Can the NK bomb be less than 1 k ton?

Question

I just heard that analyses seem to confirm that the famous Korean bomb test is likely a nuclear explosion. But it also seems likely that the bomb's yield was less than a kiloton.

This is about 15 times less than Little Boy... and I don't know what the yield of the Trinity test was. Is it possible for a true Nuclear device to yield so little? I assume that there would be a minimum possible yield, due to the minimum amount of fissile material that must be present to achieve critical mass and a true nuclear explosion.

If such a small device is possible, how so? Even tactical nukes develop around 20 KT, and I assume they are made as small as possible, so why should a true nuclear device develop so little?

Answer 1

In my opinion their bomb fizzled. The problem is that a nuclear chain reaction is only sustained as long as you can keep the uranium together. But of course once you set off the explosion the uranium tends to expand as well.
Technically this means that you have to use convential explosives to press the uranium together long enough to obtain a significant yield. This implies high precision in the manufacture of the pieces and explosives used.
And if not... the bomb fizzles, with a smail yield.

That said, even a 1 kT bomb will make a big hole in any city center.

Answer 2

I saw some footage of an underground nuclear explosion. I'm not sure if it was actual footage of this explosion or if it was archival in nature, but the explosion was hardly larger than a large warehouse. ?? Could probably be an accurate report. I'm not exactly shaking in my boots at NK's military might if that is the case, but a baby nuke can still kill people. I'm just curious what they hope to gain from all this. Doesn't make any sense.

Answer 3

I think that the made their bomb wrong and that their years away from producing a bomb that can do serious damage. It looks as though North Korean bomb technology is 60 years behind and its key to note that North Korea isn't racing anybody to make bigger and better nukes. So the time it will take North Korea to devlop a serious Bomb is a mystery.

Answer 4

Better guess is they had a 1000 ton of ANFO and some medical waste.

I don't believe the NRC or IEA have determined whether it was in fact a true fissile device yet.

Answer 5

this is demanding. i ought to arise with a team of random data approximately any experience and turn them into "eerie coincidences" too. occasion: Abraham Lincoln dies the perfect comparable day the substantial sinks, different than 40 seven years past! The substantial had the capacity to hold 3,547 passengers aboard! They the two have 40 seven! I actually think of terrorists don't have THAT plenty time on their palms to take a seat down and plan all of those issues out. they have extra beneficial issues to do, like, blow themselves up.

Answer 6

Yes. The yield can be that low.

Tactical backpack nukes were a common part of the European cold-war stockpiles.

Aloha

Answer 7

Yes. I have seen footage of, get this, a nuclear RIFLE! It was a large recoil-less rifle the fired a 0.1 or 0.01 megaton yield warhead. The blast was 3 miles wide and would affect the troops that used it. Not very practical.

Answer 8

Two possibilities..first is they didn't want to waste uranium..second being it was a failure which is probably the case.NK would want to do it in a big way to scare the world

Answer 9

WE HAVE SMALL NUKE TO STOP ADVANCING TROOPS. THEY ARE CALLED TACTICAL NUKES.
http://www.argee.net/Thrawn%20Rickle/Thrawn%20Rickle%2023.htm

Answer 10

A nuke, doesn't have a two ton bomb!!!