"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"HH&C" wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 5:03 pm, Cliff
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:47:18 -0700, Garlicdude
wrote:
Michael wrote:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...7/barack-obama...

This is shameful!

The hard part is enriching enough uranium to bomb-grade. The more
common way to do it is with a series of centrifuges...hmmm...just
like Iran has built...

The really hard part Ed is building a delivery system that will deliver
the
40,000 lb "bomb" these turkey's might end up with.
At best, North Korea could take their "bomb" down to the DMZ, I guess by
rail or truck, and explode it on the ground.
Someone is likely to notice such a movement and rain on that parade and do
it without real consequence.

This is pure guesswork by an amateur, but it sounds to me like North Korea
is thinking in terms of a uranium bomb now. There were a couple of articles
in the press last year about them acquiring some centrifuge equipment. A
gun-trigger uranium bomb probably is within their capabilities. A
spherical-implosion plutonium bomb that's sufficiently compact -- and that
works -- may not be. A gun-trigger bomb, given equal and fairly low levels
of sophistication on the design end for both, is easier to fit into a
missile.


You sure aren't ging to launch anything that size stuck on the end of a
Typo
Ding Dong II or even a model III.
Let me know when one of these guys can launch an Atlas D, an Agena or has
one of our retired shuttles in their inventory.
That's what they will need until they have perfected multi-stage devices
and
there isn't enough money or other wealth in North Korea to do that.


--
John R. Carroll

May be. What they can do and can't, and what it takes to make a weaponable
gun-trigger bomb, are outside of my range.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"HH&C" wrote in message

...
On Sep 17, 5:03 pm, Cliff
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:47:18 -0700, Garlicdude
wrote:
Michael wrote:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...7/barack-obama...
This is shameful!

May be. What they can do and can't, and what it takes to make a
weaponable gun-trigger bomb, are outside of my range.


Yeah, but you recognize extortion when you see it and that is all that
anyone is ever going to see out of North Korea.

Iran is a different kettle of fish. Five years from now the Revolutionary
Guard will change sides.
The Mullah's will be out and the entire complexion of that situation will
change.

The real question is how many of their own the religious whacko's will kill
trying to hang on defending a lost cause.
They aren't like the Chinese you know.

The Chinese ruling class would happily wipe out their population to the las
man rather than give up any real power.

--
John R. Carroll

All they need to spread is power plant junk crap that we have
to store for 10^9 years... e.g. conventional big bomb that
spreads spent or good fuel across the land.

It is worse than salting it like the Greeks and Romans used to do.

Martin

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"HH&C" wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 5:03 pm, Cliff
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:47:18 -0700, Garlicdude
wrote:
Michael wrote:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...7/barack-obama...
This is shameful!
The hard part is enriching enough uranium to bomb-grade. The more
common way to do it is with a series of centrifuges...hmmm...just
like Iran has built...
The really hard part Ed is building a delivery system that will deliver
the
40,000 lb "bomb" these turkey's might end up with.
At best, North Korea could take their "bomb" down to the DMZ, I guess by
rail or truck, and explode it on the ground.
Someone is likely to notice such a movement and rain on that parade and do
it without real consequence.

This is pure guesswork by an amateur, but it sounds to me like North Korea
is thinking in terms of a uranium bomb now. There were a couple of articles
in the press last year about them acquiring some centrifuge equipment. A
gun-trigger uranium bomb probably is within their capabilities. A
spherical-implosion plutonium bomb that's sufficiently compact -- and that
works -- may not be. A gun-trigger bomb, given equal and fairly low levels
of sophistication on the design end for both, is easier to fit into a
missile.

You sure aren't ging to launch anything that size stuck on the end of a
Typo
Ding Dong II or even a model III.
Let me know when one of these guys can launch an Atlas D, an Agena or has
one of our retired shuttles in their inventory.
That's what they will need until they have perfected multi-stage devices
and
there isn't enough money or other wealth in North Korea to do that.


--
John R. Carroll

May be. What they can do and can't, and what it takes to make a weaponable
gun-trigger bomb, are outside of my range.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2009-09-20, Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
All they need to spread is power plant junk crap that we have
to store for 10^9 years... e.g. conventional big bomb that
spreads spent or good fuel across the land.

It is worse than salting it like the Greeks and Romans used to do.

Some countries keep their spent fuel "vitrified", which means that it
is mixed with molten glass and then solidifies into large rods.

The advantage of those rods is that if they accidentally get damaged,
they do not produce radiactive dust -- they break up into pebbles, at
worst.

i

Martin

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"HH&C" wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 5:03 pm, Cliff
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:47:18 -0700, Garlicdude
wrote:
Michael wrote:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...7/barack-obama...
This is shameful!
The hard part is enriching enough uranium to bomb-grade. The more
common way to do it is with a series of centrifuges...hmmm...just
like Iran has built...
The really hard part Ed is building a delivery system that will deliver
the
40,000 lb "bomb" these turkey's might end up with.
At best, North Korea could take their "bomb" down to the DMZ, I guess by
rail or truck, and explode it on the ground.
Someone is likely to notice such a movement and rain on that parade and do
it without real consequence.

This is pure guesswork by an amateur, but it sounds to me like North Korea
is thinking in terms of a uranium bomb now. There were a couple of articles
in the press last year about them acquiring some centrifuge equipment. A
gun-trigger uranium bomb probably is within their capabilities. A
spherical-implosion plutonium bomb that's sufficiently compact -- and that
works -- may not be. A gun-trigger bomb, given equal and fairly low levels
of sophistication on the design end for both, is easier to fit into a
missile.

You sure aren't ging to launch anything that size stuck on the end of a
Typo
Ding Dong II or even a model III.
Let me know when one of these guys can launch an Atlas D, an Agena or has
one of our retired shuttles in their inventory.
That's what they will need until they have perfected multi-stage devices
and
there isn't enough money or other wealth in North Korea to do that.



May be. What they can do and can't, and what it takes to make a weaponable
gun-trigger bomb, are outside of my range.

I know I - degree in Physics and was planning on high energy post grad
but took another path.

But put this glass in a megaton of Plastic explosion - and it powders...
Think dirty bomb not a big blowup destructive bomb - kinda in
between a Neutron and H.

Martin

Ignoramus14955 wrote:
On 2009-09-20, Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
All they need to spread is power plant junk crap that we have
to store for 10^9 years... e.g. conventional big bomb that
spreads spent or good fuel across the land.

It is worse than salting it like the Greeks and Romans used to do.

Some countries keep their spent fuel "vitrified", which means that it
is mixed with molten glass and then solidifies into large rods.

The advantage of those rods is that if they accidentally get damaged,
they do not produce radiactive dust -- they break up into pebbles, at
worst.

i

Martin

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"HH&C" wrote in message
...
On Sep 17, 5:03 pm, Cliff
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:47:18 -0700, Garlicdude
wrote:
Michael wrote:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...7/barack-obama...
This is shameful!
The hard part is enriching enough uranium to bomb-grade. The more
common way to do it is with a series of centrifuges...hmmm...just
like Iran has built...
The really hard part Ed is building a delivery system that will deliver
the
40,000 lb "bomb" these turkey's might end up with.
At best, North Korea could take their "bomb" down to the DMZ, I guess by
rail or truck, and explode it on the ground.
Someone is likely to notice such a movement and rain on that parade and do
it without real consequence.
This is pure guesswork by an amateur, but it sounds to me like North Korea
is thinking in terms of a uranium bomb now. There were a couple of articles
in the press last year about them acquiring some centrifuge equipment. A
gun-trigger uranium bomb probably is within their capabilities. A
spherical-implosion plutonium bomb that's sufficiently compact -- and that
works -- may not be. A gun-trigger bomb, given equal and fairly low levels
of sophistication on the design end for both, is easier to fit into a
missile.

You sure aren't ging to launch anything that size stuck on the end of a
Typo
Ding Dong II or even a model III.
Let me know when one of these guys can launch an Atlas D, an Agena or has
one of our retired shuttles in their inventory.
That's what they will need until they have perfected multi-stage devices
and
there isn't enough money or other wealth in North Korea to do that.


May be. What they can do and can't, and what it takes to make a weaponable
gun-trigger bomb, are outside of my range.