a decision would show some restraint. And against a country like N. Korea, since they have, at most, only a handful, we would still be able to conduct a conventional war after they had done whatever they could do with their nukes.

This thread is not of a technical nature and is more appropriate for the Politics and World Affairs forum.

I'm willing to let this get a little political since nuclear weapons are, after all, strategic (political) weapons. An anti-tank missile isn't in play when its in a bunker somewhere, but a nuclear bomb most certainly is. And questions like "can one be smuggled into NYC?" are both technical and political questions. That said, I have some purely technical questions:

Morbius, what is your opinion of the odds that
-a: North Korea has a nuclear weapon? and
-b: That weapon would actually function without a successful test?
(edit: ok, that's only half technical - you have to weigh how much you trust our friend Kim...)

Next, regarding something said earlier, it was my understanding that to make a bomb with a yield of less than about 10kt requires some pretty sophisticated technology - meaning that most crude, 1st effort bombs will be in the 10-30kt range. Is that correct?

 

[hitssquad]

How to make a wimpy nuke

Wait, did he used to be a Navy submarine officer?

I don't know. He's been at OSU since 1987 and his picture is at his CV link which I posted:
http://ne.oregonstate.edu/people/faculty/higginb.html

Higginbotham seems to be a popular name.

it was my understanding that to make a bomb with a yield of less than about 10kt requires some pretty sophisticated technology

If you walk down a hallway carrying three quarters of a critical mass and another person walks toward you carrying three quarters of a critical mass of the same isotope, a bomb will be assembled as you pass each other that will yield less than 10kt. It will not be a sophisticated bomb. The slower the assembly, the less the yield. The more premature the initiator neutron, the less the yield. If you want a sub-10kt yield, you could use even-numbered (from reactor-grade plutonium blends) plutonium isotopes since they give off neutrons more frequently. You could also set your neutron initiator to fire early. For an example of the last, Little Boy included a neutron initiator to make sure it fired. Setting that neutron initiator to fire just as a single critical mass was being assembled - as opposed to when it did fire which was after 1.5 to 2 critical masses had been assembled - would have caused the bomb to fizzle, and there would be our small yield.

Using extremely small amounts of fissile material is another way to make a yield small, and I understand that that is difficult since the less the mass of fissile material, the more precise the bomb workings have to be in order to get it to assemble at all.

 

[Astronuc]

Here is some background on Pakistan's program - assuming FAS is reliable.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/

The question is then, what technology did Pakistan provide to North Korea - and what components. If Pakistan provided the package so that N. Korea need only assemble a pit, then in theory, they may have a 12-15 kT warhead, or if they got a boosted device, maybe up to 35 kT.

Of course its all speculation at this point. Perhaps NNSA/NSA have specific intelligence, but that would not be in public domain.

 

[dextercioby]

Besides US and Russia,who else has functional thermonuclear device/intelligence??

Daniel.

 

[Astronuc]

China, UK and France have thermonuclear weapons. Pakistan, India and Israel (unofficially) probably have the capability.

Also see:
Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons

 

[dextercioby]

I have a crazy idea.Why don' the Americans do what the russians did in '62...?Get a couple of rockets+bombs oven into Okinawa,just in case...
Would the Chinese & the Russians have something against it...?

Daniel.

P.S.And if they do,why wouldn't the Americans allow the Japanese to develop nuclear capacities...?After all,60 years is a long while...

 

[Morbius]

Morbius, what is your opinion of the odds that
-a: North Korea has a nuclear weapon? and
-b: That weapon would actually function without a successful test?
(edit: ok, that's only half technical - you have to weigh how much you trust our friend Kim...)

Next, regarding something said earlier, it was my understanding that to make a bomb with a yield of less than about 10kt requires some pretty sophisticated technology - meaning that most crude, 1st effort bombs will be in the 10-30kt range. Is that correct?

russ,

Does North Korea really have the bomb - or are they bluffing?
That's a hard call. The two thing one needs are the materials and the
design. If a nation is going to produce the material itself - then that is
a "big footprint" - that's the type of activity that can be detected.

We know North Korea has the reactor and chemical processing facilities
to produce their own weapons material. I believe that it is pretty
certain that they have the material.

Now do they have the design, and will that design work? That's more
problematical. If they got they design of the Pakistani bomb from
A.Q. Kahn - then they have a tested design. How would we know if that's
where they got the design - that type of information can be passed
without leaving much of a trail.

The simple, crude weapons - something on the order of what Fat Man
was - which is what the nascent nuclear state will probably first
develope does have a yield in the range you stated. Fat Man and its
twin detonated at the Trinity test in New Mexico were 20 Kiloton
devices.

Your apprehension concerning Kim is well founded. In the early '90s,
there was also much concern about the ambitions of North Korea and
their nuclear weapons program. President Clinton was girding up to
address the problem of North Korea's nuclear program.

Then former President Jimmy Carter entered the fray. He brokered a
deal in which North Korea promised to terminate its nuclear weapons
program. In return, the USA would help them build 2 nuclear power
reactors to provide much needed electricity for this underdeveloped
nation. In the meantime, we would supply them with fossil fuel.

At first it appeared that the North Koreans were living up to their part
of the bargain. Their reactor was shutdown, and the plutonium-bearing
irradiated fuel was left in the cooling ponds.

Then a couple years ago, our intelligence community suspected that
North Korea didn't terminate its nuclear weapons program - and was
still working on obtaining nuclear weapons. When confronted with
this, the North Koreans admitted that they were still working on their
nuclear weapons program at other facilities.

Once they knew that we knew they were violating the Carter-brokered
agreement, they restarted the shutdown reactor, and moved the
irradiated fuel to be processed into weapons material.

How can you trust a nation like that? They agree to a treaty - and then
secretly violate it. How can one be sure that they will hold to any
future agreements?

The only way I see to exert leverage over North Korea is to involve
their patron state - the Peoples Republic of China. North Korea is
pretty much a "basket case" without aid from China. They have the
influence over North Korea that we lack.

There's no simple answers here. That's why I'm glad I'm a scientist -
politics is much too difficult.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

I have a crazy idea.Why don' the Americans do what the russians did in '62...?Get a couple of rockets+bombs oven into Okinawa,just in case...
Would the Chinese & the Russians have something against it...?

Daniel.

P.S.And if they do,why wouldn't the Americans allow the Japanese to develop nuclear capacities...?After all,60 years is a long while...

dextercioby,

The USA doesn't need to put rockets and bombs into Okinawa - the USA can
hit North Korea from land based missiles in the USA, or Trident missiles
based on nuclear submarines. The USA can already hold any part of
North Korea "at risk".

However, that capability isn't of much use - because the USA wouldn't
use it, except under the most extreme conditions.

As far as allowing the Japanese to develop nuclear weapons - Japan is
a signatory of the NPT - the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They
are barred by Treaty from developing nuclear weapons.

http://disarmament2.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf/e03053a22d4bf8478525688f00693182/95255c19793e35c08525688f006d2666?OpenDocument

Also, as the only nation to have nuclear weapons used against it - the
Japanese are quite adverse to owning the type of weaponry that caused
so much hardship for them.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[whatzzupboy]

N. Korea has the nucs we now kno that due to satalite images the question is now what should we do about it should we try to naggoshiate a risk a sneak attack, do we attack and risk a retallation, or do we cut off support and ties of trade and pray for the best. To me its obvius we attack but we attack with help of other countries like Russia, China, Japan, and England (countries that we iether have strong ties with or are in immedate danger of an attack) however if this was to be done we'd have to do it with all of there help and simotainiously!

PS I konw i screwd simotainiusly up(again!).

 

[russ_watters]

There's no simple answers here. That's why I'm glad I'm a scientist -
politics is much too difficult.

Nevertheless, you provide a wealth of information on both. Thanks.

 

[dextercioby]

dextercioby,

The USA doesn't need to put rockets and bombs into Okinawa - the USA can
hit North Korea from land based missiles in the USA, or Trident missiles
based on nuclear submarines. The USA can already hold any part of
North Korea "at risk".

I see...Didn't cross my mind...

As far as allowing the Japanese to develop nuclear weapons - Japan is
a signatory of the NPT - the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They
are barred by Treaty from developing nuclear weapons.

http://disarmament2.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf/e03053a22d4bf8478525688f00693182/95255c19793e35c08525688f006d2666?OpenDocument

Also, as the only nation to have nuclear weapons used against it - the
Japanese are quite adverse to owning the type of weaponry that caused
so much hardship for them.

I understand.It was more of a joke.
:uhh:


Daniel.

 

[ohwilleke]

ohwilleke,

What if N. Korea got their weapon design from Pakistan's A.Q. Khan?

Recall that one of the Pakistani weapons scientists, one A. Q. Khan;
had been selling nuclear technology that the Pakistanis had developed.
If Khan sold N. Korea a complete weapon design - then they have a
tested weapon design - Pakistan tested it in the mid '90s.

Sure, N. Korea could have a design that works. Hell, even without Khan, even public domain information about nuclear weapons puts anyone who wants to make an attempt in a much better position than the folks at the Manhatten project were, and a modern supercomputer would allow for simulations that could be pretty decent. But, the point is that there isn't a lot of solid evidence to support that they have one yet, and the lead up to the Iraq war shows that a government can desire to create the impression that it has more WMD capacity than it actually does.

The reason I'm skeptical is that every other part of the North Korean infrastructure is in bad shape. We are talking a place where they don't even have street lights in the capital city, and the city streets are empty for want to cars to drive on them. Less than 6% of the nation has television and they only get state propaganda. Millions of people starved to death in the 1990s even though a third of the population works in agriculture (compared to 2% in much of the developed world). Their military base is hollow -- with lots of equipment that doesn't function and hundrds of thousand of soldiers who are soldiers in name only. The pre-collapse Soviet Union was vibrant by comparison. The economic base is so weak that people are fleeing to China for a better life in droves.

A decent nuclear program isn't cheap. And, the occassional movie plot to the contrary, it is hard to force scientists and engineers to work against their will and N. Korea is not exactly an attractive place for budding nuclear engineers to work. If they can't make anything else work, why should they be able to make this work?

Nuclear weapons in the hands of N. Korea means that they can use it as a bargaining chip - perpetually.

Not really, if we bargain well. To use a nuclear weapon as a bargaining chip you have to be able to take your weapon off the table to get one with appropriate verification. A bald threat more likely results in a pre-emptive airstrike against every conceivable North Korean nuclear facility.

There's always "clandestine delivery" - you don't need a missile or a
bomber; you just ship the weapon to your adversary.

An option I discussed at length in my post.

You are, of course, ASSUMING you can attribute the nuclear destruction of New York to a given entity - the North Koreans. If a big chunk of New York city disappears in a mushroom cloud - what degree of
assurance does the President need in order to retaliate against the
proper perpetrator? The responsible party or parties may not
claim responsibility.

There are people in the world, we'll call them terrorists, who would love to blow up New York City for the sake of blowing up New York City. None of the countries with known nuclear capabilities, including North Korea, fit in that category.

In a similar vein the real question about terrorism in the United States is not why have have experienced the events we have experienced, but why we haven't experienced more. Just about any engineer with military or construction demolition experience could easily wreck havoc in the United States by innumerable methods. There have been very few attempts. Why? Because very few people together enough to have the ability to do so, have any desire sufficient to justify the significant effort involved to do it.

Which is why the missile defense is not being designed to mitigate attacks due to clandestine delivery. The missile defense system is for an entirely different scenario. There are multiple defenses for multiple scenarios
and attack modalities - don't confuse them by running them together.

We spend about $8.8 billion a year on missile defense even after this year's proposed budget cuts to that program. The threat it is designed to mitigate is probably the least likely nuclear threat the U.S. faces (even the best currently conceived plan is not going to stop an all out Soviet class onslaught, and the number of countries hostile to the U.S. with smaller nuclear missile arsenals, you can count on your fingers), and involves probably insurmountable technological hurdles (it certainly has a poor track record), and if it works, we simply divert nuclear efforts elsewhere.

The argument I'm making is that this is a poor investment, in part because the technology is immature. We'd be better off spending our money on cheaper, lower technology approaches that would be more effective (like port security, border security and human intelligence), while letting the technologies that might eventually support missile defense mature in other settings that are closer to current technological boundaries, the the THEL system (a laser based system designed to stop mortar rounds, artillery shells, and small missiles aimed at points targets like military bases), which are far cheaper, before taking on the far bigger task of national missile defense with would provide iffy protection against a handful of countries that aren't likely to make that kind of attack.

Hell, $8.8 billion a year is about a third of N. Korea's GNP. You could bribe a heck of a lot of people with that kind of money and get more reliable results.

 

[Morbius]

The argument I'm making is that this is a poor investment, in part because the technology is immature. We'd be better off spending our money on cheaper, lower technology approaches that would be more effective (like port security, border security and human intelligence), while letting the technologies that might eventually support missile defense mature in other settings that are closer to current technological boundaries, the the THEL system (a laser based system designed to stop mortar rounds, artillery shells, and small missiles aimed at points targets like military bases), which are far cheaper, before taking on the far bigger task of national missile defense with would provide iffy protection against a handful of countries that aren't likely to make that kind of attack.

Hell, $8.8 billion a year is about a third of N. Korea's GNP. You could bribe a heck of a lot of people with that kind of money and get more reliable results.

ohwilleke,

You don't know how much money we are spending on doing exactly what
you are saying we should be doing.

For example, we are working on port security and the like:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/May04/Slaughter.html

You don't see a lot of it - because it is buried in the budgets of various
agencies. That's the anomaly of the missile defense efforts - it's all
collected in one visible pot of money - rather than sequestered in the
"black budgets" of various programs.

It only "looks" like missile defense is excessive - because it is so visible.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[ohwilleke]

ohwilleke,

You don't know how much money we are spending on doing exactly what
you are saying we should be doing.

For example, we are working on port security and the like:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/May04/Slaughter.html

You don't see a lot of it - because it is buried in the budgets of various
agencies. That's the anomaly of the missile defense efforts - it's all
collected in one visible pot of money - rather than sequestered in the
"black budgets" of various programs.

It only "looks" like missile defense is excessive - because it is so visible.

I disagee. I have a pretty good handle on how much we are spending.

The Border patrol guys said they needed 2000 more people. They got 210.

Spending on port security is in fact far less than the reasonable demands for that spending. http://aapa-ports.org/pressroom/feb0204.htm We are spending hundreds of millions on port security (and while, human intelligence may be in black budgets, basics like patrols and port upgrades are not). The cost of doing it right is in the billions. And, it isn't largely a matter of split budgets either. The federal role has been consolidated in the Department of Homeland Security and the federal government has, or should have, the primary responsibility here. It isn't as if large amounts of port security money are hiding away in the agriculture department.

Put it this way. As a nation, national and state and local combined, we spend less than 20% of what we spend on missile defense on port security improvements (excluding generalized spying on foreign activities), and at the federal level less than 10%. But, port security is proven technology, and missile defense is proven not to work.

There is a lot of fancy technology out there, but it isn't used. As the audit reports linked here note: http://rorfgw.com/TOPIC_ARCHIVE/C-TPAT/c-tpat.html non-intrusive inspections are often not done due to mundate technical difficulties and targetting relies mostly on documentary manifests (i.e. we're counting on the people who want to blow up L.A. telling the truth on the forms). It isn't hard to get radioactive materials into the U.S. ABC can do it. http://pipedream.for.net/091203/wire/w1.htm The percentage of containers that are inspected is tiny and doesn't have lots of guidance.

And, $8.8 billion a year is a HUGE amount of money for a weapons program. This is on the order of the entire ship building budget of the United States, or 200 joint strike fighters per year, or the entire foreign aid budget or 25%-33% of the entire intelligence budget.

Also, most of the $30 billion give or take, that goes to the intellligence budget goes to the NSA which runs our spy satellites and signals operations budget. All good and well, but decidedly limited.

 

[Morbius]

I disagee. I have a pretty good handle on how much we are spending.

Are you sure you're in a position to really know?

And, $8.8 billion a year is a HUGE amount of money for a weapons program. This is on the order of the entire ship building budget of the United States, or 200 joint strike fighters per year, or the entire foreign aid budget or 25%-33% of the entire intelligence budget.

Also, most of the $30 billion give or take, that goes to the intellligence budget goes to the NSA which runs our spy satellites and signals operations budget. All good and well, but decidedly limited.

The $30 billion that goes into the intelligence budget isn't meant for
providing defense for the ports or borders, or to counter various threats.
It's meant for one thing - gathering intelligence - which is why it goes to
the NSA - that's their job.

For example, one piece of the defense for shipping ports is being
conducted by LLNL; which is what is in the link I posted before:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/May04/Slaughter.html

That work wasn't paid for by the $30 billion that goes into the
intelligence budget. That work is in the Dept. of Energy budget.

What I'm saying is that the other defenses that you want are also being
worked. The money is in the budgets of many different agencies.

Not all of this budget authority is to be found in the pages of your
newpaper. That's why the missile defense is an anomaly.

For example, for many years, many people were concerned about our
aging fleet of B-52 bombers. Then the Air Force rolls out the B-2 Spirits.

Very few people knew that the 21st century bomber was in the pipeline
until it was revealed.

There are many components to a robust defense against all conceivable
threats. The defense against missiles, which requires some unique
technologies that are unlikely to be developed by other programs, is
a very difficult problem. Because of that - it also gets a big budget and
is highly visible - but that 8.8 billion is still only about 2% of the total
defense budget.

However, just because you see this big missile defense budget - don't
think that other defense modalities are being ignored.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[ohwilleke]

Are you sure you're in a position to really know?

Obvious not down to the last dollar, but in general, yes. I'm one of those people who reads the footnotes in budgets and follows the discussions in the "insider press" (in D.C. they call people like me "wonks").

The $30 billion that goes into the intelligence budget isn't meant for
providing defense for the ports or borders, or to counter various threats.
It's meant for one thing - gathering intelligence - which is why it goes to
the NSA - that's their job.

The point is not that the CIA should be establishing inspection systems or patrolling the borders. The point is the national intelligence budget has a long standing systemic bias in favor of signals intelligence and satellite imagry, which it spends lots of money on, and a long standing systemic bias against human intelligence and reality checks, which the CIA does a rather poor job on, and which the CIA until the fall of the Soviet Union, devoted disproportionately to the Soviet Union and its client states. The Defense Intelligence guys, are if anything, worse.

For example, one piece of the defense for shipping ports is being
conducted by LLNL; which is what is in the link I posted before:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/May04/Slaughter.html

That work wasn't paid for by the $30 billion that goes into the
intelligence budget. That work is in the Dept. of Energy budget.

The Energy department has long had a non-civilian component, but the entire energy budget of about $20 billion, doesn't have lots of room in it, once you parcel out funds it needs for its "routine" programs. Similarly, the National Science Foundation ($5 billion in round numbers) has lots of commitments and a relatively modest amount of money.

The Transporation Department, once you strip out highway funding and the FAA is also pretty small.

Also, most of what is missing is not technology, it is simply funds to implement approaches that already exist.

What I'm saying is that the other defenses that you want are also being worked. The money is in the budgets of many different agencies.

And what I'm saying is that regardless of where in the budget the money turns up, the priorities are still far out of whack.

There are many components to a robust defense against all conceivable threats. The defense against missiles, which requires some unique technologies that are unlikely to be developed by other programs, is
a very difficult problem. Because of that - it also gets a big budget and
is highly visible - but that 8.8 billion is still only about 2% of the total
defense budget.

However, just because you see this big missile defense budget - don't
think that other defense modalities are being ignored.

In Washington, you never ignore anything, you are simply more vigorous in funding some things than others. And, Washington does that in a way that is rarely rational. To give just one post-hoc example, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars building a surface combatant fleet that hasn't seen action since WWII, but have delibrately refused to invest significantly in peacekeeping or counterinsurgency resources, which are far cheaper, despite the fact that a large share of all conflicts the U.S. and its allies has been involved in since WWII have been of that character. See http://inteldump.powerblogs.com/archives/archive_2004_03_14.shtml#1079700060 As a result we fight with "the Army we have". Just because attempts are made to hide decisions, it doesn't follow that those decisions are wise.

National missile defense has a big budget not because it makes sense at this stage of development, but because it is a political symbol.

The same thing is going on in the ballistic missile defense v. other modalities spending situation.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, we're starting to move more toward politics...

 

[Firefox123]

Hey all...

One very quick and general comment...

I have some connection to the missle defense agency and have done work related to missle defense...

North Korea is seen as a possible immediate threat to Japan (although Japan would say this is an understatement...which is why they want THAAD) and a possible future threat to the US.

As far as I know that is the "official" position in the "industry".

But I am just an electrical engineer, not a politician or intelligence agent. :tongue2:




Russ

 

[QuantumTheory]

I think north korea is going to bomb us .. they are evil. I'm afraid..they already have the supplies to do it, and they probably don't like Bush with all the trouble he's getting into with all the wars. Damn it why didn't Bush send troops to north korea, let alone Iraq.

 

[CronoSpark]

Ok, we're starting to move more toward politics...

Yup, I was just going to write that...

I think north korea is going to bomb us .. they are evil. I'm afraid..they already have the supplies to do it, and they probably don't like Bush with all the trouble he's getting into with all the wars. Damn it why didn't Bush send troops to north korea, let alone Iraq.

I do not believe that was their intention. If it was, then they would've done so. Unless it was a bluff.

 

[ohwilleke]

Way into politics land, but given the events that probably gave rise to this thread it is worth noting that everybody is back talking again.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/21/nkorea.talks/index.html