[Closed] Tiny H-Bomb, is this possible?

Maybe they only split half an atom 🙂

Could be the case that it was a H bomb it just didn't go off properly. Its a much-forgotten episode that the US accidentally dropped 4 hydrogen bombs on Spain - two of the bombs exploded but only the conventional parts of them - which failed to detonate the atomic bits and just threw Plutomium everywhere instead. The US has had to spend the last 50 years quietly trying to clean it all up

Maybe it was a very small H-bomb

Nah, just very far away.

[img] [/img]

Its nothing but propaganda from a very small, very insecure, very crazy state.

The propaganda benefits certain entities in the US as well (the Pentagon, CIA etc) as it justifies their bloated budgets.

Kim Jong Un gets to feel like a big man on the world stage, the American defence industry is kept in funding, everyone's a winner.

Its nothing but propaganda from a very small, very insecure, very crazy state.

I know and don't really expect it to be anything else, it just seems more than a little irresponsible to rule it out for that reason. Boy who cried wolf, anyone?

Maybe they don't have any nukes at all? The "test" was just a huge pile of TNT, or Kim Jong Un sneezing through a megaphone 😛

😯 😀

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition ]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition[/url]

Apparently could have a yield as "low" as 10 tonnes. Still a pretty big bang mind.

Coastal targets[edit]
It was also intended that the munition could be used against targets in coastal and near-coastal locations. One person carrying the weapon package would parachute from an aircraft and place the device in a harbor or other strategic location that was accessible from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first to provide support as needed. The two-person team would place the weapon package in the target location, set the timer, and swim out into the ocean, where they would be retrieved by a submarine or a high-speed surface water craft.

From the link - any volunteers?

Maybe it was a very small H-bomb?

Why would you bother when you could just use a atomic (fusion) bomb and a fusion bomb is necessary for a H-bomb.

Maybe they have stolen a Davey Crockett:

[img] [/img]

The "test" was just a huge pile of TNT, or Kim Jong Un sneezing through a megaphone

I once spent all my pocket money on reels of caps - then carefully stacked the reels on top of each other and hit whole lot with a hammer. Disappointingly they made absolutely no noise at all and I was ruminating on what a waste of money it had been when I noticed my parents coming out of the house, looking worried and silently mouthing 'what the hell just happened?' and 'are you all right?' I was 28 years old.

It could have been that (if you can buy reels of caps in NK)

Why would you bother when you could just use a atomic (fusion) bomb and a fusion bomb is necessary for a H-bomb.

As for whether NK tested an H-bomb or not, I was under the impression that it was something to do with the signature of the seismic signal that led the US to say they didn't think it was a H-bomb 9rather than just the size of the explosion).

Why would you bother when you could just use a atomic (fusion) bomb and a fusion bomb is necessary for a H-bomb.

That will be fission

H Bombs use fusion

All the low yield devices that the US messed about with were fission weapons.
They had plenty of serious drawbacks.

If you make the blast small enough to be survivable by the soldiers actually detonating the weapons then you still have to deal with the fallout - fission weapons are really good at producing lots of fallout.

If you start popping off "battlefield" low yield weapons it's likely it will very quickly escalate to big mansized nukes.

Do you want to give theatre commanders the authority to release nuclear weapons? If not then the President or Prime Minister isn't going to have the tactical awareness to use them and will just go back to the mansized nukes anyway.

This will be why stuff like Davy Crocket above were never really seriously viable except in the really mad early days of the Cold War.

The west is reasonably confident that North Korea doesn't have an H-bomb because all H-Bombs effectively use a A-bomb (plutonium or uranuim fission bomb) within them to trigger the 2nd stage fusion reaction. Therefore they can't be small

Plus, eventually the isotopes will drift over their sensors on the nearest land masses and they can then tell exactly what type of explosion it was.

Maybe it was a very small H-bomb?

without getting all sciencey on here it basically boils down to:

By it's very nature a fusion bomb (H-bomb) will be 'big' in terms of blast/energy, and bigger than a fission bomb*. We can't really do a small thermonuclear explosion...

Also

Did that not occur to anyone?

A general** rule of thumb is that if [i]you [/i] (or I) can jump to that thought/conclusion, chances are that people much smarter than you or I have also considered that, which normally leads to:

Or am I being ignorant

*which is also required anyway (in every current fusion bomb we've made) to kick start the fusion bit so end result will always be bigger.

**it's entirely possible in some cases you might be a genius and have a unique idea/thought, but on balance of probabilities...

I once spent all my pocket money on reels of caps... I was 28 years old.

You got pocket money at 28?

In a Hydrogen Bomb, an atom bomb is the detonator, so i doubt it.

[img] [/img]

Covered pretty well by the BBC, quoted on [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_North_Korean_nuclear_test#Skepticism_of_the_hydrogen_bomb_claim ]Wiki[/url]

Bruce W. Bennett, senior defense analyst of the RAND Corporation research organization, is also skeptical, telling BBC News that "the bang they should have gotten would have been 10 times greater… So Kim Jong-un is either lying, saying they did a hydrogen test when they didn't, they just used a little bit more efficient fission weapon – or the hydrogen part of the test really didn't work very well or the fission part didn't work very well."[23] After considering the seismic data which suggests a 6–9 kiloton yield, other U.S. analysts also do not believe that a hydrogen bomb was detonated. "What we're speculating is they tried to do a boosted nuclear device, which is an atomic bomb that has a little bit of hydrogen, an isotope in it called tritium," said Joseph Cirincione, president of the global security firm Ploughshares Fund.[24]

That will be fission

H Bombs use fusion

Correct, cheers for tidying up my lingo cockup above. Teach me to proof read better next time.

Perhaps a Teeny-Tiny H-Bomb is do-able!

[img] [/img]

According to the ever reliable wikipedia, the blast was estimated to be a 6 - 9 kiloton yield, which is pretty small. It's around the same order of magnitude as the first few British fission bombs. When Britain did detonate our first hydrogen bomb it was 200 - 300 kt, and was considered a bit of a failure because they expected one megaton. This was back in the 1950s, to put it in perspective.

It's possible that North Korea had intended it to be a fusion device and the secondary stage failed, but it seems more likely that it's a small fission bomb - mostly because they're much easier to design and build.

My understanding was that Grapple 1/Short Granite was a failure in that it was a boosted fission reaction and not fusion as anticipated at only 200-300 kt. It wasn't until Grapple X/Round C that the UK managed a fully thermonuclear test at 1.8Mt.

You could be right - I would in no way claim any expertise. I've heard that

Green Granite Small was detonated in the Grapple 1/Short Granite test on 15 May 1957. Its yield was a disappointing 200-300 kt, but most of this was from the secondary stage providing proof of principle.

[url= http://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n20/norman-dombey/britains-thermonuclear-bluff ]Norman Dombey and Eric Grove[/url] on the other hand say that none of those 1957 tests were true thermonuclear devices, and that it was a political bluff instead.

To get back on topic, [url= http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11160314/north-korea-nuclear-threat ]Vox has a good article[/url] about what these threats from NK mean both internally and as a result of external sanctions.

Yes there has already been a backpack nuke...used by navy seals vietnam. Well carried anyway.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

The "test" was just a huge pile of TNT, or Kim Jong Un sneezing through a megaphone

Thanks for clearing this up for me a bit 🙂

A general** rule of thumb is that if you (or I) can jump to that thought/conclusion, chances are that people much smarter than you or I have also considered that

Thanks for this thread, I got all confused thinking "small" nuclear device meant the same as Chenobil reactor blast..

But I do think we need some more details out of that image up there ^^ The one that describes the type of elements used..

Can we add:
Quantity of elements required
Source or supplier able to supply said elements
Some sort of "manual" or "how to crib sheet" to build the bomb
Blast radius
Vehicle needed to deliver and to escape the blast

Ta

😉

Well that should have got the attention of the authorities.

It's complex...

The reason why Little Boy and Fat Man were very large, is because of the inefficiency of the Uranium 235 used - either due to manufacturing impurities or physics. The Uranium content of Little Boy was around 65Kg or 141lb.

The amount of Uranium that actually underwent fission was less than a kilo.

Now, a hydrogen bomb requires enormous temperatures and pressures for fusion to occur - instead of splitting atoms of uranium, the hydrogen (actually lithium deuteride) fuses to form heavier elements. This cannot occur by the use of a normal explosive charge, so a fission device is used to create the conditions required for fusion.

Still with me? Hope so.

A modern hydrogen bomb requires an explosive charge to force the fissile material together (either plutonium or uranium) so it reaches critical mass and starts splitting atoms and releasing energy. This in turn creates enough energy to force the lithium deuteride to undergo fusion.

Boom.

The very first British thermonuclear weapon, tested in 1957 was actually a bit of a cheat...boosted fission in this case and failed to meet the expected yield.

A tiny H bomb is unlikely, more likely anything portable would be a fission weapon. Or a dirty bomb.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition ]Bout as small as they come[/url]

Nobody's considering the possibility that NK did detonate an H-Bomb and our lot are telling us they didn't. .........

stranger things have happened.

Run for the hills

So that's where the WMDs are.

devash - Member
Its nothing but propaganda from a very small, very insecure, very crazy state.
The propaganda benefits certain entities in the US as well (the Pentagon, CIA etc) as it justifies their bloated budgets.
Kim Jong Un gets to feel like a big man on the world stage, the American defence industry is kept in funding, everyone's a winner.

Whether NK did or didn't detonate a real H bomb is inconsequential. If they didn't its only a matter of time as they have the will to do it and seem to have the ability to be making progress in their ambitions. Anyway dead is dead whether it be at the hand of a Fission bomb or a Fusion bomb. Either will kill you just as effectively as the other. It's a pointless arms race, in reality its no more effective than simply having a Fission bomb capability.

Anyway the most important piece of the whole thing is not the bomb itself, its the means to deliver it. Let them have the H-bomb - on it's own its useless to them, but prevent them from developing the long range missile system that can deliver it.

They did manage to hit the sea with some missiles 🙂

If NK posed a serious threat China would deal with them, IMO of course

If you want some scary reading:

Command and Control, by Eric Schlosser. Lots of well researched detail on the rather slapdash way nuclear weapons were handled right up into the 1990's. Armed minuteman missiles guarded by one single, conscript (Italian) infantryman? Amongst m any others. The accidentally dropped bomb in Georgia USA, that had had 6 of its 7 arming steps completed when it was found?

What's on the current trident missiles?

Maybe it's because they're getting on a bit... There are rumours that the 3 missing nukes from David Cameron's trip to South Africa made their way to North Korea..

The more I look into this, the more it appears there is significant truth in many aspects, [url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1993-06-22/Debate-4.html ] from the mystery £17.8 million[/url], to infiltration of Astra by the intelligence services, most notably, Stephan Kock, whose name is said to be on the DTI paperwork regarding the South African Nukes.

[url= http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/08/the-color-of-david-camerons-underwear/ ]DR DAVID KELLY.

You ask for Motive into his MURDER:

He was the appointed Conservative Nuclear Weapon Scientist entrusted in 1991 to oversee the covert purchase of 3 ex Stock Pelindaba, Pretoria Battlefield Bombs.
On a request UOR From ASTRA via the DTI, the UOR Signed by Stephan Kock for ASTRA and Peter Lilley for the DTI to purchase from ARMSCOR 3 “CYLINDERS”
The Operation, a deliberate Conservative Fraud to overcharge the Treasury by £17.8 Million to top up their EMPTY Coffers to fight the 1992 General Election.

As uncovered by the Labour Party
HANSARD JUNE 22 1993 From Col 197.[/url]

Also worth noting that George Kennedy Young, Ex director of MI5 and heavily involved in the Conservative Monday club was pivotal in convincing Gerald James to set up Astra as an arms company in the 1st place:

[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Public-Interest-Devastating-Governments-Manufacturer/dp/0316877190 ]
In the Public Interest: A Devastating Account of the Thatcher Government's Involvement in the Covert Arms Trade, by the Man Who Turned Astra Fireworks into a £100m Arms Manufacturer [/url]

[url=www.oye.global/corruptions/george-kennedy-young-mi6-john-mann-mp-le-cercle-and-plots-including-industrial-child-abuse-wholesale-disinformation-and-cover-ups/]
George Kennedy Young is also deeply tied in to the child abuse networks used by the intelligence services and Special branch to co-erce powerbrokers to the will of the state.[/url]

Also worth noting that many key people linked to the Belgian Arms industry (PRB being a key player), which as Astra grew, it became involved in (detailed in Gerald James' book above) [url= http://isgp.nl/Beyond_Dutroux_part_two_Nebula ]were also tied into global child abuse networks[/url]

Along with alleged links to David Kelly's death, [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Moyle ]Jonathan Moyle[/url], [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull ]Gerald Bull[/url] and [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Cools ]Andre Cools[/url] lives were also taken, the last 2 in professional hits.

Could this also be relevant?

[url= http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/murder-arms-dealing-treason-and-sexual-abuse-the-apartheid-regime-and-the-tory-right ]Murder, arms dealing, treason and sexual abuse: the apartheid regime and the Tory right[/url]

That's a scary situation itself, not just for the missiles but for the subs that carry them.

...every single British nuclear sub, every single one is still languishing at either Devonport or Rosyth with defuelled, but still very radioactive reactors in place because the government hasn't budgeted for disposal.

HMS Dreadnought has been decommissioned since 1980.

[edit] Turns out that several are still fuelled.

Max yield from a fission weapon is about a megatonne(much larger and it blows itself apart before it all detonates) we did this during "we want Polaris tech" as we weren't sure we could make a fusion weapon ignite properly and we wanted in on the tech the yanks stole/hid from us. If I remember rightly our first fission/fusion bomb was a fissile(fizzile) where fusion stage doesn't burn properly.

Fusion bombs, usually three stage weapons for a proper Big Bang with fission nuke primer, lithium deuteride second stage for fusion followed by third stage fission tamper. Makes a VERY dirty weapon and as the Russians discovered there's not much point going over 50MT as all you do is start lifting a chunk of atmosphere with the blast when you get past that.

Most nukes modern nukes (fission/fusion type) are tuneable for yield depending on target from KT to low MT, the Russians may still have some 50MT NORAD killers in their missile fleets. Sub weapons are usually a bit larger as they are lower accuracy than silo missiles but once the yanks and ruskies start using them it's probably only cities that are left.

Wikipedia has an entry on Nuclear Weapon Yield that is good

Suitcase fission nuke is already a done deal and a fission/fusion bomb could fit in a dustbin.

I always found it quite hard to picture in my mind the scale of these weapons, until i saw this image in a book i was reading.
[img] [/img]
Proper scary.

I recommend watching a documentary called Countdown to Zero. It's about terrorism and Nukes.

When those Tzar Bombas come visiting, just remember that Dave and his mates will be nicely ensconced in a deep bunker while your children fry...

Thanks for this thread, I got all confused thinking "small" nuclear device meant the same as Chenobil reactor blast..

Chernobyl was NOT a nuclear explosion, it was an over pressurisation followed by the core cooling water disassociating and the hydrogen flashing off. Pretty much the same as what happened at Fukushima but over a much shorter time period (in the order of a couple of seconds) and with an entire reactor filled with pressurised water as fuel.

There was a further risk of a hydrogen explosion in the flooded basement that would have wiped the entire site out but some brave sods took one for the team and managed to open the drain valve.

That's a scary situation itself, not just for the missiles but for the subs that carry them.

...every single British nuclear sub, every single one is still languishing at either Devonport or Rosyth with defuelled, but still very radioactive reactors in place because the government hasn't budgeted for disposal.

HMS Dreadnought has been decommissioned since 1980.

[edit] Turns out that several are still fuelled.

Not sure what the relevance is here unless you're worried about someone breaking one open?

And Tzar Bombas were never commissioned as regular weapons (nor ever detonated at full yield).

I've dropped a few tiny F-Bombs.

If ever a thread illustrated to the OP the value of a quick google, this is it. Really interesting stuff mind, just don't understand why sometimes people don't do a bit of basic research before posting on here

But STW is Google and Wikipedia rolled into one.

Shouldn't they try helium fusion bombs?

Yeah good luck with that. Maybe they'll go that when they're finished with a Starkiller.

Not sure what the relevance is here unless you're worried about someone breaking one open?

Ah, the original question related to yields from Trident missiles, but I went a little O/T after digging around and discovering that we have a lot of decommissioned subs lying around.

Yes, I am very worried about a decommissioned nuclear sub being damaged. There is already precedent for this as the Russians have had to scuttle a sub en route to the breakers yard. The reactor, even when defueled is still radioactive enough to be a hazard if not disposed of carefully. Given that our ex-subs are stored close to populated areas, I'm very concerned indeed.

The fact that no-one seems to have given much thought to what we do with our ex-attack subs and boomers once they've reached the end of their useful lives gives me grey hair. I would go so far as to say that the subs represent more of a danger to Britain in their decommissioned state than our Trident missiles do to an enemy in event of a conventional conflict.

PJM1974 - Member
...I am very worried about a decommissioned nuclear sub being damaged. There is already precedent for this as the Russians have had to scuttle a sub en route to the breakers yard. The reactor, even when defueled is still radioactive enough to be a hazard if not disposed of carefully. Given that our ex-subs are stored close to populated areas, I'm very concerned indeed....

Don't worry, they're perfectly safe.

And they'll all be coming down to England in a few years time - preferably to be moored outside Westminster seeing as they are so safe. 🙂

As squirrelking points out Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion. Bearing in mind its almost the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident though it's worth a read of a couple of wikipedia articles.

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

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

Chernobyl and Fukashima exploded due to a build up of pressure from a secondary fire, not by the fissile material reaching critical mass. The graphite used to moderate the reaction become too hot, caught fire and the resulting explosion blew out radioactive material.

It's worth reading about the Windscale fire in 1957...the air cooled (air cooled!) reactor became so hot that any water used to cool the reactor fire would release free hydrogen molecules, which would accumulate at the top of the reactor, right above flammable material and fed by a steady supply of cooling air 😯

Whoops, double post.

I've got a mate who named his dog Tsar Bomba.

Chernobyl and Fukashima exploded due to a build up of pressure from a secondary fire, not by the fissile material reaching critical mass.

A fire from reaching critical mass would be very unfortunate since you require it to be supercritical to increase power output 😉

Sub reactors are tricky buggers only by virtue of the fact they were built without any consideration given towards removal, Vanguard class (and newer) subs are designed to have the reactors easily removed at the end of life (in fact at least one has had its reactor replaced IIRC). Really you probably need nothing more than a dry dock to accomodate the sub and the necessary equipment to cut the area of the reactor out and enclose it (decommissioning is not my area of expertise so this is entirely speculation) before taking it away for disposal. Where it is disposed? Good question, only Finland so far have had the gumption to build a long term dry store, people here just like to stick their fingers in their ears about the whole thing.

http://specialoperations.com/28857/sof-backpack-nukes/

[img] [/img]

Well it's obvious this was not a full H bomb. Cafe Nero have just opened a branch in Pyongyang, and Kim Jong Un ordered a pasta bowl and asked them to heat it up *a bit*. The resulting fusion reaction was short lived as the plasma bolognaise was not well enough contained.

Oh and if you're really worried about contamination from nuclear reactors don't look at the maps of the south coast after the Brittany coast reactors get nuked in an engagement.

Again, look on Wikipedia for military nuclear accidents, the one where a cooling rod flashes over and blows out the top of the reactor impaling a bloke to the ceiling is particular chilling. Also look up Demon Core and tickling the dragons tail.

That SR-1 incident is almost like for like with Chernobyl (in principle). Shame there was no info sharing in those days.

There's a great coffee table book about nuclear testing called 100 sun's. Some amazing pictures of the tests. They had no idea what some of the bombs would yeil. I tested the eyes of a guy who served on a ship during the tests, he couldn't put into words the sight of a few mega tons expldoing from close range. Didn't enjoy the skin cancer though in his old age!