Heartland

ruffers wrote:

Badlander wrote:For failing to detonate a nuke ?
If they did violate the non-proliferation treaty, of course they should be punished. But so should other countries.

IIRC they withdrew from that treaty in 2003 - difficult to violate a treaty you're not part of I'd have thought?

Unless it is considered customary law (jus cogens). International law has its twists.
They may not be condemned for violating the non-proliferation treaty, but they still could be considered a threat to world security (UN Charter, chap. 7), even if they were not a member of the UN.

Technically, they didn't fail to detonate their nuke, they merely failed to obtain the expected yield.

The "fizzle" was most likely cased by incorrect implosion of the Pu core, leading to the nuclear explosion blowing most of the core away before it could react.

It could be argued that a bomb where only 5% of the plutonium actually fissions is more dangerous than one in which 40-50% of the Pu goes foom, in that the "fizzle" releases far more radioactivity into the environment as fallout: a "dirty bomb"

markfiend wrote:Technically, they didn't fail to detonate their nuke, they merely failed to obtain the expected yield.

The "fizzle" was most likely cased by incorrect implosion of the Pu core, leading to the nuclear explosion blowing most of the core away before it could react.

It could be argued that a bomb where only 5% of the plutonium actually fissions is more dangerous than one in which 40-50% of the Pu goes foom, in that the "fizzle" releases far more radioactivity into the environment as fallout: a "dirty bomb"

Keen observation Mr. Fiend.......