| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject: No one seems to have asked, "What if the test FAILS&quo |
 |
|
What if, after all this hype and raised tensions, the NKs attempt to test a bomb and it fails?
What would the implications be as it comes to fruition that NK is NOT a nuclear power and has not yet mastered the ability to create a nuke? This would leave NK feeling vulnerable as it would totally erase the blanket of "deterrent" they seem to think they have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose it depends on the nature of the failure. If they attempt to explode a device, but something goes wrong and it spreads radioactive material over a wide area, it could be an environmental disaster.
But also, working backwards, you can argue NK wouldn't have made the announcement unless and until they were technically certain they could bring it off. From their point of view, too much is at stake; a failed test would be worse than no test at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
I suppose it depends on the nature of the failure. If they attempt to explode a device, but something goes wrong and it spreads radioactive material over a wide area, it could be an environmental disaster.
But also, working backwards, you can argue NK wouldn't have made the announcement unless and until they were technically certain they could bring it off. From their point of view, too much is at stake; a failed test would be worse than no test at all. |
Can you be so sure?
The Norths ICBM test was a failure. It would have landed 100 miles (approx) off the coast of Hawaii had it not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well...there are different technologies at work. Missile tests are usually "failures" the first half-dozen times out. In the early 1960s a lot of people thought the US space program was an abysmal failure because "our rockets keep blowing up". What most people didn't realize is that with each 'failure', the engineers become better and better at designing and developing missiles, so that a series of 'failures' leads eventually to a sustained capacity to build and launch missiles successfully. In this sense, the July missile test wasn't really a failure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Atassi
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Location: 평택
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even if a nuclear test failed, North Korea would still always be able to claim that they are still capable. The West would not be able to discern otherwise. NK's deterrent remains.
Plus, if a test does fail, how could the West know of the test? There very well could have already been tests that "failed". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Atassi
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Location: 평택
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
After posting, I read about NK's announcement to have a test. I still think it's the same though, as NK could possibly have a few years to "safely test" as they stated they want to do.
Is their bomb ready now, or not? I wouldn't want to make that call. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scaggs
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:08 am Post subject: how would anyone know? |
|
|
| If they tested it now and it failed, how would anyone know ... seems like something that they could point to after the fact as easily as before and protect themselves from the embarassment of a failure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:21 am Post subject: Re: how would anyone know? |
|
|
| Scaggs wrote: |
| If they tested it now and it failed, how would anyone know .... |
You can't test a nuke undetected.
Seoul steps up nuclear test monitoring over North Korea
Posted: 04 October 2006 1536 hrs
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/233912/1/.html
"If North Korea conducts an underground nuclear blast, as it threatened on Tuesday, seismic waves would be measured in the South five or 10 minutes afterwards, depending on where the test is conducted.
"It will take a few more hours to verify the seismic waves to determine whether they are from natural quakes or a nuclear test," Chi told AFP.
"But you cannot carry out an underground nuclear test without being detected by others."
Experts say other seismic sensing devices, radioactivity samplings and satellites will also be used to detect a nuclear test.
Baek Seung-Joo, an analyst with the state-financed Korea Institute for Defence Analyses, said North Korea is believed to have produced enough weapons-grade plutonium to make five or six weapons.
Joseph Bermudez, defence analyst for British-based publication Jane's, said the North has been designing a nuclear weapon for over 20 years and needs a test to get hard data to confirm or validate its design.
"What they haven't done is test their own design, which is very important to test the reliability and confirm design parameters," he said.
"The probability is that it's a plutonium-based weapon. From what we know from their doctrine and strategy, the odds are they would like to produce a weapon in the 20 kilotons range."
Baek said the North has many tunnels suitable for underground nuclear tests, but South Korea has been watching the two likeliest sites.
He declined to give details of the locations, but a lawmaker on parliament's intelligence committee has said a deep shaft and a nearby horizontal tunnel had been constructed at Mount Mantap.
Mount Mantap is 17 kilometres from Punggye-yok in the northeast of the country. Legislator Chung Hyung-Keun has said vehicle movements and the unloading of large reels of cable were spotted by satellites.
Judging from the shape of the tunnels, the facility is being prepared for an underground test, the lawmaker has said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scaggs
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You can't test a nuke undetected. |
Yes, a nuclear explosion isn't going to go undetected ... but seems like a failed nuclear test might be considered a failure for lack of producing a nuclear blast ...
The fact that a successful nuclear explosion is going to be clearly detected was part of my point. Because everyone will know if it happens, they don't need to tell everybody when to be watching, so there won't be a moment when the world can say, "Well, looks like they failed."
The OP was asking about reaction to a failure. I guess he could have meant a failure a nuclear disaster that goes terribly arry, but it seems to me at that point there would be bigger problems than political maneuvering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right. i guess a failed test might be signalled by surveillance images of activity at the site.
I don't see why a failed attempt would be regarded as any less serious, politically, as a successful one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
