Also, previously...
Quote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2257577/posts?page=155#155
To: All
Note: The following post is a quote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2259790/posts?page=16#16
To: TigerLikesRooster
Well, this story is off the mark. This was not a Hiroshima type nuke, which was a gun-type uranium, the Little Boy. This was a plutonium implosion-type bomb, like Nagasaki. Why did the writer pick a geologist as their “expert” on nukes?
The yield was very small, about 20% of Nagasaki. It is now suspected that was intentional and in fact planned. They are simply trying to make a nuke small enough for transport by missile and don’t care if the yield is low because of portability measures.
A 4 kilo yield air burst at 800 feet would flatten any downtown core.
16 posted on May 28, 2009 6:57:18 AM PDT by gandalftb (An appeaser feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last......)
###
###
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2259790/posts
N. Korean nuclear blast probably less powerful than hoped for: Yale scholar
Yonhap News ^ | 05/28/09 | Sam Kim
Posted on May 28, 2009 6:44:23 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
“N. Korean nuclear blast probably less powerful than hoped for: Yale scholar”
By Sam Kim
SEOUL
155 posted on May 28, 2009 5:28:23 PM PDT by Cindy
Question..
A 4 kilo yield Space burst at 100 miles would do what????
Is it capable of a EMP large enough to harm us (US)???