North Korea and the "Thin Man"

[ThoughtCriminal]

Note: this is adapted from a comment I made on DU back in 2013. Without real data to back it up, it is speculation, but I think still worthy of discussion:

Is it possible or even likely, that North Korea's nuclear tests are not evidence of a practical weapon?

I think it is possible that North Korea is setting off very crude plutonium devices based on the discarded "Thin Man" gun design from the Manhattan Project. It would explain the low yields and require only a very crude design which utilizes easier to produce plutonium. The devices in these tests could be a "gun-type" atomic bomb that similar to the "Little Boy" weapon that was dropped on Hiroshima, but uses plutonium rather than uranium-235. The problem with this design is avoiding pre-detonation of the fissile material. A thin-man device would require an extremely high velocity gun with a very long barrel. A major problem for a deliverable weapon, but might be possible if you are firing it tens of meters down a mine shaft. The device is bulky, impractical, inefficient and more likely to "fizzle" with a relatively low yield.

Such a device would not likely lead to a successful warhead that could be placed on a bomber or missile, but is creating the desired political effect not only for North Korea's dysfunctional leadership. In the West, supporters for very costly missile defense systems enjoy playing up the claim that the North Koreans are testing mini-nuke designs that could be fitted to their relatively crude ballistic missiles. Exaggerating the risk also has political and economic benefits for both intelligence agencies and military contractors.

In fact, it may be that the devices they are creating would be a challenge to load onto a railroad car, much less the top of a rocket, and are not likely to provide experience that would help them develop more sophisticated implosion designs. It's a dead end.

[longship]

1. Having one go boom is one thing.

Having a deliverable "weaponized" Bomb is an entirely different matter.

Also, I am with the OP on DPRK's fizzles. There is a real question of even whether they have a successful A-Bomb. Pre-ignition can happen if they cannot sort out the initiator design. The assembly blows itself apart before the chain reaction gets going.

Even if they get one to go boom without a fizzle, putting it on a plane or missile is another thing altogether. Nuclear weapons are rather massive, especially crude ones. They are also rather complex things. One doesn't just load one into a bomb bay or stick one at the top of any old rocket and expect it to just work.

I too am skeptical that DPRK has a usable nuke, let alone a deliverable one.

Plus, their rockets tend to explode.

Good post, my friend.

[ThoughtCriminal]

2. The most likely delivery system is not a missile

It would be a shipping container. And if these are thin-man design, even that would be difficult. A 53-foot container would probably still be too short. I have not located a source but seems like somewhere I read that the minimum barrel length would be 21-meters (69-feet).

One thing I am not finding, is any public discussion by the various hired military "Expert" pundits that these devices are not practical weapons. This may be because I'm completely off base here (possible), they have not thought of it (less likely), or it does not fit their agenda (plausible).

I'm having to rely on un-classified information about nuclear weapons design. There may be some hard data about the tests that would rule this out. It may be classified, or I may be missing something from the publicly available data. However, it does seem to fit what we know about the tests.

One thing I am not buying is the North Korean claim that the low yields are intentional and a result of breakthroughs in weapon miniaturization.

[longship]

3. Concerning your last paragraph...

That would be my assessment, too. (Admittedly observing from a distance.)

Check out Richard Rhodes' book, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, a great and comprehensive telling of the story with sufficient science. It justifiably won a Pulitzer Prize.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Agreed.

Excellent Read.

Dark Sun is a good one, too, about Teller and the H-Bomb.

[longship]

6. I've read them both.

Both excellent reads.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. We probably know a lot more about what is going on with those blasts than we let on.

But you're right, in that the name of the game as per North Korea is, essentially, extortion. Extortion works as long as the perception of the threat is real.

[MineralMan]

7. That's possible.

A number of reasons for a low-yield "fizzle," though, could be in play here. I'm sure those tests have been pretty well analyzed so far, but we don't have any information about that, really.

If China is assisting North Korea in nuclear weapon design, I would doubt that your scenario is likely. Lots of technical problems could cause low yields in tests.