Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
North Korean bomb size
Posted by: McQ on Monday, October 09, 2006

Seems to be some question as to the size of the NoKo bomb.

Some reports say it was equivalent to 550 tons of TNT.

Russia is saying between 5,000 and 15,000 tons of TNT.

Obviously quite a difference.

According to the USGS Earthquake Center, the magnitude of the seismic disturbance was 4.2.

According to the calculations on this site (scroll down near the bottom), the comparable size, in tons of TNT for a 4.2 falls between 1,000 and 5,100 tons of TNT.

So perhaps it really falls between the two sizes (550 and 5,000) in the 3,000 to 4,000 ton area.

That is a significant detonation and would indeed seem to indicate a nuclear explosion occurred.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Given "Dirty Bombs" perhaps the issue is not so much the explosive power.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Oh, goodie. It’s not the size but how it’s used...
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
Econopundit has a good take on the subject of size.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Rats, link is hosed. Go on over to Econopundit and see what I was talking about
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
indicate a nuclear explosion occurred but it seems that it should have had a yield more than an order of magnitude larger.

These guys can’t even read Abdul Khan’s schematics correctly.

Durka durka durka

.. or was it "Team America: World Police" at their best. LOL
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Well, let me propose an alternate scenario which might explain the smaller than expected yeild: It was not nuclear.

Some of you may recall the Ryongchon rail disaster.
The Ryongchŏn disaster was a train disaster that occurred in the town of Ryongchŏn, North Korea near the border with China on April 22, 2004.

The disaster occurred when a flammable cargo exploded at the railway station at about 1300 local time (0400 GMT). The news was broken by South Korean media outlets, which reported that up to 3,000 people had been killed or injured in the blast and subsequent fires. The North Korean government declared a state of emergency in the region, but little information about the accident has been made public by the notoriously secretive government. Shortly after the accident the North Korean government cut telephone lines to the rest of the world (an action correspondents attributed either to a desire to inhibit foreign reporting or to prevent their own population from learning unfavourable news about the accident).
I don’t have to hand any records indicating estimates of tonnage of the explosion that day. But I don’t recall it being inconsistant with the lower of the reports given about this latest test... 550 tons. I do recall reports at the time saying that seismology is from around the world know that the explosion. I also recall that there were Syrian ’advisors’ on board that train who were reportedly killed in he explosion. It seems unlikely that this was a normal train of AN and FO given the presence of Syrians.

Now, interestingly enough, the Wiki also proposes this scnario for THAT happening:
Reading between the lines, one conclusion is that an explosive made from ammonium nitrate was being transported by rail. Under this explanation, the explosive (maybe a form of ammonium nitrate fuel oil, or ANFO) was probably intended for canal construction, and various officials must have confused this with other explosives and pure fertilizer in their differing accounts.
What were they doing, that day? Well, let’s look at what we have, now.

We have a possible history of Syrian involvement in shipping a trainload of ANFO bombs into the country, and a concerted effort on the part of the government to contain news leaking out about just what happened that day. But it certainly takes on the appearence of shipping a trainload of ANFO bomb to soemwhere inside the country.

Is it possible that we’re today dealing with what they had planned for that first shipment... finally doing what they’d planned for, two years ago? We know that North Korea, Syria, and Iran have been playing footsy for the last several years now. What if this was a pure fake, orchestrated specifically for the purpose of our response from the rest of the world?

Now, mind you, I’ll more than grant that this is pure speculation based on an absence of evidence, as much as anything. But is it so far out of line to suggest the possibility that what we’re dealing with here isn’t a nuclear test in all, but a fake generated by a amonium nitrate and fuel oil? It does seem to fit both the events we know about and it would seem to explain a lot about what we don’t.

Just sayin....
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Comment withdrawn; They’re now starting to report in that they’re seeing increased radiation in the area.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Arrgh.
Withdrawal.... withdrawn.
Turns out I misread a mailnote sent me. Sorry.

By the way, did anyone see Bill Gertz today? Seems they’re suspicious as I am of this not being Nuclear.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider