Comments for Jeffrey Lewis http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com an ACW Network site Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:46:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Two DPRK Nuclear Tests in 2010? by Davey http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4971/did-the-dprk-conduct-2-nuclear-tests-in-2010#comment-14071 Davey Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:46:13 +0000 http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=4971#comment-14071 De Geer concludes “The probability … that a low-yield underground nuclear explosion was carried out on 11 May 2010, or possibly, the day before, is significant.” The wording contradicts the conclusion. If the probability WAS significant, he should have written, "The probability … that a low-yield underground nuclear explosion was carried out on 11 May 2010, or possibly, the day before, is 0.7” Them's weasel-words. De Geer concludes “The probability … that a low-yield underground nuclear explosion was carried out on 11 May 2010, or possibly, the day before, is significant.”

The wording contradicts the conclusion. If the probability WAS significant, he should have written, “The probability … that a low-yield underground nuclear explosion was carried out on 11 May 2010, or possibly, the day before, is 0.7”

Them’s weasel-words.

]]> Comment on Two DPRK Nuclear Tests in 2010? by Spruce http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4971/did-the-dprk-conduct-2-nuclear-tests-in-2010#comment-14070 Spruce Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:38:49 +0000 http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=4971#comment-14070 Well, I think that the lack of comments is mostly explained by one thing: the De Geer paper isn't out yet (at least I'm not aware of it). It's hard to give any kind of meaningful comments to either the paper or this post, the sbulks of which is the critique of that paper, when one hasn't read the original paper. Without seeing it, there's little to comment except for the usual light banter. Well, I think that the lack of comments is mostly explained by one thing: the De Geer paper isn’t out yet (at least I’m not aware of it). It’s hard to give any kind of meaningful comments to either the paper or this post, the sbulks of which is the critique of that paper, when one hasn’t read the original paper. Without seeing it, there’s little to comment except for the usual light banter.

]]> Comment on Two DPRK Nuclear Tests in 2010? by Cheryl Rofer http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4971/did-the-dprk-conduct-2-nuclear-tests-in-2010#comment-14069 Cheryl Rofer Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:16:57 +0000 http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=4971#comment-14069 Very well, I'll try to supply something substantive. I almost commented at Nuclear Diner when I saw the first reports, but then I decided to wait for the paper. I was also a bit confused on what they were talking about because of the lack of seismic evidence. But you've given almost enough* information to make sense of this, and I tend to agree that the lack of a seismic signature undercuts the other claims. And using a chamber twice seems questionable. I'm trying to think of an alternative explanation for production of fusion-related isotopes. I'm not particularly expert on xenon isotopes. Laser fusion? Probably a device would be simpler. Not very substantive, hey? ____________________ *Will feel more confident when I can see the paper. Very well, I’ll try to supply something substantive. I almost commented at Nuclear Diner when I saw the first reports, but then I decided to wait for the paper. I was also a bit confused on what they were talking about because of the lack of seismic evidence.

But you’ve given almost enough* information to make sense of this, and I tend to agree that the lack of a seismic signature undercuts the other claims. And using a chamber twice seems questionable.

I’m trying to think of an alternative explanation for production of fusion-related isotopes. I’m not particularly expert on xenon isotopes. Laser fusion? Probably a device would be simpler.

Not very substantive, hey?

____________________
*Will feel more confident when I can see the paper.

]]> Comment on Two DPRK Nuclear Tests in 2010? by Jeffrey http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4971/did-the-dprk-conduct-2-nuclear-tests-in-2010#comment-14068 Jeffrey Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:58:00 +0000 http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=4971#comment-14068 The lack of comments is disappointing. This is a big, messy question where almost any answer is possible. Why all the silence? The lack of comments is disappointing. This is a big, messy question where almost any answer is possible. Why all the silence?

]]> Comment on Two DPRK Nuclear Tests in 2010? by Stephen Young http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4971/did-the-dprk-conduct-2-nuclear-tests-in-2010#comment-14067 Stephen Young Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:25:23 +0000 http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=4971#comment-14067 Josh, I'm surprised. Surely you've learned that if you want to get ahead in DC, you can't be uncertain about anything. Well, at least I think that's the case, but I'm not actually sure. Josh, I’m surprised. Surely you’ve learned that if you want to get ahead in DC, you can’t be uncertain about anything. Well, at least I think that’s the case, but I’m not actually sure.

]]> Comment on DIAC has a Scud! by Jeffrey http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4964/diac-has-a-scud#comment-14066 Jeffrey Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:42:47 +0000 http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=4964#comment-14066 Ha! Brilliant! Ha! Brilliant!

]]> Comment on Two DPRK Nuclear Tests in 2010? by joshua http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4971/did-the-dprk-conduct-2-nuclear-tests-in-2010#comment-14065 joshua Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:26:15 +0000 http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=4971#comment-14065 Hmm. I resemble that remark. It's good to express uncertainty when you don't know for sure... Hmm. I resemble that remark.

It’s good to express uncertainty when you don’t know for sure…

]]> Comment on Two DPRK Nuclear Tests in 2010? by John Hallam http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4971/did-the-dprk-conduct-2-nuclear-tests-in-2010#comment-14064 John Hallam Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:56:18 +0000 http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=4971#comment-14064 Seems to be some putting of two and two together to make five. Just exactly as in the 'was India the AQ Khan fourth customer'? the possibility is there, but not the certainty. Lack of a seismic signature is think, a real problem for a test hypothesis. John Hallam Seems to be some putting of two and two together to make five.

Just exactly as in the ‘was India the AQ Khan fourth customer’? the possibility is there, but not the certainty.

Lack of a seismic signature is think, a real problem for a test hypothesis.

John Hallam

]]> Comment on Two DPRK Nuclear Tests in 2010? by joshua http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4971/did-the-dprk-conduct-2-nuclear-tests-in-2010#comment-14063 joshua Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:52:10 +0000 http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=4971#comment-14063 Always happy to lend an image choice. Always happy to lend an image choice.

]]> Comment on DIAC has a Scud! by A Complete Stranger http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4964/diac-has-a-scud#comment-14062 A Complete Stranger Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:00:02 +0000 http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/?p=4964#comment-14062 I have a great picture of a scud on a tel parked in front of the US capital. But Allen brings up an interesting "Where is Question". Where is that missile battalion now? It seems to have just disappeared. I have a great picture of a scud on a tel parked in front of the US capital. But Allen brings up an interesting “Where is Question”. Where is that missile battalion now? It seems to have just disappeared.

]]>