Missile Defense

[betsy]

One thing I'm convinced of:  once NKorea fires one missile towards the USA (or Canada, I bet)......it will be the end of NKorea.  There will be nuclear retaliation from the USA.

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by betsy

[ZenOps]

As far as I know, you technically cannot shield entirely from a nuclear EMP blast.  As long as its attached to the greater power grid through three prong outlets, the EMP will actually use the power lines themselves as conduits even if you say enclose your computer in a six inch lead block.

Lets also remember that Starfish Prime was an *extremely* weak EMP made with 1962 nuclear technology.  By now I'm sure Russia has one that is 1,000x stronger even though a 1962 EMP would probably still take out half the US power grid.  Arguably, with atmospheric reflections, a singular EMP from a modern nuke could destroy power systems around the entire earth, nevermind what its actually over at time of detonation.

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by ZenOps

[ZenOps]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

One thing I'm convinced of:  once NKorea fires one missile towards the USA (or Canada, I bet)......it will be the end of NKorea.  There will be nuclear retaliation from the USA.

If North Korea used nukes as a first strike, they would probably use the full compliment of sixty maybe 100 that they probably now have ready.  In about a year, they will probably have enough to mini-nuke every city in the USA if they wanted to do small scale nuclear bombardment.  Arguably this would be the primary scenario if Kim Jong were assassinated (maximize death say greater than 35 million nuke retaliation)

The coastal cities would be relatively easy to hit if they used a LORAL type cargo ship with mobile launcher (doable today) but its not impossible that the primary goal would be one gigantic very high altitude EMP smack in the Middle of the USA, or one on each coast to maximize the number of eyeballs as a show of power.

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by ZenOps

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, ZenOps said:

The coastal cities would be relatively easy to hit if they used a LORAL type cargo ship with mobile launcher (doable today) but its not impossible that the primary goal would be one gigantic very high altitude EMP smack in the Middle of the USA, or one on each coast to maximize the number of eyeballs as a show of power.

 

This can only be described as Hollywood inspired fantasy.

Re-entry warhead fratracide alone would make any such "gigantic" coordinated EMP impossible.

Edited September 27, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[ZenOps]

I'd also say that its *not entirely impossible* that the USA would nuke a small section of the USA as a false flag.  I mean really, look at the history of how many surface, sub surface and atmospheric nukes were tested on US soil.  What is the difference between that and pretending that one of those lesser nukes was set by someone else?  It looks like they are going to deport half of New Mexico to Mexico anyhow, so might as well get some sympathy off of it?

The USA does like to use this type of tactic because they have historically been able to control the media.  While North Korea has little regard for starving people or selling them into slavery, the USA seems to have absolutely no regard for exposing its people to radiation.

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by ZenOps

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, ZenOps said:

As far as I know, you technically cannot shield entirely from a nuclear EMP blast.  As long as its attached to the greater power grid through three prong outlets, the EMP will actually use the power lines themselves as conduits even if you say enclose your computer in a six inch lead block.

Lets also remember that Starfish Prime was an *extremely* weak EMP made with 1962 nuclear technology.  By now I'm sure Russia has one that is 1,000x stronger even though a 1962 EMP would probably still take out half the US power grid.  Arguably, with atmospheric reflections, a singular EMP from a modern nuke could destroy power systems around the entire earth, nevermind what its actually over at time of detonation.

 

 

Starfish Prime was a 1.4 megaton yield hydrogen bomb. It was by no means extremely weak. Also, in 1962, H-Bombs were far larger than they are today. The US had a gravity H-Bomb in the 9 megaton yield range...that'll knock the ol' dust off of the top shelf. B-52/B-58 delivered.... 

The thing to remember re: Operation Fishbowl was that it was a hasty testing of high altitude detonations. Not an operation that set-out to demonstrate the ideal EMP effect. That it knocked out satellites and power on the surface came as a bit of a surprise...

[DogOnPorch]

11 minutes ago, ZenOps said:

I'd also say that its *not entirely impossible* that the USA would nuke a small section of the USA as a false flag.  I mean really, look at the history of how many surface, sub surface and atmospheric nukes were tested on US soil.  What is the difference between that and pretending that one of those lesser nukes was set by someone else?  It looks like they are going to deport half of New Mexico to Mexico anyhow, so might as well get some sympathy off of it?

The USA does like to use this type of tactic because they have historically been able to control the media.  While North Korea has little regard for starving people or selling them into slavery, the USA seems to have absolutely no regard for exposing its people to radiation.

 

 

All nuclear weapons leave a unique signature when they detonate. Investigation of the remains/fallout can determine EXACTLY where the fissile material came from.

[DogOnPorch]

...and let's not forget this wee beauty.

The B41...25 (count 'em) megatons yield.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B41_nuclear_bomb

1961-68

[DogOnPorch]

Since all mushroom clouds look alike to the average Joe or Jane...let's compare.

[betsy]

3 hours ago, ZenOps said:

If North Korea used nukes as a first strike, they would probably use the full compliment of sixty maybe 100 that they probably now have ready.  In about a year, they will probably have enough to mini-nuke every city in the USA if they wanted to do small scale nuclear bombardment.  Arguably this would be the primary scenario if Kim Jong were assassinated (maximize death say greater than 35 million nuke retaliation)

The coastal cities would be relatively easy to hit if they used a LORAL type cargo ship with mobile launcher (doable today) but its not impossible that the primary goal would be one gigantic very high altitude EMP smack in the Middle of the USA, or one on each coast to maximize the number of eyeballs as a show of power.

 

 

I predict there'll be a sabotage on NKorea's nuclear facilities by North Koreans/CIA.  If Fat Rocket Dough Boy isn't assassinated, he'll be overthrown in a coup (and eventually executed).

You know that sesimic tremor that recently happened in North Korea....I wouldn't be surprised if something did happen, like their own missile blowing up by accident, or maybe even a sabotage already.

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

I predict there'll be a sabotage on NKorea's nuclear facilities by North Koreans/CIA.  If Fat Rocket Dough Boy isn't assassinated, he'll be overthrown in a coup (and eventually executed).

You know that sesimic tremor that recently happened in North Korea....I wouldn't be surprised if something did happen, like their own missile blowing up by accident, or maybe even a sabotage already.

 

 

NK is using Plutonium-239 as its fissile material which comes with a bevy of issues. It's fission rate is about 60-70% when hit with a slow neutron. The remaining time, it forms Plutonium-240 rather than splitting. Too much of that = a fizzle. Plutonium must be separated to have as much Pu-239 as possible...93% or better to be considered 'weapons grade'. Pu-240 also naturally undergoes spontaneous fission into lighter elements which results in the overall fissile ability of the warhead degrading over time...why these things need constant upkeep to remain viable. So what was once a warhead primed with weapons grade Plutonium, can be reduced to a dud full of Pu-240 contaminants and other elements like Strontium...Caesium ...etc.

Advantages...you need far less Pu-239 to make your bang than U-235

Edited September 27, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Here's a good visualization. Try setting the enrichment to various % to see the results. Adding a neutron reflector/pusher like Beryllium greatly enhances the reaction.

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/misc/criticality/

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/04/10/critical-mass/

 

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

I predict there'll be a sabotage on NKorea's nuclear facilities by North Koreans/CIA.  If Fat Rocket Dough Boy isn't assassinated, he'll be overthrown in a coup (and eventually executed).

You know that sesimic tremor that recently happened in North Korea....I wouldn't be surprised if something did happen, like their own missile blowing up by accident, or maybe even a sabotage already.

 

Just what Christ would want too, Betsy, more US terrorism against the people of Korea. 

[DogOnPorch]

8 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Just what Christ would want too, Betsy, more US terrorism against the people of Korea. 

 

Like with the Arabs attacking Israel, North Korea started this war.

[ZenOps]

Strategically speaking, a show of force would probably be far more effective than using an actual nuke on the greater populace of the USA.

One nuke launched perfectly vertically in the Gulf of Mexico and one perfectly vertically in Hudsons bay would probably be sufficient.  Again, nukes don't have to be accurate at all to be considered effective, you just have to be within a few thousand miles (which is basically, anywhere)  These would with absolute certainty not be interceptable, because there is no tradgectory where it falls back to earth to be intercepted, and once you have the advantage of speed going up, nothing is going to catch it.

The advantage of that is that there will be zero casualties, but almost certainly will destroy every satellite in the hemisphere.

It would be not much different that what the USA is doing now, flying bombers over Korea twice a year.  The USA would probably have a much harder time trying that type of nuke as a show of force, as you will pretty much hit everyone in the area (you will instantly make enemies of anyone within the sightline of a nuclear blast, including South Korea and Japan)

By my estimation, the USA very large landmass (including Alaska, which is a lot bigger than it looks on most maps) makes it much more "nuke"- able.  North Korea is tiny by comparison, and not really a good nuke target because of proximity to everyone else (including a nuclear China and Russia)

 

Edited September 28, 2017 by ZenOps

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, ZenOps said:

  ....Again, nukes don't have to be accurate at all to be considered effective, you just have to be within a few thousand miles (which is basically, anywhere)
 

 

No, that's not how "nukes" are targeted or delivered, tactically or strategically.

Existing nuclear powers have spent billions upon billions of dollars for better targeting accuracy with lower yield warheads, because that is more effective.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, that's not how "nukes" are targeted or delivered, tactically or strategically.

Existing nuclear powers have spent billions upon billions of dollars for better targeting accuracy with lower yield warheads, because that is more effective.

 

Yes...other than Red China, nobody employs multi-megaton warheads as clusters of 100kt MIRVs (et al) do so much more w/ multiple colliding mach stems waves. Red China still has accuracy issues with their missiles...resulting in higher yields.

Edited September 29, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

In Orbiter Space Flight Simulator (free) there's a nuke add-on you can d/l that allows you to experiment with the issues of shooting over the pole. Not so easy...everything is moving...that's using assisted targeting.

Try it manually....lol.

[ZenOps]

That's not how nukes are delivered - in US or Soviet style war scenarios.

I can absolutely with 100% see Kim Jong modifying a Cessna for high altitude flight take out all the passenger comforts and load it up with fuel tanks, probably remotely controlled - but also having one patriotic suicide pilot as a backup that has limited ability to change course.  A nuke would be strapped to it, but there would not be a bomb chute, because the nuke will *never* be dropped.  It will simply try to attain as much height as possible and the nuke will go off - plane and all for as close as they dare get to their target, wherever that may be.

I mean, the entire notion of launching a nuke from the ground or submarine at supersonic speed is purely a USA thing.  Having a nuke explode close to the ground, also an antiquated idea.

Alternate scenario, is that North Korea makes a specialized torpedo that travels at 5 miles per hour, launched two days, or even two weeks in advance, probably from a false flag cargo ship in the middle of the ocean.  Sneak one in like the dolphins.  The US has very little detection for that type of activity, especially if done under something like a tropical storm.  But as such, only useful for targets like New York and LA, you will not be hitting Ohio with a torpedo nuke.  If you can wait two weeks, I'd say that it can be a more reliable system than an ICBM.

One need only look at the condition of the USS John McCain, to know what the capability of the US navy is at detection and avoidance.

I mean really, if you have waited half a century for retribution, what is another two weeks to simply swim a nuke in?

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by ZenOps

[DogOnPorch]

The tramp freighter/rogue container scenario is indeed a possibility re: terrorists delivering a larger device. But, as with any weapon...it's location, location and location. That freighter still needs to get to port. As NukeMap (links back a few posts) demonstrates...even a larger device detonated a few miles offshore will have dubious effect re: blast.

Edited September 30, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[ZenOps]

Also:  Going by the historical disregard for US nuclear fallout safety for their own population, I can imagine that the US would see dropping a nuke on North Korea resulting in loss of 1 million lives as acceptable, but also 100,000 South Koreans as acceptable as well.  

I mean really South Korea, the US radiated their own population - what makes you think they won't nuke yours a side effect?  Its almost impossible to drop a nuke in that small an area and not have neighboring countries affected (if not increased cancer rates, and knock maybe five years off the entire population for at least one lifetime)

The devil that South Korea knows is North Korea, but the US is just as big a devil if you ask me.

Edited October 1, 2017 by ZenOps

[dre]

On 9/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, ZenOps said:

If North Korea used nukes as a first strike, they would probably use the full compliment of sixty maybe 100 that they probably now have ready.  In about a year, they will probably have enough to mini-nuke every city in the USA if they wanted to do small scale nuclear bombardment.  Arguably this would be the primary scenario if Kim Jong were assassinated (maximize death say greater than 35 million nuke retaliation)

The coastal cities would be relatively easy to hit if they used a LORAL type cargo ship with mobile launcher (doable today) but its not impossible that the primary goal would be one gigantic very high altitude EMP smack in the Middle of the USA, or one on each coast to maximize the number of eyeballs as a show of power.

 

 

 

I think the likelyhood of such a strike is extremely low. What much more likely is that they want nukes to make sure they don't get sacked like fellow "axis of evil" member, Iraq did.

Edited October 14, 2017 by dre