Media awful quiet about Kim Jong
Their worst nightmare came true. Kim Jong got his bunker buster. They don't know what to say, other than Hillary is doing 10X better than she really is. Ok, let me make this clear: IF and only IF the nuke really was set off above ground the way the USGS reported it, it is inconceivable that Kim Jong's latest firecracker was smaller than 50 kilotons, and it would instead realistically be between 75 and 100 kilotons. Forget what the talking heads have said about it being around 10 KT because that is based on it being set off deep underground, where all of the blast would be seen on siesmographs. Surface blasts only show up at about 1/10th their actual value on seismographs. 100 KT would be a big boy's toy, and Kim Jong would officially be on the map. The war mongers will not want the public to know that.
Why would Kim Jong set it off above ground? The answers, and there are 2 of them, are easy:
1. It would completely dispel all doubt from the minds of every North Korean that their nukes are real and that would do away with any CIA psy ops on the ground, trying to tell the North Korean people otherwise.
2. This one is more important - If Kim Jong really did get a state of the art nuclear weapon built, as he has said (and the seismograms clearly indicate), an above ground detonation will not matter with regard to contamination because it won't produce any substantial nuclear fallout. A super clean burning nuclear weapon can operate with a sub critical amount of nuclear materials because the trigger will be able to collapse the electron valence shells surrounding the nuclei on the atoms in the nuclear pit, which will allow each nucleus to be much much closer to surrounding nuclei which results in a far better chain reaction, a far smaller critical mass, and a far better fuel to boom ratio. If little Kim actually did a nuke that good (and it looks like he did) He'll get up to 50 times more nuclear weapons built from the same amount of nuclear material. They'd be smaller in yield, but even if he wanted a full size boom, he'd get well over 10X more nukes from the same fuel and they would have a spectacularly clean burn. If he did an above ground test, as the USGS has clearly stated (see the next report) it would only make sense to do it if you knew you were not going to contaminate your country with a filthy low performance old school nuke.
Modern nuclear weapons are suitable for ground combat because they burn so clean that you can enter the blast zone within a day and not worry about the radiation. Kim Jong probably has that if the USGS told the truth. And if Kim Jong really does have that, he definitely, beyond the smallest doubt, has a missile launchable nuke, and not just any missile launchable nuke, he's got 5 to 7X more on a missile than was used on Hiroshima.
It is just my opinion that 100 KT is where it starts to get real. 10KT firecrackers might make someone worry, but 100 KT will be enough to make George Soros piss in his boots. And if NK can do that, what's next? it can only be good, Soros is Satan in the flesh. I'd love to see lil Kim send him a sub orbital message.
If you think it is a bad thing for Kim Jong to have his nuke, you are just letting the MSM scare you!
Confirmed: North Korea did another nuclear test
I have ditched the original report because of a MAJOR development.
The USGS is saying this was a surface blast. IF it was a surface blast, then the nuclear yield had to have been between 50 and 100 KT, not 10 - 30KT. Only Western states plus China and Russia have accomplished that. If it ends up that it really did happen below ground, then the blast yield was between 10 and 30 kilotons which would put NK on par with India. Some people commenting on forums and blogs are saying it was an H-bomb. This was not an H-bomb. The yield indicates that it was a well made boosted fission nuke (a hybrid that falls between a hydrogen bomb and a fission nuke)
The USGS graphic here to the left is why I upgraded the bomb blast. One way to guage a nuclear weapon is its seismic impact. If you bury a nuke, all of its energy can be measured seismically because the earth will soak up all of the blast (provided it does not blow a crater open) and all of the blast can then be picked up by seismographs. But a surface detonation only puts a fraction of the energy into the earth for a siesmograph to pick up (with the rest going into a fire ball and the atmosphere), and it is much harder to measure how powerful a bomb actually is. In this case, with an air coupled blast, the nuke HAD TO have been over 50 KT and was probably closer to 100 KT.
Originally, this blast was reported to have happened at 15 KM depth. This is what caused (educated) people to say it was between 10 and 30 KT. but those same educated people will revise their estimates upwards if it really was a surface blast as is now being reported by the USGS.
---MEXICAN ANONYMOUS
Their worst nightmare came true. Kim Jong got his bunker buster. They don't know what to say, other than Hillary is doing 10X better than she really is. Ok, let me make this clear: IF and only IF the nuke really was set off above ground the way the USGS reported it, it is inconceivable that Kim Jong's latest firecracker was smaller than 50 kilotons, and it would instead realistically be between 75 and 100 kilotons. Forget what the talking heads have said about it being around 10 KT because that is based on it being set off deep underground, where all of the blast would be seen on siesmographs. Surface blasts only show up at about 1/10th their actual value on seismographs. 100 KT would be a big boy's toy, and Kim Jong would officially be on the map. The war mongers will not want the public to know that.
Why would Kim Jong set it off above ground? The answers, and there are 2 of them, are easy:
1. It would completely dispel all doubt from the minds of every North Korean that their nukes are real and that would do away with any CIA psy ops on the ground, trying to tell the North Korean people otherwise.
2. This one is more important - If Kim Jong really did get a state of the art nuclear weapon built, as he has said (and the seismograms clearly indicate), an above ground detonation will not matter with regard to contamination because it won't produce any substantial nuclear fallout. A super clean burning nuclear weapon can operate with a sub critical amount of nuclear materials because the trigger will be able to collapse the electron valence shells surrounding the nuclei on the atoms in the nuclear pit, which will allow each nucleus to be much much closer to surrounding nuclei which results in a far better chain reaction, a far smaller critical mass, and a far better fuel to boom ratio. If little Kim actually did a nuke that good (and it looks like he did) He'll get up to 50 times more nuclear weapons built from the same amount of nuclear material. They'd be smaller in yield, but even if he wanted a full size boom, he'd get well over 10X more nukes from the same fuel and they would have a spectacularly clean burn. If he did an above ground test, as the USGS has clearly stated (see the next report) it would only make sense to do it if you knew you were not going to contaminate your country with a filthy low performance old school nuke.
Modern nuclear weapons are suitable for ground combat because they burn so clean that you can enter the blast zone within a day and not worry about the radiation. Kim Jong probably has that if the USGS told the truth. And if Kim Jong really does have that, he definitely, beyond the smallest doubt, has a missile launchable nuke, and not just any missile launchable nuke, he's got 5 to 7X more on a missile than was used on Hiroshima.
It is just my opinion that 100 KT is where it starts to get real. 10KT firecrackers might make someone worry, but 100 KT will be enough to make George Soros piss in his boots. And if NK can do that, what's next? it can only be good, Soros is Satan in the flesh. I'd love to see lil Kim send him a sub orbital message.
If you think it is a bad thing for Kim Jong to have his nuke, you are just letting the MSM scare you!
Confirmed: North Korea did another nuclear test
I have ditched the original report because of a MAJOR development.
The USGS is saying this was a surface blast. IF it was a surface blast, then the nuclear yield had to have been between 50 and 100 KT, not 10 - 30KT. Only Western states plus China and Russia have accomplished that. If it ends up that it really did happen below ground, then the blast yield was between 10 and 30 kilotons which would put NK on par with India. Some people commenting on forums and blogs are saying it was an H-bomb. This was not an H-bomb. The yield indicates that it was a well made boosted fission nuke (a hybrid that falls between a hydrogen bomb and a fission nuke)
The USGS graphic here to the left is why I upgraded the bomb blast. One way to guage a nuclear weapon is its seismic impact. If you bury a nuke, all of its energy can be measured seismically because the earth will soak up all of the blast (provided it does not blow a crater open) and all of the blast can then be picked up by seismographs. But a surface detonation only puts a fraction of the energy into the earth for a siesmograph to pick up (with the rest going into a fire ball and the atmosphere), and it is much harder to measure how powerful a bomb actually is. In this case, with an air coupled blast, the nuke HAD TO have been over 50 KT and was probably closer to 100 KT.
Originally, this blast was reported to have happened at 15 KM depth. This is what caused (educated) people to say it was between 10 and 30 KT. but those same educated people will revise their estimates upwards if it really was a surface blast as is now being reported by the USGS.
---MEXICAN ANONYMOUS