
A Hydrogen Bomb by any other name - caf
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-hydrogen-bomb-by-any-other-name
======
zatkin
It would have been nice if this article had some diagrams of the respective
bomb designs. I was having trouble trying to piece together where components
were and had to do a few Google Image searches to follow along.

~~~
brandmeyer
[http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/](http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/)
has quite a bit of detail, especially about fusion-boosted weapons and Tellar-
Ulam weapons.

------
burn_and_crash
I have to wonder whether China is involved in any way here. Would they be able
to use North Korea as a cover to test their weapons?

~~~
cbd1984
It seems suspicious when a D student aces a big test.

It would be outright ludicrous for China to imagine that they could use North
Korea to test advanced weaponry without anyone tracing it back to them.

~~~
japaw
Besides China, there are other sources North Korea can have used to aquiver
this technology. Both North Korea, Libya, Iran and China did get help
developing nuclear technology from a network set up by Abdul Qadeer Khan, a
Pakistani nuclear physicist often regarded as the fonder of the Pakistani
nuclear enrichment program.

He again acquired the technology in Europe when working for Urenco, a nuclear
fuel company.

The whole Q.A Khan affair is quit a fascinating story actually.

Some more information on [http://world.time.com/2011/07/07/a-q-khans-
revelations-did-p...](http://world.time.com/2011/07/07/a-q-khans-revelations-
did-pakistans-army-sell-nukes-to-north-korea/) and
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan)

I did also see a very good documentary about this, but I can not find it
online right now.

Edit: Here is the BBC documentary about Khans dealings in nuclear secrets:
[http://www.unewstv.com/6821/bbc-documentary-on-dr-abdul-
qade...](http://www.unewstv.com/6821/bbc-documentary-on-dr-abdul-qadeer-khan-
pakistan-nuclear-secrets) . Stranger then fiction, it has a plot like a top
thriller movie.

~~~
meric
I wouldn't be surprised if the nuclear physicist in The Dictator was based on
Khan. He sounds like he's proud of his work and I admire that, moral
judgements on nuclear weapons aside.

------
peletiah
Interesting how one can write an article about thermonuclear bombs and calls
them hydrogen bombs all along.

~~~
Symmetry
You can't really complain when a article in the non-specialist press uses
popular rather than specialist terminology. "Hydrogen bomb" is a term that's
been bandied about for about as long as nuclear bombs have existed and the
article properly points out that there isn't actually any clear definition of
the term so I don't think we have anything to complain about.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
The New Yorker has many luxuries, but not that which lets them be ignorant.
There's an old saying about the New Yorker's fact checking, that if they were
to do a story about the Empire State Building, the first thing they would do
is dispatch someone to see if it were still standing.

All it takes is just enough ignorant simplicity and a dash of sensationalism
to go from New Yorker to New York Post.

~~~
mikeash
There's nothing ignorant about using the term "hydrogen bomb." It's a
perfectly acceptable and relatively common term used to describe what they're
using it to describe.

The only thing that's ignorant here is commenters insisting that "hydrogen
bomb" is somehow wrong.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
I understand that, I merely intended to demonstrate that ignorant simplicity
is not a preferred quality of the New Yorker among its readers.

~~~
mikeash
Why is that a point worth making in reply to a comment that is merely
defending simplicity, not ignorant simplicity?

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
To separate the criticisms regarding simplicity generally and the nomenclature
specifically. I was downvoted for what I said and I need imaginary internet
points to feel like my life has meaning.

~~~
nikdaheratik
From what I can tell, you were downvoted because you either didn't read and
understand the article, or you didn't understand the context in which it was
written.

1\. N. Korea claims it has a "Hydrogen Bomb".

2\. The U.S. and others respond skeptically.

3\. The New Yorker points out that the U.S. has made this response before
(earlier in the cold war) and that the term itself has some ambiguity because
of the different types of weapons that could have a fusion based element.
Readers learn more about cold war history and the differences in different
types of atomic weapons.

4\. You make a snide comment that doesn't seem to register the entire context
of all this, and get downvoted.

------
DenisM
No mention of Tsar bomba in the article about history of nuclear bombs?

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba)

~~~
caf
There was no argument about nomenclature by then - at that point the Soviets
were well understood to have Teller-Ulam style devices (as the article says,
the Soviets built their first one in '55).

------
ck2
Who the hell cares if it is just a "regular" a-bomb instead of an h-bomb.

Can you imagine if it was Iran with "just" a regular a-bomb?

Millions of people in North Korea are starving, eating bark off trees and are
horribly repressed. Their nutrition is so bad their children grow far shorter
than than their southern counterparts.

It's one of the worst abuses of a human population in the world that is
completely documented - yet the world shrugs and says "what can we do?"

Imagine if they had oil and how fast we'd invade before they even had their
first scientist write the first formulas for nuclear power.

Imagine if they were next to Israel, how fast we'd sell them the jets and
bombs to take out the reactors while they were being built.

But nope, we don't give a damn.

~~~
chroma
> Imagine if they had oil and how fast we'd invade before they even had their
> first scientist write the first formulas for nuclear power.

> Imagine if they were next to Israel, how fast we'd sell them the jets and
> bombs to take out the reactors while they were being built.

> But nope, we don't give a damn.

This is not even remotely true. The reason nobody invades North Korea is
because the DPRK holds millions of people hostage. I'm not just talking about
their own citizens. Any invasion of North Korea would certainly result in the
artillery bombardment of Seoul. It would likely also result in a nuclear
exchange. The death toll would be higher than any conflict since WWII.

The US definitely gives a damn. It gives food to North Korea and military aid
to South Korea. I'm sure US officials would love for the Kim regime to fall,
but there's simply no way to make that happen without risking millions of
innocent lives.

~~~
mikeash
Also, North Korea is under the protection of China. Partly because they're
allies (sorta), and partly because China just doesn't want people messing
around near it. One might recall the _last_ time we tried to take over North
Korea. Once we got close enough to the Chinese border to make them
uncomfortable, a million or so Chinese troops poured over and made life
somewhat difficult for the US and their allies.

And that was 1950s China, fresh out of a massive civil war and struggling to
get by. 2016 China is far more powerful.

If you want to complain about how nobody does anything about North Korea, look
at who's protecting them to see why that is.

~~~
ceejayoz
China likely also doesn't want the resulting 25 million refugees heading in
their direction.

