North Korea's suicide bomber corps with nuclear backpacks show up in parade

reply to post by Adaluncatif
Hers is my view if we the US and SK admit they have nukes of this size then they er we the US SK would have to admit they have the same size nukes, think it is all si fi and not real www.fas.org... from the link

In a 1991 Strategic Affairs article entitled "Countering the Threat of the Well-armed Tyrant," Los Alamos weapons analysts Thomas Dowler and Joseph Howard II, argued that the US has no proportionate response to a rogue dictator who uses chemical or biological weapons against US troops. Our smallest nuclear weapons � those with Hiroshima-size yields�would be so devastating that no US president could use them. We would be "self-deterred." To counter this dilemma, they argued the US should develop "mininukes," with yields equivalent to 0.01-1 KT: "... nuclear weapons with very low yields could provide an effective response for countering the enemy in such a crisis, while not violating the principle of proportionality."

More recently, in a speech to the Nuclear Security Decisionmakers Forum, Sandia Laboratory Director Paul Robinson stated

so how to test it ?

But could the US deploy a new low-yield nuclear earth-penetrating weapon without testing it? Under continued political pressure to support the Test Ban and its related Stockpile Stewardship Program, Los Alamos Associate Director Steve Younger has stated, "one could design and deploy a new set of nuclear weapons that do not require nuclear testing to be certified. However, ... such simple devices would be based on a very limited nuclear test database."

Oh like this one? www.johnstonsarchive.net... then go ask DPRK, they did a test on Dec 2012. Could they be real?? DPRK is no fool we just think they are.. Never underestimate your foe. Sun Tzu suntzusaid.com... Yes but they only tested a below 10 kt nuke if that , well the point is it went off here is a test from the link www.johnstonsarchive.net... to prove it,it does not need to be a full size to see it works just that it works the yeld will be form 20 to 200 kt or more here is a 20 kt min 200 max test was 67 in red

1973 MAR 8 16:10:00.19 NTS-YF 37.10358 -116.02672 U7ad -568.39 1279 UG-S WR 20 200 67 S 67 5.40 340 V LANL 1,2,5,6,8,q

edit on 6-8-2013 by bekod because: line edit

edit on 6-8-2013 by bekod because: added link, line edit

Originally posted by concernedcitizen519
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

Not by themselves, but with help from sympathetic countries it could be possible. It's scary when you realize that they've been trading tech with Iran for decades now. I wouldn't count on them being full nuclear weapons, but maybe dirty-bombs? Very plausible.

edit on 31-7-2013 by concernedcitizen519 because: spelling

They would be suicide bombers then. Not really DPRK's style.

Very small nuclear weapons require a large amount of tritium, which has to be produced in a nuclear reactor, and decays.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Adaluncatif

 

Seriously, you need to work on that chip on your shoulder. Smaller nukes are actually harder to make than large nukes. You need better technology, and have to be more precise than with a larger nuke, or you get a fizzle. It's not easy shrinking a nuclear warhead to ICBM sized, let alone to backpack sized.

It's very difficult to shrink a multi-stage fusion weapon to ICBM size.

It's somewhat difficult to shrink a standard "10kt" nuclear weapon to "foot-locker" size and requires significant tritium replenishment---you need to have a highly efficient use of the small amount of fissile material. Not sure if a true 'backpack' is feasible unless you have a very low yield. Generally they're linear implosion requiring subtantially more nuclear material.

It's more difficult than either of those to make a ICBM with highly accurate guidance.

reply to post by bekod


I wouldn't compare major power's variable-yield test regime with DPRK.

USA and USSR after 25 years had substantial experience. Variable yield can come from using more or less uranium in the 3rd stage of a multi-stage thermonuclear weapon, there is little design uncertainty at that point.

Note that in the beginning USA and USSR tested at nearly full yield to validate the design---once you know how to make it go you can make it go less, but not necessarily the other way around.

DPRK management wouldn't have any motivation to intentionally fizzle. Their internal politics demand obvious and belligerent results otherwise you get sent to torture camps.

Seems like this thread goes perfect with pakistans small nukes ... If they are capable of tennis sized nukes I'm sure NK has no problem accepting a backpack sized nuke ...... I hope this doesn't get out of hands...


Seems like we're getting closer to our nuclear extinction...

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by concernedcitizen519
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

Not by themselves, but with help from sympathetic countries it could be possible. It's scary when you realize that they've been trading tech with Iran for decades now. I wouldn't count on them being full nuclear weapons, but maybe dirty-bombs? Very plausible.

edit on 31-7-2013 by concernedcitizen519 because: spelling

They would be suicide bombers then. Not really DPRK's style.

Very small nuclear weapons require a large amount of tritium, which has to be produced in a nuclear reactor, and decays.

Yes, this is true. Suicide bombers are DPRK style. The captain in Panama tried to kill himself, the second such incident in recent years. They have plenty of tritium from their reactor(s). They are experts at reactor design. They were building a reactor for Syria that got blown up by the Israeli's in 2007. North Korea produces plutonium, tritium, and polonium, if they use it, from reactors and enriched uranium from centrifuges. They have the infrastructure for development of every type of nuclear weapon. The primary purpose of the nuke weapon program is the export of nuclear weapons for profit or food. They have mastered linear implosion. The nuke tests, in my opinion, produced the desired results, small yields. Previously, I stated that they would be using only uranium in gun designs for backpack nukes. I have revised my opinion. I believe they have reached the level of sophistication to use plutonium and/or uranium in backpack designs. It's been over 20 years since they reached nuclear capability. They have mastered miniaturization for missile warheads and backpack nukes. The only problem they have now is the creation of a reliable ICBM. The one they have now is large and sits on a launch platform waiting to be bombed.