Assuming, of course, that it was a missile-related incident at all, I'd guess the explosion was due to the unstable and corrosive liquid propellants used by the Taepo-Dong ICBM. This type of missile is kept defuelled unless ordered to launch readiness, and accidents do occur in exercises - the USAF lost two bases, and four airmen died, in accidents with the liquid-fuelled Titan II.
You'd get about a quarter-kiloton yield from a 'propellant fire' for an ICBM, which is a little on the low side to register on seismographs. All explosions this size create a mushroom cloud, but not even fuel-air bombs create secondary fires ignited by the flash. But then there's no word of that, just a peculiarly-shaped cloud and smoke with a 'radius' of 4km.
Thinking about it, you probably know this stuff already.
The official claim is that it was the "controlled demolition" of a mountain for a hydro-electric project. (Can you "demolish" a mountain?) Large-scale civil engineering with nukes is not unheard of, at least in experimental form (see Project Plowshare, and the Soviets were up to much the same kind of thing).
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-12 10:19 am (UTC)Assuming, of course, that it was a missile-related incident at all, I'd guess the explosion was due to the unstable and corrosive liquid propellants used by the Taepo-Dong ICBM. This type of missile is kept defuelled unless ordered to launch readiness, and accidents do occur in exercises - the USAF lost two bases, and four airmen died, in accidents with the liquid-fuelled Titan II.
You'd get about a quarter-kiloton yield from a 'propellant fire' for an ICBM, which is a little on the low side to register on seismographs. All explosions this size create a mushroom cloud, but not even fuel-air bombs create secondary fires ignited by the flash. But then there's no word of that, just a peculiarly-shaped cloud and smoke with a 'radius' of 4km.
Thinking about it, you probably know this stuff already.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-13 02:11 am (UTC)