Let's get technical

How do you tell if it is a nuclear blast?

Sattelites
1. Sattelites with sufficiently fast sensors will be looking for ElectroMagnetic Pulses (EMP).
2. Pulses in the visual spectrum
3. X-rays
4. Infrared
5. Cameras will have before and after pictures. It is an area of interest so the before pictures will be recent.

On the ground
1. Seismograph to pinpoint location and intensity
2. Air pressure variarions
3. Radio active particle detectors on the ground
4. Aircraft for collecting radioactive particles
5. Extensive underwater sonars

The data from all this (and probbably more) is collected and evaluated to determine if it was a nuke or conventional explosion. If it was a nuke the type of bomb and yield can be aproximated from the data. Lots can be learned from chemical analysis and mass spectography.

If you want to learn more you have the key words.

BTW for now and ever more. All unintentional spelling errors will intentionally be left uncorrected so the spelling fetishists among us will have something to do. Unless it ruins the meaning when in which case I might or might not change it with or without notice as the fancy strikes me. Take yer screen shots early and often.


Update: 20:27z 13Sept2004

Colin Powell speaks

And this is what he said:

``There was no indication that was a nuclear event of any kind. Exactly what it was, we're not sure,'' Powell said, speaking on ABC's ``This Week.''

Powell said there were ``some activities taking place and some sites that we're watching carefully, but it is not conclusive that they are moving toward a test.''

This to me does not sound like an iron clad denial. In fact by now they ought to know exactly what it was. The dam building bit sounds plausable except that such an explosiion for dam building would be quite uneconomical.

A weapons dump explosion of a kiloton or more is plausable. But not likely. You make plans in such dumps so that an accident in one section does not take up the whole shooting match.

The Command Post discuses seismographs