Current Nuclear Weapons Development

BullpupRafale said:
Not first time such kind of assertions were made only to be proven wrong or very least no evidence to support it.

- Russia or China supplying UDMH and N2O4 (fuel/oxidizer)
- China transferring submarine and SLBM technology
- Russia providing RD-250 gas generator rocket engine
- Russia providing 9K720 Iskander SRBM's
- Russia providing Topol-M ICBM's

History repeating itself yet again with bold assertions of such caliber.
Click to expand...

So that's, "no".
 
sferrin said:
Do YOU have any evidence that NK built them entirely without assistance?
Click to expand...

There is a plethora of well-researched literature and intelligence publications documenting the expertise provided by the Soviet Union, Russia, and China to various military and nuclear programs in countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. I have always been surprised by the few occasions on here (of all places) where users asserted that the notion of outside help was simply unfathomable.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Do YOU have any evidence that NK built them entirely without assistance?
Click to expand...
The Hwasong-17 is likely based on the reverse engineering components (like the RD-250) they stole from Ukraine.

The truck is Chinese, or at the very least a reverse engineered example derived from vehicles that were sold to North Korea for logging.
 
BullpupRafale said:
Not first time such kind of assertions were made only to be proven wrong or very least no evidence to support it.

- Russia or China supplying UDMH and N2O4 (fuel/oxidizer)
Click to expand...
NK started with Scuds, which used UDMH. Then came the Nodong and very inefficient Taepodong, and basically very little happened from then until the last decade, when all these modern-looking ICBMs and Yars look-alikes started rolling out.

en.wikipedia.org

List of North Korean missile tests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
North Korea certainly had external help with Scud developments, mainly from Egypt. I believe they also collaborate with Iran, but as far as I'm aware there are no known cases of collaboration with Russia or China, although I expect the former has changed since February of 2022, but that is far too late to explain North Korean missile developments in the late 2010s.

Their solid-fueled ICBM is pretty of obviously a development of their earlier solid-fueled IRBMs, Jeffrey Lewis had been predicting that this would eventually happen for more than a decade.
 
sferrin said:
Predict the "higher yield" will be less than half a B83.
Click to expand...
I have questions about the claim that the B61-12 with a 50kt warhead is the equivalent of a 1200kt surface burst. A 1200kt surface blast makes a 98m deep crater, 205m inner radius. A 50kT warhead makes a crater 34m deep and 71m inner radius. So am I correct in thinking the B61-12 would have to penetrate 64m, before exploding to be equivalent?

nuclearsecrecy.com

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

NUKEMAP is a website for visualizing the effects of nuclear detonations.
nuclearsecrecy.com nuclearsecrecy.com
 
The physics of ground shock mean you get better results from a smaller package underground than a bigger one laying on the ground. Plus the B61 can be carried by a lot more aircraft and a lot more of them can be carried in a sortie.
 
sferrin said:
So that's, "no".
Click to expand...
As if you could provide anything to begin with, let alone for counter points I made when bold assertions are made involving NK.

In_A_Dream said:
There is a plethora of well-researched literature and intelligence publications documenting the expertise provided by the Soviet Union, Russia, and China to various military and nuclear programs in countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. I have always been surprised by the few occasions on here (of all places) where users asserted that the notion of outside help was simply unfathomable.
Click to expand...
I am not at all surprised by occurrence of such disingenuously phrased narrative in which it is asserted what has not happened and if its not in bad faith then it is consequence of person making such claim about someone directly or indirectly has bad reading comprehension as it is not stated that North Korea had none outside assistance at all, asserting otherwise would be a blatant lie.

A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
The Hwasong-17 is likely based on the reverse engineering components (like the RD-250) they stole from Ukraine.
Click to expand...
RD-250 does not have single nozzle de-rated variant as in Hwasong-12 IRBM and Hwasong-14 ICBM nor where nozzles are gimballed such as with Hwasong-15 along Hwasong-17 and Chollima-1 space launch vehicle that have two Paektusan liquid fuel rocket engines.

North Korea might have stole RD-250 from Ukraine or Russia, but there is no hard evidence thus for all we know they based in RD-250 by solely analyzing form and deduce function from available images, perhaps even visited museum for example to take photos of.
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
The truck is Chinese, or at the very least a reverse engineered example derived from vehicles that were sold to North Korea for logging.
Click to expand...
Just from this sentence you demonstrate that you are not uninformed on subject of North Korea yet still choose to comment on it.

Those trucks from China that were imported were for logging to carry lumber, they had no mechanism any sort on them for role of being transporter erector launcher besides being large and heavy with capacity to carry perhaps around 100 tons of weight on them.

North Korea had to on their own develop and manufacture components to turn them into transporter erector launcher vehicles while few years after produced clones that have one or two pairs more road wheels for Hwasong-15(later 18) and Hwasong-17 ICBM's.

Of course there were people spreading doubt and uncertainty about North Korea producing such large vehicles by stating they only ever shown 6 of them until they were 8 then 8 must have been imported until they finally learned to be quiet once 12 were shown with all of them being largest type that had 11 pairs of wheels and were transporter erector launchers for Hwasong-17 road mobile ICBM.

Forest Green said:
NK started with Scuds, which used UDMH. Then came the Nodong and very inefficient Taepodong, and basically very little happened from then until the last decade, when all these modern-looking ICBMs and Yars look-alikes started rolling out.

en.wikipedia.org

List of North Korean missile tests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Except SCUD's do not use UDHM nor N2O4 and former started being used in North Korea with Hwasong-7 aka Nodong/Rodong.
Taepodong just as Nodong is South Korean and American label, former is for Paektusan space launch vehicle that is purely from political narrative by those two countries was that SLV labeled as ballistic missiles when years later Iran imported SLV technology from North Korea and was able to launch a satellite into low earth orbit with it. Successor to Paektusan was Unha series that were also labelled as ballistic missiles of intercontinental type until North Korea managed to insert their first satellite into low earth orbit.

Farce involving both North Korean SLV's was over with Hwasong-14 that is an actual ICBM by design and soon after Hwasong-15.
After that SLV such as Chollima-1 are not being labelled as ICBM by none of countries that did so for previous SLV's made by NK.

A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
North Korea certainly had external help with Scud developments, mainly from Egypt.
Click to expand...
Egypt had no capacity to maintain R-17's and let alone manufacture them, they provided them to North Korea as gesture of gratitude after latter assisted former during Yom Kimpur war by sending their own MiG-21's fighter jets and pilots. Consequently North Korea reverse engineered R-17's and got contract to maintain those that Egypt had along export clones of such to them since America was not willing to provide replacement for R-17's because of pressure from Israel only for partially resulting in world that we have today.

From what I remember Syria provided 9K79 / OTR-21 Tochka examples to North Korea in 1990's and 9M133 Kornet in early 2000's to North Korea allegedly for reverse engineering by later thus for former to have cheaper maintenance along affordable clones of them.
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I believe they also collaborate with Iran, but as far as I'm aware there are no known cases of collaboration with Russia or China, although I expect the former has changed since February of 2022, but that is far too late to explain North Korean missile developments in the late 2010s.
Click to expand...
America asserted North Korea was exporting artillery shells to Russia in September of 2022 yet first hard evidence of such only came one year later thus when that assertion was made is probably when first discussion/negotiations of arms trade deal might have happened while it was Ukraine that was first to use North Korean ammunition that America provided which stole it from Houthis.
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Their solid-fueled ICBM is pretty of obviously a development of their earlier solid-fueled IRBMs, Jeffrey Lewis had been predicting that this would eventually happen for more than a decade.
Click to expand...
First showcase of transporter erector launcher was in 2017 and changes happened years later with longer TEL than initial one.
TEL used for Hwasong-18 is longer than Topol-M ICBM and different thrust vector control as latter has graphite fins in exhaust compared to former having gimballed nozzle just as silo based American LGM-30 Minuteman unlike road mobile Hwasong-18.

Also before Hwasong-18 was ever being tested there were Hwasong-11Ga that was first shown in 2018 with first launch of it in 2019 that is analogue to both South Korean Hyunmoo-2 SRBM along Russian 9K720 Iskander which of course some asserted that Russia send them actual examples of 9K720 Iskander when thrust vector control mechanism were different along no provisions for decoy ECM's.

Also before even that with Pukguksong-1 when some asserted it was Chinese JL-1 SLBM despite many obvious differences to it such as having a single large nozzle compared to four smaller ones along having 8 grid fins compared to none as too two stage versus single.
 
BullpupRafale said:
As if you could provide anything to begin with, let alone for counter points I made when bold assertions are made involving NK.


Those trucks from China that were imported were for logging to carry lumber, they had no mechanism any sort on them for role of being transporter erector launcher besides being large and heavy with capacity to carry perhaps around 100 tons of weight on them.

North Korea had to on their own develop and manufacture components to turn them into transporter erector launcher vehicles while few years after produced clones that have one or two pairs more road wheels for Hwasong-15(later 18) and Hwasong-17 ICBM's.
Click to expand...
 
BullpupRafale said:
Just from this sentence you demonstrate that you are not uninformed on subject of North Korea yet still choose to comment on it.

Those trucks from China that were imported were for logging to carry lumber, they had no mechanism any sort on them for role of being transporter erector launcher besides being large and heavy with capacity to carry perhaps around 100 tons of weight on them.
Click to expand...

I wasn't implying that the PRC knowingly sold those trucks with the knowledge that North Korea would turn them into TELs. It's just that those are probably one of the few examples where Chinese technology (albeit not particularly advanced) has been used in the North Korean missile program.

BullpupRafale said:
Egypt had no capacity to maintain R-17's and let alone manufacture them, they provided them to North Korea as gesture of gratitude after latter assisted former during Yom Kimpur war by sending their own MiG-21's fighter jets and pilots. Consequently North Korea reverse engineered R-17's and got contract to maintain those that Egypt had along export clones of such to them since America was not willing to provide replacement for R-17's because of pressure from Israel only for partially resulting in world that we have today.
Click to expand...

I'd forgotten the specifics, but providing examples of a missile to reverse engineer from does to an extent constitute a form of technological transfer, albeit for a system that is a technological dead-end, and that North Korea has thoroughly exceeded with its own domestic developments.

BullpupRafale said:
America asserted North Korea was exporting artillery shells to Russia in September of 2022 yet first hard evidence of such only came one year later thus when that assertion was made is probably when first discussion/negotiations of arms trade deal might have happened while it was Ukraine that was first to use North Korean ammunition that America provided which stole it from Houthis.
Click to expand...

These things have lead times, I think it's increasingly likely that there will be technological transfers between North Korea and Russia in the future, as the latter's increasing international isolation means it is probably more desperate. All those artillery shells and Hwasong-11s aren't free.

BullpupRafale said:
First showcase of transporter erector launcher was in 2017 and changes happened years later with longer TEL than initial one.
TEL used for Hwasong-18 is longer than Topol-M ICBM and different thrust vector control as latter has graphite fins in exhaust compared to former having gimballed nozzle just as silo based American LGM-30 Minuteman unlike road mobile Hwasong-18.
Click to expand...

I'm not implying that North Korean solid-fueled ICBMs were derived from anything Russian or Chinese, in fact I was stating the opposite, that they were merely the development of a long-running domestic North Korean program that had already successfully produced large diameter solid-rocket motors for IRBMs, Pukguksong-1 being the most notable example.
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I wasn't implying that the PRC knowingly sold those trucks with the knowledge that North Korea would turn them into TELs. It's just that those are probably one of the few examples where Chinese technology (albeit not particularly advanced) has been used in the North Korean missile program.
Click to expand...
Problem with this narrative is that there has been no transfer of Chinese technology to North Korea involving trucks that were sold to them by China unlike for example when J-6's were sold to them thus maintenance plant was constructed in North Korea in order for those fighter jets being maintained there since tooling, knowledge and some actual technology was transfered in that arms deal.

By your standard and that of @sferrin it would mean Egypt received technology transfer from Soviet Union despite there not being transfer of tooling nor knowledge, let alone actual technologies in order to maintain those R-17's and replace critical parts of the missiles whenever necessary.

A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I'd forgotten the specifics, but providing examples of a missile to reverse engineer from does to an extent constitute a form of technological transfer, albeit for a system that is a technological dead-end, and that North Korea has thoroughly exceeded with its own domestic developments.
Click to expand...
That in no way is form of technological transfer to imply as some form of technology being shared as no knowledge involving manufacturing components let alone entire weapon system has been transfered as such has not occured because those that provided examples of system in question had none of that let alone do maintenance of critical components such as guidance systems.

Reverse engineering component can take as much effort as those that designed it to point same result could have been achieved by reinventing wheel instead of copying it.

A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
These things have lead times, I think it's increasingly likely that there will be technological transfers between North Korea and Russia in the future, as the latter's increasing international isolation means it is probably more desperate. All those artillery shells and Hwasong-11s aren't free.
Click to expand...
Momentum of progress that military industrial complex in North Korea has means there is not much Russia could offer and for that matter any other country to them when they themselves alone or together with Iranians could achieve in near future.

As for Russia and international isolation, for latter you mean western world?
 
That certainly happened though unlikely they could get everything as certainly some crucial information and data are is unlikely to be hosted on shared network.

Also knowledge and experience as too tooling hence it will pale in comparison to proper complete technology transfer.
 
I don't know if to laugh or cry at the western bipolarity re DPRK military gear, one day they claim loud and high that the DPRK gear is made of carboard, or plastic, they can never built it and all that western high-horse claptrap (though i guess DPRK has amazing plastic working skills since their plastic/carboard ICBMs can fly 10,000 miles and their plastic /carboard nukes detonate with 140kt yield or whatever the last test was).

Then the next day they claim loud and high that it was actually those pesky russians and/or chinese who gave or built DPRK's gear such as missiles, nukes or whatever.

As a saying over here in Romania goes, "dogs bark, the bear keeps going".
 
lancer21 said:
I don't know if to laugh or cry at the western bipolarity re DPRK military gear, one day they claim loud and high that the DPRK gear is made of carboard, or plastic, they can never built it and all that western high-horse claptrap (though i guess DPRK has amazing plastic working skills since their plastic/carboard ICBMs can fly 10,000 miles and their plastic /carboard nukes detonate with 140kt yield or whatever the last test was).

Then the next day they claim loud and high that it was actually those pesky russians and/or chinese who gave or built DPRK's gear such as missiles, nukes or whatever.

As a saying over here in Romania goes, "dogs bark, the bear keeps going".
Click to expand...
In Croatia it is;
The dogs bark, carriages/chariots continue on"
 
The replacement UK nuclear warhead has been named by the new White Paper, the A21/Mk7 Astraea. Will enter production this decade so still tacking a few years ahead of the W93 though sharing the same Mk7 re-entry vehicle for which the UK has been funding the bulk of early development work due to the slower US development funding pace.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom