North Korea Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

They simulated the full ICBM range by making it go pretty much straight up. It reached crazy altitude, coasting up to apogee of 4,475km, ten times higher than ISS. If fired in a more horizontal conventional ICBM trajectory it would be very much be intercontinental, able to hit pretty much any city in the US from North Korea.

I rather doubt North Korea has MIRV technology, likewise they are unlikely to have thermonuclear weapons. So this monster of an ICBM is likely designed to loft a single supersized (maybe boosted) fission bomb to threaten cities.

Temstar said:

They simulated the full ICBM range by making it go pretty much straight up. It reached crazy altitude, coasting up to apogee of 4,475km, ten times higher than ISS. If fired in a more horizontal conventional ICBM trajectory it would be very much be intercontinental, able to hit pretty much any city in the US from North Korea.

I rather doubt North Korea has MIRV technology, likewise they are unlikely to have thermonuclear weapons. So this monster of an ICBM is likely designed to loft a single supersized (maybe boosted) fission bomb to threaten cities.

Click to expand...

They most likelly have miniature warheads.

The BBC atricle showing a thingy, considering it is not for general media consumption but to make a creadible threat and to interpreted by nuclear bomb scientist it is most likelly the warhead of the ICBM.

Most likelly they could isntall several warhead and decoys.


And don't forget , the 90-95% of the cost of nuclear bombs came from the delivery vehicle,. means the actual development cost of the bomb is small compared to the ICBM.

Anlsvrthng said:

They most likelly have miniature warheads.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The BBC atricle showing a thingy, considering it is not for general media consumption but to make a creadible threat and to interpreted by nuclear bomb scientist it is most likelly the warhead of the ICBM.

Most likelly they could isntall several warhead and decoys.


And don't forget , the 90-95% of the cost of nuclear bombs came from the delivery vehicle,. means the actual development cost of the bomb is small compared to the ICBM.

Click to expand...

That's too small of a yield to unequivocally say that's a fusion device. Generally when a country detonate its first fusion weapon the yield is quite high:

• Ivy Mike - 10.4 megatons
• Joe 4 - 400 kilotons (inefficient Sloika configuration)
• Grapple X (1.8 megatons)
• Test No. 6 (3.3 megatons)
• Canopus (2.6 megatons)

It's because you're new at this so you give it pretty generous margins in design to make sure fusion is ignited, and plus you want big megaton yields so that other countries watching can have no doubt that you've achieved fusion. In the case of UK and Soviet Union their first tests were both not very efficient in achieving fusion and a lot of the yield comes from fission, and it shows in the lower yields.

If you look at the North Korean test in 2017 the yield is estimated at between 70 to 300 kilotons. That's lower than all five above, even the rather inefficient Soviet Sloika device. That's why it's a bit questionable if it's a fusion weapon at all. Now of course even with fission weapons it's well known by now you can inject deuterium and tritium gas into the hollow pit of the core, so that when the core is imploded this fusion fuel in the middle of the pit is squeezed and undergo fusion. But this is mostly done to provide extra neutron to boost the fission rate rather than for yield and this little bit of fusion isn't normally counted as a "hydrogen bomb". It may be that the North Korean design has a larger than average fusion boost and they're counting that as thermonuclear, rather than a full on Teller–Ulam configuration.

Temstar said:

I rather doubt North Korea has MIRV technology, likewise they are unlikely to have thermonuclear weapons. So this monster of an ICBM is likely designed to loft a single supersized (maybe boosted) fission bomb to threaten cities.

Click to expand...

They specifically said they're going MIRV, and they've exploded thermonuclear in 2017...

Temstar said:

That's too small of a yield to unequivocally say that's a fusion device. Generally when a country detonate its first fusion weapon the yield is quite high:

Click to expand...

NK is a small country. There're very good reasons to avoid higher yields at all costs.
Some fusion input to verify that it works (and how well the result matches models) is good enough.

I thought a photo like this was coming since last night and they didn't disappoint. What a gangsta

true #kimspirations photo, hah

Temstar said:

View attachment 85893
They simulated the full ICBM range by making it go pretty much straight up. It reached crazy altitude, coasting up to apogee of 4,475km, ten times higher than ISS. If fired in a more horizontal conventional ICBM trajectory it would be very much be intercontinental, able to hit pretty much any city in the US from North Korea.

I rather doubt North Korea has MIRV technology, likewise they are unlikely to have thermonuclear weapons. So this monster of an ICBM is likely designed to loft a single supersized (maybe boosted) fission bomb to threaten cities.

Click to expand...

Actually a correction, 4,475km is the earlier Hwasong-15 test a few years ago, this Hwasong-17 actually reached an apogee of 6248.5km:

Quite the beast. Hwasong-15 is the one on the 9 axial TEL, Hwasong-17 uses a similar but longer 11 axial TEL.

LOL.....

Temstar said:

If you look at the North Korean test in 2017 the yield is estimated at between 70 to 300 kilotons. That's lower than all five above, even the rather inefficient Soviet Sloika device. That's why it's a bit questionable if it's a fusion weapon at all. Now of course even with fission weapons it's well known by now you can inject deuterium and tritium gas into the hollow pit of the core, so that when the core is imploded this fusion fuel in the middle of the pit is squeezed and undergo fusion. But this is mostly done to provide extra neutron to boost the fission rate rather than for yield and this little bit of fusion isn't normally counted as a "hydrogen bomb". It may be that the North Korean design has a larger than average fusion boost and they're counting that as thermonuclear, rather than a full on Teller–Ulam configuration.

Click to expand...

You are on the position of NK making these videos pictures tests and detonation for PR purposes, to convince the general population like you and me about they power.

But that doesn't make too much sense, we can't make a decision to start a war agaisnt them, that made by persons in the elite/rulling class.

Now ,they can not be fooled by fake tests designed to convince the general population, the nuke bomb engineers know how and what happens, and what is fake and true. Inlcuding the last pictures.


Means most likelly the statements made by NK,the tests and all picture showing real things, otherwise they loose the deterence power.

I prefer this kind of K-pop...