DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Eat DT's Dust » NORK Nuclear Test: It’s A Dud (Updated)

NORK Nuclear Test: It’s A Dud (Updated)

HA HA HA HA.
I — Jeffrey Lewis, cross­post­ing from Arms Control Wonk — love the US Geological Survey.
They’ve pub­lished lat/​long (41.294 N, 129.134 E) and Mb esti­mates (4.2) for the North Korean test.
There is lots of data float­ing around: The CTBTO called it 4.0; The South Koreans report 3.58–3.7.
crap.gifYou’re think­ing, 3.6, 4.2, in that neigh­bor­hood. Seismic scales, like the Richter, are log­a­rith­mic, so that neigh­bor­hood can be pretty big.
But even at 4.2, the test was prob­a­blya dud.
Estimating the yield is tricky busi­ness, because it depends on the geol­ogy of the test site. The South Koreans called the yield half a kilo­ton (550 tons), which is more or less — a fac­tor of two — con­sis­tent with the rela­tion­ship for tests in that yield range at the Soviet Shagan test site:
Mb = 4.262 + .973LogW
Where Mb is the mag­ni­tude of the body wave, and W is the yield.
3.58–3.7 gives you a cou­ple hun­dred tons (not kilo­tons), which is pretty close in this busi­ness unless you’re really math pos­i­tive. The same equa­tion, given the US esti­mate of 4.2, yields (pun intended) around a kilo­ton.
A plu­to­nium device should pro­duce a yield in the range of the 20 kilo­tons, like the one we dropped on Nagasaki. No one has ever dud­ded their first test of a sim­ple fis­sion device. North Korean nuclear sci­en­tists are now offi­cially the worst ever.
Of course, I want to see what the US IC says. If/​when the test vents, we could have some radionu­clide data — maybe in the next 72 hours or so.
But, from the ini­tial data, I’d say some­one with no work­able nuclear weapons (Kim Jong Il, I am look­ing at you) should be crap­ping his pants right now.
First the mis­sile, then the bomb. Got any­thing else you wanna try out there, chief?
– Jeffrey Lewis, cross-​​posted at Arms Control Wonk​.com
UPDATE 10/​10/​06 1:14 AM: Noah here. Looks like the LA and NY Times have both picked up (sorta) on what the good Wonk was sayin’.

Throughout his­tory, the first det­o­na­tions of aspir­ing nuclear pow­ers have tended to pack the destruc­tive power of 10,000 to 60,000 tons 10 to 60 kilo­tons of con­ven­tional high explo­sives.
But the strength of the North Korean test appears to have been a small frac­tion of that: around a kilo­ton or less, accord­ing to sci­en­tists mon­i­tor­ing the global arrays of seis­mome­ters that detect faint trem­bles in the earth from dis­tant blasts…
Philip E. Coyle III, a for­mer direc­tor of weapons test­ing at the Pentagon and for­mer direc­tor of nuclear test­ing for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a weapons design cen­ter in California, said the small size of the test sig­naled the pos­si­bil­ity of what might be described as a par­tial suc­cess or a par­tial fail­ure.
As first tests go, this is smaller and less suc­cess­ful than those of the other nuclear pow­ers, he said.
Perhaps the North Koreans wanted to keep it small, he added. But if it turns out to be a kilo­ton or less, Dr. Coyle said, that would sug­gest that they hoped for more than that and didnt get it.

UPDATE 10/​10/​06 8:45 AM: Rumor alert! Stratfor is pretty sure that the Nork nuke — “about one-​​fortieth of the Nagasaki blast” — was a dud, too. But, just to be on the safe side, the intel ser­vice offers up “three pos­si­ble expla­na­tions for the appar­ently small yield: the North Koreans delib­er­ately det­o­nated a very small device, they tested a larger device but it failed to exe­cute prop­erly, or the explo­sion was not caused by an atomic device.”

Possibly the North Koreans wanted to show that they had the tech­nol­ogy but did not want to appear too threat­en­ing, so they min­i­mized the size. Or they could be demon­strat­ing the abil­ity to use lower-​​yield nuclear mines or artillery shells that would pro­tect North Korea by block­ing strate­gic passes into the coun­try, and would pos­si­bly threaten Seoul but would not pose a sig­nif­i­cant threat else­where. Also, the water table is high in the area of the blast; maybe they were being care­ful not to break into the aquifer.
These are all good rea­sons, but the coun­ter­ar­gu­ment is that if you are going to go nuclear, go nuclear. North Korea does not have a press­ing need — or his­tory — of being sub­tle, so a small blast doesn’t fit in with its plan…
What if the North Koreans didn’t go nuclear, but det­o­nated a large chem­i­cal explo­sive in an under­ground cham­ber? It would take a lot of explo­sive to yield that result, but it is not impos­si­ble. A chem­i­cal explo­sion would have a dif­fer­ent seis­mic sig­na­ture than a nuclear one, and there­fore geol­o­gists should have already dis­counted this the­ory; but the analy­sis is going to take up to two days, accord­ing to the White House. It is cer­tainly not beyond the North Koreans to fake a nuclear explo­sion, and there have been some big explo­sions in North Korea that have been mis­taken, for a short period of time, for some­thing nuclear. But there is no evi­dence, beyond our spec­u­la­tion, for this theory. 

UPDATE 10/​10/​06 8:51 AM: Interesting counter-​​argument from Trent Telenko in the com­ments. Since North Korea has “had the com­plete design spec­i­fi­ca­tions for a Chinese missile-​​ready nuclear war­head of the plu­to­nium implo­sion type for years,” thanks to the A.Q. Khan net­work, this dud may be more dan­ger­ous than it seems.

Share |

October 9th, 2006 | Eat DT's Dust, Nukes, Those Nutty Norks | 2136142 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/10/09/nork-nuclear-test-its-a-dud-updated/NORK+Nuclear+Test%3A+It%27s+A+Dud+%28Updated%292006-10-09+16%3A36%3A35haninah_levine You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Axe Does BBC | U.S. ‘Dragnet’ Hunts for Nuke Clues » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. ktat says:
    August 14, 2008 at 2:12 am

    SEO ? ? ? ?

    Reply
  2. mp3 says:
    August 17, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    thanks you…

    Reply
  3. ffxi gil says:
    August 19, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    it is very good

    Reply
  4. Anonymous says:
    August 21, 2008 at 3:29 am

    ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? web ?

    Reply
  5. ????? says:
    August 21, 2008 at 3:29 am

    ??????????????????????????????????????????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????????????????web?????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ??

    Reply
  6. kooo says:
    August 23, 2008 at 10:15 am

    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?
    225
    225
    225
    ETC
    ETC
    ETC

    Reply
  7. sfh says:
    August 25, 2008 at 4:48 am

    thanks words.

    Reply
  8. forex says:
    August 26, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    do you know what is forex ? forex is the world cur­rency exchange market

    Reply
  9. ? says:
    August 31, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    very good

    Reply
  10. ???? says:
    August 31, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    very good

    Reply
  11. dsaf says:
    September 4, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    ?

    Reply
  12. cfrdeq says:
    September 4, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    FX

    Reply
  13. dsaf says:
    September 5, 2008 at 2:28 am

    Also, sig­nif­i­cantly, a few hun­dred tons to about 1kT, unlike, say 20kT, is within the ranger where it’s at least remotely conceivable

    Reply
  14. dsaf says:
    September 8, 2008 at 10:12 pm

    so good ‚tq very much !

    Reply
  15. cet says:
    November 15, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    thanxx sites

    Reply
  16. ? says:
    November 28, 2008 at 8:24 am

    ? ? ? ? ? ?

    Reply
  17. ??????? says:
    November 28, 2008 at 8:24 am

    ???????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ????

    Reply
  18. gay says:
    December 16, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    gay

    Reply
  19. daddd says:
    January 2, 2009 at 10:12 am
    Reply
  20. T says:
    May 2, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    Thank You For Your Posting My Friend..

    Reply
  21. T says:
    May 2, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    Thank You For Your Posting My Friend..

    Reply
  22. Buy metin2 gold says:
    June 8, 2009 at 4:05 am

    i can get Metin2 gold cheaply,
    Yesterday i bought Metin2 yang for my brother.
    i hope him like it. i will­Buy metin2 gold to him
    as birth­day present. i like the Cheap metin2 yang very much.
    I usu­ally buy the Cheap metin2 gold and keep it in my store.

    Reply
  23. konteyner says:
    June 8, 2009 at 9:16 am

    Also, sig­nif­i­cantly, a few hun­dred tons to about 1kT, unlike, say 20kT, is within the ranger where it’s at least remotely con­ceiv­able that some huge amount of con­ven­tional explo­sives (even ANFO) could have been used to simulate/​fake a nuke explo­sion. I say remotely con­ceiv­able not because it’s unheard of logis­ti­cally (hello, Divine Strake) but because I imag­ine that our intel­li­gence com­mu­nity would be able to tell the dif­fer­ence between some­one installing a nuclear device and some­one installing two mil­lion pounds of cow pie and diesel. (Of course, some peo­ple were spec­u­lat­ing the Norks would try to fake a test in the 20kT range, but I don’t even want to think about how much ANFO that would be — ridonculous).

    Reply
  24. hungvnn says:
    August 14, 2009 at 11:54 pm

    ?????
    ??? ????
    ??????
    ????
    ???????
    ??? ??????
    ??? ???
    ????? ????
    ????? ??????
    ????
    ????????
    ????
    ??
    ????????
    ???
    ?????
    ????? ??

    Reply
  25. tuanvnn says:
    August 14, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    ??? ?????
    ??? ?????
    ??
    ??
    ??????
    ??????
    ???
    ???
    ????
    ???? ?????
    ?
    ?? ??????
    ?? ??????
    ?? ??????
    ??? ??????
    ?? ??????
    sod
    ???
    ???? ???
    ?? ????? ?????
    ????
    ???????
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ?DVD
    ?DVD
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ???? ??
    ???? ??

    Reply
  26. tuananh says:
    August 26, 2009 at 2:02 am

    ??
    ????
    ??
    ???? ??
    ????
    ??????
    ?? ??????
    ???
    ???
    ????
    ???? ?????
    ?
    ?? ??????
    ?? ??????
    ?? ??????
    ??? ??????
    ?? ??????
    sod
    ???
    ???? ???
    ?? ????? ?????
    ????
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ?DVD
    ?DVD
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ???? ??
    ???? ??
    ???? ????
    ??? ????
    ??? ????
    ??? ????

    Reply
  27. tuananh says:
    August 26, 2009 at 2:03 am

    ??
    ????
    ??
    ???? ??
    ????
    ??????
    ?? ??????
    ???
    ???
    ????
    ???? ?????
    ?
    ?? ??????
    ?? ??????
    ?? ??????
    ??? ??????
    ?? ??????
    sod
    ???
    ???? ???
    ?? ????? ?????
    ????
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ?DVD
    ?DVD
    ?? ??
    ?? ??
    ???? ??
    ???? ??
    ???? ????
    ??? ????
    ??? ????
    ??? ????

    Reply
  28. diencg says:
    August 31, 2009 at 2:16 am

    ????
    ????
    ??
    ????

    Reply
  29. star says:
    September 4, 2009 at 2:00 am

    ????????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ????????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ????????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ????????
    ???????

    Reply
  30. star says:
    September 4, 2009 at 2:01 am

    ????????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ????????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ????????
    ???????
    ???????
    ???????
    ????????
    ???????

    Reply
  31. ??????? says:
    September 11, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    thghg
    ??
    ???????

    Reply
  32. ?????? says:
    September 11, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    very good

    Reply
  33. deli says:
    September 16, 2009 at 4:00 am

    ????????????????????????
    ??????????????????????????
    ????????????????????????
    ??????????????????????????
    ??????????????????????????????
    ??????????????????????????

    Reply
  34. SEO says:
    September 28, 2009 at 4:02 am

    SEO?????????SEO ??????????????????SEO?????????, ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????,
    ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????>????????????. ?????????????????, ?????????????????????????????????????, ???????????????Flash???????????????SEO????????????????????????????????IT???????????????????????IT?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????JR?????3????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????IT?????????ITQ?A????????????IT?????????????????? ???????SEO,??????????IT??SEO(??????)??????????Yahoo???google???Bing???SEO??T??????????IT????????????ITcrafts????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????IT??????????OSBAY?????????ITO?BPO??????????????/????????????????????????????????????????????????????toys?????????????????????????,??????????????????????????????„???????????????????????0??????????

    Reply
  35. fdgfdg says:
    October 13, 2009 at 12:58 am

    ??????
    ??????
    ??????
    golf clubs
    water­proof binoc­u­lars
    zoom binoc­u­lars
    8x42 binoc­u­lars
    8x21 binoc­u­lars
    ??
    UT
    UT??
    UT???
    ??
    ???
    ??
    ??
    ????
    ????
    ??????
    ??????
    ??
    ????

    Reply
  36. links of london says:
    October 18, 2009 at 1:04 am

    It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the infor­ma­tion you have shared. Just con­tinue writ­ing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.

    Reply
  37. links of london says:
    October 18, 2009 at 1:04 am

    It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the infor­ma­tion you have shared. Just con­tinue writ­ing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.

    Reply
  38. wen says:
    October 19, 2009 at 3:12 am

    Okay, I really think this record gets a bad rap. cheap metin2 yang
    metin 2 yang
    buy metin2 yang
    cheap metin2 yang
    metin2 yang kaufenI guess the most obvi­ous com­plaint is that it is not the Velvet Underground,cheap metin2 yang
    com­prar Metin2 Yang
    acheter metin2 yang
    acheter Metin2
    metin2 money
    cheap metin2 yang
    cheap metin2 yang or more specif­i­cally, Lou Reed isn’t any­where near this thing. There’s no get­ting around that. But it does have Doug Yule. I hap­pen to love the post-​​Yule Velvets, love the live bootlegs with him in the band, and love what he brought to the sound. If this was labeled fairly and released as a Doug Yule solo record, I think peo­ple would talk about it more. But they don’t.metin2 gold
    cheap metin2 yang
    metin 2 yang

    Reply
  39. wen says:
    October 19, 2009 at 3:13 am

    Okay, I really think this record gets a bad rap. cheap metin2 yang
    metin 2 yang
    buy metin2 yang
    cheap metin2 yang
    metin2 yang kaufenI guess the most obvi­ous com­plaint is that it is not the Velvet Underground,cheap metin2 yang
    com­prar Metin2 Yang
    acheter metin2 yang
    acheter Metin2
    metin2 money
    cheap metin2 yang
    cheap metin2 yang or more specif­i­cally, Lou Reed isn’t any­where near this thing. There’s no get­ting around that. But it does have Doug Yule. I hap­pen to love the post-​​Yule Velvets, love the live bootlegs with him in the band, and love what he brought to the sound. If this was labeled fairly and released as a Doug Yule solo record, I think peo­ple would talk about it more. But they don’t.metin2 gold
    cheap metin2 yang
    metin 2 yang

    Reply
  40. wen says:
    October 19, 2009 at 3:14 am

    Okay, I really think this record gets a bad rap. cheap metin2 yang
    metin 2 yang
    buy metin2 yang
    cheap metin2 yang
    metin2 yang kaufenI guess the most obvi­ous com­plaint is that it is not the Velvet Underground,cheap metin2 yang
    cheap metin2 yang
    cheap metin2 yang or more specif­i­cally, Lou Reed isn’t any­where near this thing. There’s no get­ting around that. But it does have Doug Yule. I hap­pen to love the post-​​Yule Velvets, love the live bootlegs with him in the band, and love what he brought to the sound. If this was labeled fairly and released as a Doug Yule solo record, I think peo­ple would talk about it more. But they Okay, I really think this record gets a bad rap. cheap metin2 yang
    metin 2 yang
    buy metin2 yang
    cheap metin2 yang
    metin2 yang kaufenI guess the most obvi­ous com­plaint is that it is not the Velvet Underground,cheap metin2 yang
    com­prar Metin2 Yang
    acheter metin2 yang
    acheter Metin2
    metin2 money
    cheap metin2 yang
    cheap metin2 yang or more specif­i­cally, Lou Reed isn’t any­where near this thing. There’s no get­ting around that. But it does have Doug Yule. I hap­pen to love the post-​​Yule Velvets, love the live bootlegs with him in the band, and love what he brought to the sound. If this was labeled fairly and released as a Doug Yule solo record, I think peo­ple would talk about it more. But they don’t.metin2 gold
    cheap metin2 yang
    metin 2 yang

    Reply
  41. Komik Videolar says:
    October 25, 2009 at 11:36 am

    Thanks admin.

    Reply
  42. Video Seyret says:
    October 25, 2009 at 11:37 am

    Very Good…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Jews wasn't a threat for anyone, that's why this was a tragedie
      A.g.
    • Quick-Deploy 120mm Mortar
      The 120 is mounted in the back of a mortar track and...
      SSG Knapp 11C3O
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I am a New Yorker, and have seen the holes in the ground where...
      Sam
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "This is not the first Muslim soldier to commit treason against his...
      Sam
    • Time to Pull the Plug
      4. The Iraqi Rebels went underground to penetrate OUR and...
      Osher Doctorow
    • Time to Pull the Plug
      Some questions about the Gen. Petraeus Iraqi "Surge"...
      Osher Doctorow
    • The Non-lethal Claymore
      There is a non lethat weapon put out by laser energitics name daser...
      red
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      These guys seem to have had the right idea for a while,...
      TheBoogyMan
    • Airbag Defense
      Hey jack ass (fart) at any time durring that triade did you watch the video?...
      Valcan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      This episode is another demonstration that there aren't good...
      Westerner
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage