Talk:2006 North Korean nuclear test/Archive 2

Reality of explosion

Super-K

wait for the Super-K neutrino observatory to confirm/deny, if antineutrinos were produced, it is a certainty a nuclear explosion occured. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.114.192.207 (talk • contribs).

that'd be cool if it wasn't for the fact that it's pointed at the sky, i'd suspect. --Streaky 13:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

neutrino observatories are rooms dug way way underground. They can't move at all, and couldn't "point" anywhere if they could. Harley peters 15:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this presentation on nuclear monitoring by E. H. Guillian of the University of Hawaii, Manoa. A formula is given for the number of antineutrinos detected by a water / gadolinium chloride detector:

1. events observed = 2.25 x (V / 10^6 m) x (100 km / D)^2 x (Y / 1 kT)

SuperK is not this type of detector, but let's plug in numbers on the right order for SuperK or KamLand. Let V = (30 m)^3, D = 1000 km, Y = 4 kT (although it's probably < 1 kT in reality). This gives 0.0024 antineutrinos. In other words, such a test is invisible to the existing detectors. You can probably find a rogue reactor that's running all the time, after observing for a year or so; and you can find a rogue submarine if it's willing to stay in one place all the time. :-) But a small nuclear test doesn't make enough neutrinos unless you're very, very close. --Reuben 23:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No news and fizzles

I see that Fox News has reported an unnamed "senior Bush administration official" as saying that the North Koreans intended a 4 kT explosion. This seems a bit odd to me. I was under the impression that the smallest practical explosion -- without using sophisticated microyield techniques -- was limited by critical mass effects to around 10 kT. Does anyone have a reference for the critical-mass yields of U235 and Pu fission devices, respectively? -- The Anome 11:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Following up: this says that critical mass for weapons-grade Pu is about 10 kg, and that for reactor-grade Pu is around 13 kg. Specifically, it states that

"... as the fissionable material is being compressed so that it becomes critical, a neutron injected at the worst possible time would cause the earliest model of implosion weapon to have an explosive yield between 1 and 2 kilotons (that is, between 1000 tons and 2000 tons of high explosive such as TNT) rather than the full yield of some 20 kilotons when neutron injection is optimally timed to occur near the time of maximum criticality. In contrast, in 1972 the U.S. Government officially revealed that the U.S. possessed more advanced nuclear weapons whose yield would not be diminished by the injection of a neutron at no matter what instant of time. With this type of design, the spontaneous neutrons from R-Pu would in no way diminish the reliability or the expected yield."

This is entirely compatible with the observed 2 kT NK explosion. I think a critical-mass explosion for U235 is probably something like 10-15 kT from a critical mass of about 50 kg, but I haven't come up with a good reference for that yet.

-- The Anome 11:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear artillery? I mean, that was being experiment on back in the 1950's by the US (not sure of the USSR) and that was clearly nothing comperable on the megaton scale. Just wondering if the design is that drastically different. Shadowrun 20:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The fox news report is clearly propaganda. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 12:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is propoganda. --Doom777 18:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's probably true though it also probably was a dud. There are a lot of things that can go wrong in an implosion device and North Korea does not have the best technical track record. --Fastfission 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The only two plausible causes for the NK seismic event, given the twenty minutes advance warning, are a nuclear weapons test fizzle (which I consider to be most plausible, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary), or a huge decoy conventional explosion (which is theoretically possible, but can easily be disproven by scientific evidence, although the existence or absence of any such evidence is not yet in the public domain). Let's not speculate too much; in a couple of days, the scientific evidence will be much clearer. -- The Anome 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My bet is that it is a hoax or a fizzle. The coal mine next door to where I used to work in the hunter valley used to routinely let off blasts of 4000t of ANFO explosives in day-to-day mining operations, although the blasts were designed to break rock and the delays between individual detonators designed to minimise vibration, unlike the potential Nth Korean scenario where the blast would have been designed to create as much vibration as possible to mimick a nuke. A conventional blast the size of Nth Koreas "nuke" is entirely within the realms of possibility.(Mining Engineer)Apauza 07:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Blast, yes, but is it nuclear?

I’m still waiting for any kind of confirmation which supports the assertion that this had been a nuclear, as opposed to a conventional, blast. So far there have been no reports of radiation (the North Korean government says they’ve “contained radiation successfully”). I know that planes can detect minute traces of fallout in the air even from the most protected nuclear blasts. This is yet to happen. Is it possible N.K. is playing the world for fools? Ron g 17:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that you won't detect any abnormal radiation for at least a few days, assuming they are not doing close fly-overs of North Korea itself. All the "containment" means is that they didn't have any venting. Now all of this is entirely separate from whether or not DPRK is "playing the world for fools" — I suspect that the blast was a fizzle (a dud), which is something that DPRK would not happily own up to (it would essentially mean that after all that, they still don't actually have a working nuclear deterrent) but I don't suspect that question will get resolved soon (it took quite awhile to get anything near finalized yields on the Indian/Pakistani tests). --Fastfission 17:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's way too early to know much of anything yet. All this happened late last night, so it'll take some time before all the data is collected. For now, we can only write what the media has gathered so far. dposse 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The lowest estimate of the strength of detonation is 500 tons. That's enormous. The biggest conventional bomb ever tested by United States was something like 10 tons. It's more likely that Koreans did make a low-quality plutonium bomb than that they've managed to construct a conventional bomb out of 500 tons of explosives. --Itinerant1 18:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Itinerant1 but you are FOS. I have watched conventional blasts of 4000t of ANFO (= approx 3.2kt TNT equivalent) when I worked in coal mining operations, so 500t is pretty average really.Apauza 07:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your 10 ton estimate is low and in any case if we are talking about something which doesn't have to move it is possible to get much larger than anything which could function as a bomb (the US detonated 100 tons of TNT just before their first nuclear test in 1945 without too much difficulty). But I agree that it is more likely that they had a lousy plutonium bomb than a totally conventional fake-out. --Fastfission 18:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the list under List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions, there have been many detonations of 1,000+ tons of conventional explosive in history. The largest of which was at Heligoland, estimated at 4,061 tons. Logistically, it is feasible to plan a detonation of this magnitude – certainly easier than developing a working nuclear device. This being said, I tend to agree that the North Koreans at least attempted to detonate a plutonium bomb. Either it partially worked or did not detonate at all, in which case a backup charge was probably used. Ron g 18:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Note the 2004 massive N. Korea railway explosion that killed up to 3,000 people: Ryongchon disaster. Hu 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, 10 ton figure refers to the biggest _transportable_ bomb ( MOAB ). --Itinerant1 19:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We already know it takes a lot of work to keep a mine from exploding naturally, but what if the North Koreans tried doing it on purpose? How hard would it be to take a methane filled mine, pump in some 02, and see if it would make a big pop when sparked. The methane would be free and naturally occurring (coal mines are full of it), so it would certainly be cheaper and less messy than building a real a-bomb. Rklawton 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

IF you are interested in the opinion of a REAL mining engineer, Rklawton, it would create a much bigger bang if you just filled up a part of the mine with ANFO, stuck in a couple of dets and Kaboom! I don't think that a despot like Kim Jong IL is really concerned too much about cost. Your methane theory smells a bit like somewhere else methane occurs naturally.Apauza 07:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That might be interesting for the conspiracy theorists, but i doubt that. Let's just wait until the government and the scientists can gather all the data together. dposse 18:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's very plausible. That's why it's taking so long to confirm the type of explosion. From a distance, it's hard to be sure. Therefore, it's a bit early to relegate this to crank status. Rklawton 19:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Or it could be that it just takes a while to process the data. dposse 19:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's early enough to regulate it to crank status. There are as of yet no reasons to suspect that this wasn't a poorly executed nuclear test. In any case our article should be devoid of such speculation and links to clearly unrelated events like the Hallifax explosion. Yes, it is possible to have very large conventional blasts but to have one 1. underground, and 2. right after North Korea tells its ally China it is going to test a nuclear device, seems unlikely to me in the extreme, and in any case is totally OR at the moment. The burden of proof is a little one-sided at the moment, as it ought to be with any conspiracy theory (I can think of no other term for this sort of theory of deliberate and high-risk deception). (In any case, if one wants to draw parallels, don't look to huge accidents, look to controlled simulated nukes, i.e. Minor Scale) --Fastfission 19:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all your points except characterizing the possibility that North Korea has committed a fraud as a "crank" theory. You have to remember that the North Koreans believe that as a nation, they have the highest standard of living in the world. Talk about frauds! Rklawton 22:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Even for North Korea it seems pretty out there, at least to me, to assume that they would fake having failed to detonate a full yield nuclear weapon. I could see faking a success, but not an abject failure. --Fastfission 00:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the fake failed to be as convincing as they'd hoped. If they went for the methane approach, then they might have gotten the 02 mix wrong. Remember, in NK's original announcement they were pretty quick to state that they experienced no radiation leaks - as if to explain away something we were bound to sort out for ourselves - no radiation detected (assuming this was indeed a fake, of course). Ground is porous. Atomic explosions are big. Fizzles are especially dirty. A zero leak fizzle seems like a pretty big stretch. Rklawton 03:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So now the accusation is that they failed a fake? That strikes me as something of a jump. In any case, even if they set off an ideal fake, it would still look like a tiny, tiny nuke, which would still lead to all of the questions of whether it had fizzled, which would not have been resolved from, say, radiological data, since it was a fake. I just don't see it in their interest. Seems more plausible to me to believe that they tried to set off a nuke, but failed. And a zero leak fizzle is perfectly fine — it would be dirty, but still only a few kilotons in yield. It would be far easier to contain than whatever successful device they had anticipated when choosing the site. --Fastfission 13:51, 12 October 2006

(UTC)

Read latest info . No radiation detected yet. Not to read too much into it: it may mean that we are still to detect it and it may mean that the North Koreans attempted a nuclear blast, failed miserably, and used a (not too big) conventional back-up charge. Ron g 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dud?

I think it's time we compose a paragraphy outlining the case for a non-nuclear explosion.[1] Rklawton 14:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to say that people aren't sure and just link to some real sources for that, let them make their own case. I think it is best to stay fairly conservative when we are writing about reporting on speculation. Otherwise this will turn into a playground for everyone's pet engineering theories like the 9/11 pages. --Fastfission 14:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Links sound good to me - now that some are available. Rklawton 14:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that I re-read the article, I see that these possibilities are sufficiently covered at this time. Rklawton 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Test confirmed: complete move edit summary

My complete move edit summary read (i.e. I wish the move edit summary window would cut you off when you get to the end):

"Australian prime minister says North Korean nuclear test confirmed by seismic data" (tinyurl /gsvwk) North Korea completed a successful test of a nuclear weapon late Sunday night, a senior Bush administration official confirmed to FOX News (tinyurl /haze4). Yes, haze4! El_C 06:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We all know its confirmed - its all the racism on here. If korea made a bomb its 'maybe' but probably not. It was confirmed when they did it. Why not believe them? If any other country did it you would believe them, like Indias underground tests.

It has nothing to do with racism that people are unsure about the details of the test and whether it was successful or not, which are difficult and important technical questions around which there are still much doubt. --Fastfission 13:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The first link says that it wasn't a natural earthquake (which nobody thought — the USGS had already established that the region in which it occurred was not prone to earthquakes at all and the connection with the announcement obviously discouraged that conclusion). The second link is old news which also does not confirm that a nuclear test had actually been carried out, nor that it was successful. Check out the yield and authenticity section if you want to see what the contention is about; none of these sources resolve that it was 1. nuclear (as opposed to conventional) and 2. successful (which has to do with the yield). --Fastfission 13:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidently the United States has confirmed that the device was nuclear. [2] —Captaindan 18:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

First line assumes this was a nuclear explosion

This has yet to be independently confirmed. The evidence is still out as to whether this was, in fact, a nuclear test as the North Korean government is claiming. "The 2006 North Korean nuclear test, conducted on October 9, 2006, was the first detonation of a nuclear weapon by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The DPRK announced its intent to conduct a test six days prior."

Yes, the DPRK says it was a nuclear explosion and many others agree, but it has not been confirm as such independently. The DPRK has in the past exploded huge amounts of conventional explosives which have caused others to speculate that they detonated a nuclear bomb, but in one instance it turned out to be blasting for a hydro-electric dam and in another it turned out to be a very large accident at a railway station. The railway station blast occured just hour after Kim Jong Il had traveled through the station on his way home from a meeting in Beijing. The North Koreans have also built extensive tunnels beneath the DMZ and loaded them with tanks and military vehicles -- all pointing south.

• I agree and have changed it to "claims" again. I've seen no new evidence reported that:

1. It was a nuclear explosion rather than a conventional explosion (I suspect it was—why fake a fizzle?—but there are many experts who are dubious, as the links indicate)
2. The test was successful (i.e. was not a fizzle, which it seems likely to have been)

• When either of these get cleared up, we can change it from "claims" accordingly. So far all that has been confirmed is that 1. there was an explosion of some sort and 2. that North Korea claims it was nuclear. Not quite the same thing as a successful nuclear explosion. --Fastfission 13:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not suggesting the intro be changed, but bear in mind all these conventional explosions people keep talking about are actually fairly minor events compared to this recent explosion. The Ryanggang explosion/not explosion only resulted in a 2.7 wave on the ritcher scale and Ryongchon disaster only 3.6 Nil Einne 17:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The comparison with industrial accidents is a bad one all around. More analogous, as I've been saying all along, are planned large simulated nuclear explosions. --Fastfission 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fizzle

is confirmed [3]. we were the first to be out with this news [4] ! though admittedly it was a slight bit speculative at the time.... --Deglr6328 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Awesome. --Fastfission 12:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My question is what was the radioassay? What were the tested isotope ratios? and which? --enm 18:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

15-20kT

While I have no doubt that a small nuclear device is quite difficult to successfully make and technologically advanced I wonder whether our current info is misleading. It seems to suggest anything smaller then the 15-20kT range is hard to make. But India's low tech device which we also talk about was 12kT. So either this device wasn't low tech or a 12kT device isn't actually that hard to make. A lot of people on wikipedia seem to be ignoring the fact that it is rather unlikely NK wanted a big device. AFAIK the bigger the device the more plutonium you need (at the same tech level anyway). NK don't have much plutonium and it won't be easy for them to make more so it makes sense that they would want to use as little as they can get away with (while still having a successful device). Other then conserving plutonium this also gives them the advantage of being able to detonate a bigger device in the future if they aren't happy with the way things are going. While I would strongly suspect a very small explosiom e.g. a 1kT device would be a fissile I wonder whether 5-10kT is really that hard to make or it's just that most people have made bigger devices for reasons such as because it's marginally easier, because it's arguably more impressive and because they're not short of plutonium. Nil Einne 03:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's my rough understanding. It's not that it's hard to make a nuclear explosion smaller than 15-20 kT, it's that it's hard to reliably make a controlled explosion smaller than that. I think the difficulty of making very small tactical nuclear weapons is in making sure that the yield is not only small, but is exactly what you set it to be, so that your own troops are not in danger. If you have a simple weapon that's not very well controlled, you could get a larger or a smaller yield. But I don't think it conserves any plutonium. You still need the same critical mass, but the available energy might not all get used. So if the NK bomb was half a kiloton, it probably didn't use any less plutonium than a 20 kT bomb would have, and it doesn't indicate any special sophistication unless they can repeatably make it exactly half a kiloton every time. --Reuben 05:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

12 kt is still within the 15-20 kt range; it means a very inefficient weapon (Little Boy was only 13 kt). But it is probably around the cut-off between a very inefficient weapon and a fizzle; much less efficiency and you're talking about half a kiloton to a kiloton as a fizzle. As I understand it. In order to purposely detonate something which is ~1-5kt which is not a fizzle takes a lot of work. --Fastfission 12:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nil Einne, the main reason why small weapons are hard to make is the critical mass phenomenon. -- The Anome 05:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that kind of. My point is that the way it's currently written would suggest that anything under 15kT is a fizzle which doesn't seem to be true. I think we need to clarify things in this regard. Nil Einne 13:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Currently it says that anything which is substantially below that range is probably a fizzle unless it is from a very advanced nuclear state. Which, generally speaking, is correct. --Fastfission 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But India wasn't an advanced nuclear state at the time of their 12 kT explosion nor was US with Little Boy which was only 13 kT. While arguably this isn't substanially below 15 kT it's still below 15 kT and the way it's currently written it's easily possible for someone to think 12 kT or 13 kT is a fizzle if you're not an advanced nuclear state 01:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Second Test Speculation

Added new articles about suspicious activity around initial NK test site, and U.S. statement that it may indicate preperation for a second test. There's loads of other countries reacting to this, now. Liquid Entropy

Responses

NPOV!

It is completely NON NPOV to give a long list of governmental reactions denouncing North Korea (many of them coming from countries who have hundreds of nuclear weapons!! Without giving some reactions from more objective sources - for example from organizations who are againts North Korea AND OTHER BIGGER COUNTRIES having nuclear weapons§ Johncmullen1960 17:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not non-NPOV to report official reactions from the world. Only discussing whether they are right or wrong on the article page would be NPOV. You may add any official reactions from recognized countries/world organizations you deem fit. Ron g 17:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We could put comments from nuclear powers in a seperate section, like this: (Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 17:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Comments by nuclear powers

• People's Republic of China: The Chinese Foreign Ministry released an official televised statement, also reported in the official news agency Xinhua, "The DPRK ignored universal opposition of the international community and flagrantly conducted the nuclear test. The Chinese government is resolutely opposed to it."

China has previously tested 45 nuclear weapons.

• India: The Indian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that they "are deeply concerned at the reported nuclear test conducted by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea". The statement also said that India was "monitoring the situation" and in close contact with several unspecified nations over the issue.

India has previously tested 6 nuclear weapons.

• France: French foreign minister Philippe Douste-Blazy has condemned the tests, saying they are "a very grave act for international security."

France has previously tested 210 nuclear weapons.

• Russia: Russian president Vladimir Putin said at the customary Monday meeting with Cabinet members that “Russia unconditionally condemns the test made by the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea. It is not only North Korea that really counts, but the tremendous harm caused to the regime of WMD non-proliferation in the world.”

Russia has previously tested 715 nuclear weapons.

• United Kingdom: The Foreign Office released a statement in which the test was described as "a highly provocative act" which would "raise tensions in an already tense region." Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was a "completely irresponsible act".

The UK has previously tested 54 nuclear weapons.

• United States: U.S. intelligence agencies have confirmed that a test has occurred, but are presently looking into the situation. Tony Snow, President George W. Bush’s White House Press Secretary, said that the United States would now go to the United Nations to determine “what our next steps should be in response to this very serious step.” President Bush stated in a televised speech Monday morning, that such a claim of a test is a "provocative act" and U.S condemns such acts. President Bush stated that the United States is "committed to diplomacy" but will "continue to protect [America] and [America's] interests."

The US has perviously tested 1,054 nuclear weapons and attacked the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 100,000 people.

Iran didn't condemn the test, and various non-proliferation organizations have condemned ALL nukes, so it seems to me that all points are pretty well covered. The fact is, most of the world DID condemn the test. 65.68.145.113 21:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is good work, room for it on the page maybe? Spencerk 02:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

North Korea had signed a treaty promising not to make nuclear weapons. The way you worded this you make it sound like the modern nations are just as bad. We were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. The North Korean government is creating a dangerous weapon in times of peace in direct violation of their treaty. We have every right to be outraged at this threatening act. 10-10-06 Pmcculfor

When last I checked, the United States was the only country in the world to use a nuclear weapon on humans. The other countries have nukes and they have tested them but never used them as weapons. Why should the DPRK be any different. --Midnight Rider 02:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree there should be information on how governments reacted to the possible nuclear test.

New Zealand reaction

• New Zealand: After North Korea issued their statement claiming they had successfully carried out a test, Minister for Foreign Affairs Winston Peters issued a statement condemning North Korea's actions saying that they had acted irrationally, ignoring the advice of the UN Security Council and the international community. He also stated that "Such action is unpardonable and inconsistent with the behaviour expected of a state seeking security and other guarantees from the global community."

I had written the above but someone else added NZ's reaction before I finished. I don't see the need to add anything to what's there now but I'll leave what I wrote above in case anyone else feels it's useful Nil Einne 05:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-government response

Should I include this in the article?

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=52618

Talks about the situation of Philippine nationals, mostly as overseas workers in South Korea. Have yet to find an official government response... 70.68.143.168 09:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Russia and China

From the media reports I've been seeing haven't Russia and China expressed that they support sanctions althought not necessarily as harsh as US et al want and they are both believed to oppose the threat of military action (as are SK). If this is the case, the intro needs updating Nil Einne 10:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested move

I suggest the article be moved to, at the very least, "North Korea's first nuclear test." If one looks at this from a long term perspective, no one is going to refer to this event by the year. They're going to refer to it by its historical uniqueness, the fact that it was the first test by DPRK. I would also suggest that the word "possible" or "reported" be added into the title as no independent confirmation has said this took place. KazakhPol 03:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to moving it --Doom777 03:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You people are dumb, South Korea, China, and the US have all confirmed it -- but you don't believe them or maybe are just ignorant.

Even worse, I question this article importance as a stand alone article, it may at best be a part of North Korea's nucalear program article. SYSS Mouse 03:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the article's present name reasonably accurate and applicable, and suggest keeping it at least until the smoke clears and we get hard facts instead of tentative information. When this becomes history, it can be treated as history. At the moment this is an exploding story. We're very shortly going to have quite enough material to justify its own article, too. --Kizor 04:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to partially disagree with your conclusions, Kizor. Like the users above noted, most people fifty years from now are not going to refer to this event by year, but rather in broader terms. However, for the time being, it is best to let it have its own article. Once "the smoke clears," as you said, I think it would be best to move it and the most pertinent information it contains to the North Korea and weapons of mass destruction article. --Impaciente 05:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless, of course, the hoopla raised by this test rates its own article. Rklawton 05:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above. My apologies if I was unclear; I'm currently on the late stages of an all-nighter. *Waves at any news media reading this* --Kizor 05:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So we are moving it then? --Doom777 05:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

To what, exactly? Then we can vote. Rklawton 06:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

North Korea first nuclear test? --Doom777 06:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No. It would be dumb to name it the first nuclear test if the North Koreans do not test a second bomb. And do we want nodes with names like Second North Korean nuclear test or Fifty-Third French nuclear test? If more nuke tests follow, lets just call it North Korean nuclear tests or something else simple yet descriptive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kransky (talk • contribs).

Name change suggestion: I propose we go with Nuclear weapons and North Korea to parallel Nuclear weapons and the United States which already exists. This article could be the beginning of a long history, or simply a one-off test. This proposed title covers all of it. Iamvered 14:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Further investigation has shown me that there is already an article called North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, but it has problems. Any ideas? Iamvered 14:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Later we'll merge it with that article, but for now lets have an article just for this current event. My new suggestion is North Korean nuclear test. If they have another test, we'll rename this into North Korean first nuclear test or just add the information about the second test into this article. --Doom777 18:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Eventually, we'll probably have a better name for this event itself. See the articles for most other "first tests": Trinity test, Operation Hurricane, Smiling Buddha, Joe 1, etc. Like those other first tests, this event certainly deserves its own article, and at some point, we'll have a more official name for it. Until then, I think this name is fine. - Crenner 00:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Crenner. The world will settle upon some sort of name soon enough and then we can just use that. At the moment this is fine, given how recent it was. We should avoid making this an overall nuclear-related article since most of it is centered around a single test (the background is just derived from the DPRK and WMD article). --Fastfission 13:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Past views (country)

Canada

"Canada would consider any nuclear test a provocative act, severely destabilizing to the region and which would only serve to further isolate North Korea," he said. [5]

United Nations

The U.N. Security Council urged North Korea on Friday to cancel the planned nuclear test and return immediately to talks on scrapping its nuclear weapons program, saying that exploding such a device would threaten international peace and security. [6]

Bush report anachronism

Bush informed

The Chinese sent an emergency alert to Washington through the United States embassy in Beijing and President George W. Bush was told shortly after 10 p.m. that a test was imminent by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley.

Can anyone find a proper cite for the above? The reference that's currently in the article doesn't appear to mention Bush or Stephen Hadley at all Nil Einne 05:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ref right now does not have it. This Reuters story [7] and another Daily Telegraph [8] story has the "20-minute" quote but just says "US official." I agree it would be better to have more specifics. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The article states that PRC was given 20 minute warning and told US then Bush was told 30 minutes before test. How is that possible? L0b0t 21:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"told shortly after 10 p.m."

What time zone is that? dposse 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Bushie being told at 10 PM doesn't make sense actually. If Bush was in Washington DC, according to USGS, the local time at the point of detonation was either

Sunday, October 08, 2006 at 09:35:27 PM (EDT) - Eastern Daylight (New York, Toronto), or

Sunday, October 08, 2006 at 08:35:27 PM (EST) - Eastern Standard (Indianapolis, Jamaica)

He'd need to have been in Atlantic daylight time zone for that, I think that is mostly Easterb Canada or at least off the coast of Washington DC. ( Sunday, October 08, 2006 at 10:35:27 PM (ADT) - Atlantic Daylight (Halifax))

Is the infomation that he was told at 10pm sourced? If so, then it's fine. All i'm asking for is the time zone. dposse 15:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Did the Chinese warn the Japanese and South Koreans? Did they have advanced knowledge as well? Intangible 16:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

makes no sense

How was China given a 20 minute advance warning which they relayed to Bush and Bush heard about 30 minutes before the test? That would mean China was given at least a 30 minute advance warning or Bush heard at the most 20 minutes before the test

Yes, I was wondering about that, too. Junes 23:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Another report claims that it was a 60 minute warning, which was then relayed to other countries. The warning may have stated a certain time, but North Korea may ahve failed to test exactly on that time. Remember that for North Korea, this was the first test so they may have had difficulties or communication troubles which can cause delays. -- Revth 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree, see "Told at 10 P.M. section above", the chronology just isn't clear. Revmachine21 03:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If China and US really have this type of information, why would they tell reporters? Don't you think that's just a bit out of how things are usually done? Yongke 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Protection

semi protect

I have reverted some vandalisim, and like many news articles are, i think that this page should be semi-protected. WillieWallieWoo 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have also reverted some vandalism and agree a semi- protection is needed. Felixboy 19:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• We generally don't protect pages which are featured on the Main page — new articles are one of the main ways that people learn about how WIkipedia works and we don't want to discourage people from participating. --Fastfission 21:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

PROTECT THIS ARTICLE NOW!

This article needs to be protected. Period. It is getting thousands maybe millions of page views and hundreds of people don't need to see a blanked article with "KILL THE ****ING GOOKS" at the top. Any story on the front page should automatically be protected. Weatherman90 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Quite the opposite. The main page should be protected, but stories linked from it should not even be semi protected. Its' a publicity thing for wikipedia; we need people to be able to edit articles they get to from the front page. Also, this article is a current event. You can't protect it because new information comes in all the time. I wouldn't worry too much about vandalism, there are plenty of people watching this page at the moment, as with most front page linked articles. THE KING 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• What is the protocol to do so?;I need to know, since I have just lost text asking people about the consequences of the Korea atom-bomb is and I looked 24 hours later to find that the questions does exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.136.23.95 (talk • contribs).

If you are referring to things removed from the talk page, we do periodically remove things which seem like just invitations for editorializing with no implications for the article (speculation on the consequences is far beyond the purpose of Wikipedia and should be done elsewhere). --Fastfission 23:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Location

USGS reports a 4.2 mag seismic event at 41.311°N, 129.114°E [9]. If you use Google Earth to view that location, it doesn't look like a likely site for a nuclear test. It's on top of a mountain in a remote area that does not appear accessible by road. Of course, the site could have been built up in recent months or it might be more suitable for testing than it appears on the map but I wonder if this isn't just a random minor earthquake tremor.

It isn't, if you view the USGS Earthquake page, it shows it occured on the surface, or very near the surface. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/ustqab.php --KCMODevin 05:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That is suspicious, I agree, but many earthquakes are also surface events. See this list of recent quakes and how many are at zero depth.[10].

Yeah, I agree this detonation area looks like it's in very unlikely terrain. Who would detonate a nuke atop a mountain peak? The nearest valley floor is about 10 or more miles away. -Rolypolyman 05:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It could have been put in a mine shaft into the middle of the mountain. But I don't see how they would have trucked the bomb up there. I guess they could have built a road and the monitoring support city since the Google Earth maps were made. ??

There have been reports over the last week on CNN that the planned test site was an abandonned mine-shaft 2000m (~6000ft?) deep near Mt. Paektu. CNN link: [11] Figs 09:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It was underground, there's no other way they could have tested a nuclear weapon without the rest of the world not having confirmed it already (and the case seems to be that everyone seems sure they have indeed tested a nuke, but no confirmation has been given yet). With as many satellites that watch the Koreas on a continous basis (amd by extension China) a surface detonation would have shown up like a light bulb turning on in dark room. Shadowrun 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The location given by the USGS contains an horizontal location uncertainty of +/- 10.5 km. It's not exact. ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We can clearly see roads on the Google map close-up picture. The roads make a right angle nearby; there is probably a tunnel entrance at this spot, as we can see a tiny road segment leading nowhere. A thick ridge is a nice spot for an underground test. It is easy to monitor the explosion in 3D using surface recorders. Hugo Dufort 05:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I found a blog post that gave google earth link, where there is a couple structure a few hundred meters east of the epicenter. these structure are likely the entrance of the horizontal tunnel. Also according to the blog, USGS is much more reliable that South Korean intelligence. http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2006/10/north-korea-nuclear-test-information.html

Look at this location 41.278°N, 129.0868°E. It is very similar to the picture in the blog. --Timefly 14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

It would be good if our South Korean readers could provide some pictures of reactions for our gallery. For example, see this page [12]. Given the great use of tech and high level of broadband penetration I would assume it shouldn't be that high to find some images which are either already appropriately licensed or which the author is willing to license. Anything in Japan or whatever would also be welcome Nil Einne 07:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Background

I just wanted to say ahead of time that I'm sure people will want to edit my "background" synthesis mercilessly and I encourage that. :-) I just hoped that one could take all of those misc. chronology lines and turn them into a coherent synthesis (one which doesn't dwell too much on individual details, but is readable and gives a good "big picture") which was both neutral and correct, and if anyone can improve upon mine (and I'm sure people can) I welcome it wholeheartedly. As a historian, I find lists of chronology to be unbearably useless, so hopefully we can avoid that except for maybe the most immediate times leading up to the tests if necessary at all. --Fastfission 15:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have tried several times to add information to the Background section regarding the failure of the United States to hold up its own end of the "Agreed Framework" prior to the 2006 nuclear test, which is important background information for the said event. However, this information is constantly removed from the section, even without discussion. Without this information, the Background section is neither "neutral" nor "correct" as its original writer Fastfission states above. I request that this information be reintroduced, along with the relevant references, and that it remain there. Otherwise, it will be necessary to request the blocking of this section. If anyone disagrees, please state so in clear and explicit language here. 201.65.130.248 22:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

great leap forward

The NK reporters didn't have a sense of "deja vu" when they said that? John Riemann Soong 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Like they would care about Chinese history? (USMA2010 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Same major ideological branch what. (Though arguably different.) John Riemann Soong 20:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the NK "reporters" were recently grooving to the Billy Bragg song :) --Spiff666 16:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

They might not be aware of how the phrase sounds in English. Chinese nowadays don't even know what the Great Leap Forward was. In commiespeak, it's called the "three years of natural disasters." (I suppose Mao Zedong was a "natural disaster" -- in his own way.)Kauffner

Believe me when I tell you this, NK in no way was trying to imitate a "Great Leap Forward". It does sound similar in English however. Yongke 04:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Abdul Qadeer Khan

The article needs a section quoting sources about the likelihood that it's "100% North Korean technology" as trumpted, or whether this was accelerated by Abdul Qadeer Khan selling them centrifuges and the like. Tempshill 20:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I thought about this but it's best not to mention anything. Khan sold them centrifuges which are useful for uranium enrichment. But presumably this is a plutonium bomb from the reactor fuel they reprocessed. So it's possible that it could be "100% North Korean technology" in the sense that they didn't do it with anything Khan gave them. In any case without some more information about the weapon itself — i.e. what its core was — anything one can say on this is going to be something of speculation. And I'm pretty sure than the "100% North Korean technology" aspect of it is just official Juche doublespeak anyway — I'm not sure it is meant as a technical statement. --Fastfission 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

NPR

Is NPR reading this page? Listen to this story on Morning Edition by Mike Shuster [13]. Its surprisingly simillar to the information that was here this morning even comparing the yield to hiroshima and indian tests and explaining the term "fizzle" which appeared here before in any other publication[14]. --Deglr6328 21:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• That would be pretty humorous if it was. Though frankly I think as far as consolidated information sources go, the Wikipedia page is really not bad at all at the moment, even with its kinks and occasional vandalism. --Fastfission 21:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Moments ago an NPR reporter stated on the air that the explosion was in the hundreds of kilotons rather than the thousands that were expected. Gee willikers, imagine popping off a megaton bomb on your first try. It makes me wish NPR would just read our articles. Rklawton 22:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If only. It often saddens me to imagine how much better a news source NPR would be if they would take Wikipedia's NPOV concept to heart themselves. Kasreyn 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tactical Nuclear Weapon

In Henry Kissinger's doctoral thesis at Harvard in the late 50s, he discusses the use of .1 kiloton nuclear weapons for tactical use on the battlefield. Strategic ICBMs, MIRVs, portable launchers, and sea-based nukes shifted the debate away from tactical nukes, but now the USSR-USA cold war is over. So under what circumstance would a .55 kiloton nuclear weapon be considered strategic rather than tactical? The DPRK's enemey is South Korea, and a .55 kiloton weapon could clear out everything between the DMZ and Souel, which is about 30 miles to the south of it.

• The difference between strategic and tactical is a question of use, first off, but in any case the question is which is more probable: that North Korea managed to pull off the very difficult job of designing a highly compact and very low-yield nuclear weapon and decided that this would be their best choice for a first test, or that they were attempting to set off a 15-20 kt weapon and it fizzled? Given North Korea's past technological performance — the botched rocket test earlier in the year, for example — and the fact that they have continually justified their right to a nuclear deterrent (which generally implies that it is a strategic goal in mind), I think the former is a lot likelier. I have only seen one source which suggests that tactical weapons would in any way be a goal and it is highly speculative. You have to make a lot of big assumptions to think that North Korea purposely designed a subkiloton nuclear weapon; you only have to make a few small ones, ones which seem in line with its past performance, to suspect that the yield was unintentionally low. --Fastfission 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the North Korea currently lacks the way to deliver the nuclear weapon, the best use is to somehow take Seoul, then show a nuclear bomb carried into Seoul, and threaten to detonate it against any attack. A single nuclear weapon used this way can take out as much as a half of South Korean population and this is essentially a MAD situation. No leader, perhaps with the exception of China or Russia since they are far less democratic and can withstand subsequent criticism from death of couple million Korean, can attack North Korea if they do this. Any other use, a tactical one, will be far limited toward winning the war, especially against US. So there is no point at all for a tactical nuclear weapon. --Revth 08:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The missile test earlier this year was not conclusively botched. It exploded shortly after takeoff, but takeoff is the most difficult part. Experts could not determine the cause of the exlosion. The use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield is something that the big players never discuss because it is so feasible. Sub-kiloton weapons, like the one tested yesterday, are excellent for forcing the enemy to disperse or for destroying the enemy when he masses in defense. A tactical weapon needn't be compact either. It can be delivered to the target in a large aircraft with Predator-drone controls. The message that our leaders are sending us is that everything is OK because the DPRK can't reach Los Angeles or New York with their new weapon. Of course, the destruction of either of these cities will not bring about Korean unification. The destruction of the South Korean defense forces when they mass in defense around Souel would allow Kim Jong Il to walk into the unharmed city without having ever fired a shot. And a tactical nuke can deliver that outcome.

Brookings estimated that the old Soviet Union had about 22,000 tactical nuclear weapons on hand when it dissolved. A few working or non-working prototypes and the expertise to continue development would not be difficult to obtain, particularly for a Marxist regime with a willingness to pay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.246.0.76 (talk • contribs) .

Two paragraphs

I've removed these two paragraphs below...To say the least, this seems to be an original analysis, and has too many "ifs". It would be better to add this back if this was not an original analysis on Wikipedia. Sources? --HappyCamper 23:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

By comparison, the first plutonium-core bomb tested by the United States (Trinity test) had a yield of 20 kilotons of TNT, and the first nuclear device detonated by India in 1974, though of primitive design, had a yield in the region of 12 kilotons of TNT. If the North Korean nuclear test is less than even a kiloton in yield, it would be a historically small inaugural nuclear test. Even if it were as many as 9 kt it would be the smallest nuclear test ever conducted by a state as its first test. However, in the context of the Korean Penninsula, a tactical or battlefield nuclear weapon is much more provacative than a strategic weapon which the DPRK cannot deliver with a long-range missile. A .55 kiloton weapon is a battlefield nuclear weapon, and one that the DPRK could use in defense against an invasion from South Korea, or as an offensive weapon against forces massed together in defense of Souel, South Korea.

If the North Korean device has fallen significantly short of its predicted yield, it could be classified as a fizzle, indicating that some aspect of the nuclear weapon design or material production did not function correctly. In plutonium-based weapons this can result from predetonation, insufficient precision in the explosive lenses used to compress the plutonium core, or impurities in the plutonium itself, among other factors.

• Sources are general sources on nuclear weapons information, i.e. Hansen's Swords of Armageddon or a dozen other sources. The bit about the "tactical" aspect is nonsense IMO — there is absolutely no reason to assume North Korea has the ability to design subkiloton nukes (which are much harder to do on purpose than strategic ones) but the rest is easily verifiable. --Fastfission 23:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I readded it, sans the pure speculation about North Korea's goals, with a footnote with some general references. --Fastfission 00:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not asking for the paragraphs to be removed I would like to remind everyone that just because something is sourced doesn't mean we should include it. We have to be careful not to put irrelevant or leading information in a article. For example, in the Al Jazeera bombing memo article I once semi-jokingly suggested we mention that the US has a history of 'accidentally' bombing key buildings (like the Chinese embassy). While on consideration I don't really believe it should be there (especially with the quotes) I think it does illustrate the point. I'm not saying the above is the same thing simply pointing out that it's wrong to say it's definitely okay to have something in the article simply because it's sourced... Nil Einne 06:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...something doesn't feel right about those paragraphs. "If this, then this. Even if this, then this..." - this to me sounds like an interpretation, the source being provided is in a sense misleading, because it is not being used to support the analysis and interpretation, but rather the raw data. This doesn't seem to be clearly distinguished the way it is written. --HappyCamper 20:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The analysis is not original in any real way; at the moment all that exist are hypothetical situations and I think it is pretty clear about that. In any case there are more and more sources now carrying the possible-fizzle angle so if you are really worried about it, find one of those as well. The causes of fizzles are well known in the open literature; I don't think it is much of an interpretation to say "if the bomb didn't go off correctly, as some have speculated it hasn't, then it might be from one of these common causes for this." It might be something else as well, of course, but I think it is a good service to provide information on what is usually behind this sort of effect. If there is any factual aspect you are feeling is more unsupported than others, let me know, but honestly this is all very common knowledge amongst people who deal with nuclear weapons information and there is lots of open literature on it. --Fastfission 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the first paragraph, sans the "Korean peninsula"/tactical info (which I think is certainly not correct here), is purely factual and it does not require any great leap of logic to say that this is likely the low-yield initial test ever conducted. After that, it simply says that if the yield was very small then it would be likely classified as a fizzle, and then explains what usually causes fizzles. I'm not sure I see that as being terribly analytic. --Fastfission 21:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally think the paragraph was/is a problem however my point above still stands IMHO. Editors need to be careful and just because two things are true or believed to be true doesn't mean we can put them together in such a way which could be misleading. Note we don't actually have to directly imply something. It's usually wrong enough just to put two unconnected details together which could lead people to believe something even if we don't directly say what we want the reader to think (unless of course someone else did so). Nil Einne 01:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible Targets

If North Korea goes ballistic and tests this thing for real, I wonder what will be its target? I hope it's not the Philippines - I live there! And we have no missile interceptors and things like that. It's unfair!

It's rather unlikely any country is going to want to test their nuclear weapons on another country as that would generally be conceived as an act of war and will likely result in an extremely deadly response from other countries. When North Korea tests their missiles they usually aim at international waters as anyone would expect. Furthermore it is AFAIK rare for anyone to actually arm a missile when testing it even with conventional explosives. That simply makes things more dangerous, provocative and serves little purpose. Far better just to show you could target them if you wanted to by flying past with a dummy load. Even less so with nuclear weapons since you don't learn as much when you can't actually study the explosion. Since NK doesn't have much plutonium, we can expect if they do carry out another nuclear test it is rather unlikely it will be attached to a missle. Not to mention the fallout on them for launching a nuclear armed missle even if it is aimed at international waters is not going to be pretty. Indeed it is easily possible other countries will respond with deadly force even if the missle is aimed at international waters. Nil Einne 10:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Even the US has only tested live nuclear missiles only a few times in its long history of missile and nuclear testing, and only once for a missile of any range. --Fastfission 13:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

FF, are you including the Argus/Dominic/Hardtack exoatmospheric tests? There are a handful there alone involving ICBM's. Perhaps you meant firing ICBMs or SLBMs at land-based targets? ... aa:talk 17:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't including the exoatmospheric tests because I generally think of those as being in a slightly different category from the live-fire exercises meant to test a missile in actual operational conditions, but I could see including them in that statement when I think of it. But it is still pretty rare in the history of nuclear testing in either case. --Fastfission 21:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Those weren't using warheads in a ballistic trajectory. I don't know all the details, but I was told that they weren't even in reentry vehicles, with the intent that if something went wrong and the warhead came back down, it would likely disintegrate in the upper atmosphere rather than landing a large intact chunk of fissile material somewhere. The only real live fire ICBM test the US has ever done was Frigate Bird. Georgewilliamherbert 00:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I always assumed the exoatmospheric ones were more like satellite launches than live-fire exercises. And Frigate Bird was an SLBM, not an ICBM, but now I'm just being pedantic ;-) --Fastfission 12:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think that North Korea has enough, shall we say, instability of reason to launch a nuclear-armed missile at some country. I think that's why the Bush administration is really, really careful about their statements. If North Korea points this thing at the US, that'll be really scary.

If NK fired a missile, the target would be Japan. The don't have the range for the hit the U.S. More to the point, the idea of North and South uniting to fight Japan is a bizarre, but popular, fantasy in both Korean states. It's the subject of movies, irresponsible statements by politicans, and so forth. NK tried to milk this sentiment by firing a missile over Japan a few years back. There is a book about this called The Anti-Japanese Imperative in Korean History.

More cynically, I'd say what NK is really looking for is money. They'll sell whatever they have to the highest bidder. The nightmare scenario is that NK will sell to Iran, which will then give the nuke to some terrorist group like Hezbollah. That group will put it a freighter and the freighter will dock Tel Aviv, New York, or Washington.Kauffner 11:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Look what happened when they kidnapped just two soldiers! - if they nuked an israeli city the Israelis would counter attack with their 600 nukes and kill everybody in Lebenan, Syria and Iran. I don't think that Hezbollah has any interest in committing cultural suicide. North Korea is also not suicidal - they will keep their 9 nukes for self defence against the US using their 9,000. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 12:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think they're looking for money too but not by selling it (it would be easy to tell if any plutonium originated from North Korea reactors; all plutonium reactors have slightly different isotopic levels and things of that nature). I think they want a bargaining chip to demand a bit more from the U.S.; I doubt they are seriously considering selling the weapons themselves. There's always the possibility of them selling proliferation technology, like Pakistan did, but if I were a would-be proliferator I would not take the North Korean experience as being one that I would necessarily want to replicate — they seem to have had major technical problems. --Fastfission 12:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Iran has created a lot of trouble for Israel by funding various militant groups, but has yet to be subject to retaliation. Some Iranian money, weapons, and a Hezbollah splinter group and they are back in business. If Hezbollah has been chastisen, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are still active. The Iranians seek martyrdom. They are not intimidated by the idea of retaliation. Their president has said this explicitly and repeatedly. Even so called moderate leader Rafsanjani (#3 guy in the Iranian government) has said that the purpose of the Iranian nuclear program is to build a weapon for use against Israel.

Nine nukes? From the failure of this test it would appear that the North Koreans do not have even one weapon. As far as nuclear proliferation goes, NK is already doing that. There is town in Iran said to be full of NK engineers (who I do not think have come to learn about oil-drilling technology.)

"US using 9,000"? What? NK would abandon its nuclear program if the U.S. did as well? The propaganda the North feeds their own people is all about the need for "reunification" (as in conquest) of the South before Southerners become "mongrelized" through intermarriage and cultural contact and lose their Korean identity. I find it hard to believe that an unprovoked US nuclear attack is really their foremost concern.Kauffner 05:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to your views but in reality, Iranians are not suicidal. Hizbollah and other such groups are also not suicidal either. Their is a difference between their maytyrdom beliefs, and their willingness to be completely and utterly destroyed along with most of the rest of the middle east. You also don't really appear to have any appreciation of world politics of all. The fear of being invaded by the US is of great concern to many countries especially those who are not on good terms with the US for whatever reason (& especially in light of Iraq). A US nuclear attack is probably not that likely but they having a nuclear deterrent does make a attack of any kind less likely Nil Einne 13:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

One target nobody has mentioned yet is Beijing, the capital of China. Pretty much everyone will say that is crazy, but a China-backed coup or coup-disguised invasion is a big worry to Kim as the mass of his army is stationed too far south to defend him. This was checked by the Russian army during the Cold War but that protection is gone. --Revth 08:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NK is dependent on Chinese oil. They're not going to actually fire a missile at Beijing. But they have been really pissed off with China lately because the Chinese closed down the bank in Macau they were using to distribute counterfeit US currency. I don't think the Chinese had much choice -- the U.S. could have used sanctions to close the bank without China's help. All the same, Baby Kim seems to have taken it a personal betrayal. So embarassing China might be a secondary motive for conducting this "nuclear" test, (IMO, a hoax). But I think the primary motive can be found in the failure of NK's long range missile test last summer. Kim must have had a strong emotional response to the jokes that were made about the test and so forth.

Historically, NK first got serious about it's nuclear program in the early 1960s as a response to the Chinese nuclear program and to the Sino-Soviet split, (which put NK in an awkward position). After the failure of the Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1979, Beijing was no longer viewed as a serious military threat. But with North falling behind the South economically, the program became more and more important for prestige reasons as well as for sales and to extort money.Kauffner 15:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Second test rumoured?

As of 9:55am UTC+10 they may have done a second test [15] -- Chuq 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's be ubercareful about this... RoK and USGS are saying there was no seismic activity, and the Japanese PM's office is disputing at the moment. Cm205 00:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Theres a story on MSNBC about it as well. See Second 2006 North Korean nuclear test CynicalMe 00:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reports are widespread, and the reverters are going overboard with overly aggressive reversions and incorrect summaries referring to blocked IP addresses that can't be editing. Thanks all for the careful work many have done, but let's not be careless. Hu 00:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now the article refers to a 6.0 earthquake, but USGS maps show that it was in the ocean east of Japan (mag. 5.8). I don't think an ocean dropped explosion would create a sub-oceanic earth tremor, especially that large, since the ocean would absorb much of the energy. Doesn't add up. Hu 00:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears to have been a false alarm caused by a natural earthquake and a jittery world [16] Nil Einne 09:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll bet the planet thought it was a dare. "Oh, you think that you can shake the ground! Well, watch what I can do!" --Fastfission 18:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Korean article

Is there really no Korean article or are we just missing it? This looks like it might be the article Ko:북핵 문제 but I'm not sure. I'm not sure why it's talking about 500 kg either... Nil Einne 10:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is about North Korea and nuclear weapons in general; it links to our "North Korea and weapons of mass destruction" article. This is a Babel Fish translation of the 500 kg part:

Small-sized amiableness alcoholic beverage retention yes or no.

The American national defense information country (DIA) the director of a bureau nuclear arm and below 500 small-sized anger in Taepodong 2 missiles of North Korea the nuclear vehicle it equipped it talked a loading percentage ability and that there is a possibility of doing to reach to until the continental United States.

So it's not about how funny North Korean news reporters look; it's about booze!--cloviz 11:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well theirs an article now. I'm rather surprised it took so long and it's so small. I thought South Koreans were nuts about the internet? I guess wikipedia just isn't high on their list because we don't have loads of flash and images, and most of our pages are only 100k or so... :-P N.B. I know a Korean and have seen a few popular Korean pages believe me, their NOT dialup friendly. Speaking of other languages, anybody notice there are only 2 European languages that we currently link to but about 7 for Cory Liddle already (and they were all created after the event not surprisingly)? Nil Einne 09:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Even North Koreans are talking about the issue; look what I've found: [17]. Unbelievable indeed, but I'm not sure if this really comes from North Korea or even from someone on its favour...--cloviz 11:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm reasonably certain that site has no connection with North Korea. It seems to be a joke. --Reuben 16:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I should have guessed that Kim Jong-Il didn't invent Cha-cha-cha, haha. The part about Cory Lidle was too unfunny though.--cloviz 21:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes unless Warren Murphy is another name for Kim Jong-Il [18]. Interestingly however it was registered earlier last month. That was before NK had even annoucened the test plans. However this website linked to from the fake one [19] does appear to be a real NK website. It has a forum where a bunch of people are congratulating NK and also links to some music videos on YouTube. I wonder what they're saying? Coincidentally, I also noticed on the official website delegation section they mention "The video is available in WMV (Windows Media Player) format, also playable on Linux Mplayer" which is actually quite interesting because so many other governmental websites often don't even acknowledge the existance of Linux. Nil Einne 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely OT I know but they also have a store. One of the most interesting items is this [20]. Also their DVDs are interesting. They have one from the Greece National Television. I wonder where they send their items from? No info on shipping but they use PayPal payment and Euro as their main currency. Their shop shutdown for a month in March-April too. Oh an I just noticed 1.5 million requests since June 2005! Edit: Actually I now think the website is run by the KFA and I'm guessing the stuff ships from either Spain or China ([21]) (probably Spain). Nil Einne 17:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The most interesting site is Naenara; in its shop it has everything from ring tones to the children's film "The clever raccoon dog", passing throug Korean fonts and...is that George Bush as a dog? And should Mickey Mouse be there? Prices in American dollars.--cloviz 21:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

DPRK vs. North Korea

I've looked over the relevant Korea-related Manual of Style pages (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)) and didn't find anything about whether or not one refers to North Korea as "North Korea" or "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)". But the MOS itself uses "North Korea" exclusively. Our article on Democratic People's Republic of Korea redirects to North Korea. So I think it is safe to say that on Wikipedia the precedent is to use "North Korea" rather than the official state title (in the same way that Russian Federation redirects to Russia and Republic of Korea redirects to South Korea).

If you think it should be otherwise, take it up with the people who do the Korea Manual of Style pages; don't wage that little war on here. It is really a pain to change them one way or the other. --Fastfission 23:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that using DPRK for North Korea is the same as using PRC for the People's Republic of China or US for the United States. El_C 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thus, for ex., the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics redirects to Soviet Union but nonetheless should be abbreviated as USSR (not SU). El_C 00:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but it is clear that someone went through and tried to systematically change all instances of "North Korea" to "DPRK" or the full name, which is what I am referring to. I suspect it was motivated by a well-intentioned but ill-conceived belief that calling them by their formal name is more neutral, or something like that. In any case, DPRK is a far less-known acronym in English than is USA or USSR; I think we should tend towards "North Korea" in most cases for that reason alone. PRC wouldn't be so much of an issue if "China" wasn't too ambiguous and charged (you only save two letters by using PRC rather than China, which isn't much). I also find the official name to be far too similar to the official name of South Korea to not be confusing for people who don't know about them (not to mention the whole bogus "democratic" aspect, but that's something else entirely). I'm fine with mentioning it is the official name once at the beginning and occasionally using the acronymn, but I think we should, per our other naming conventions, go with the simplest and most likely to be understood solution. --Fastfission 00:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Well, that wasn't clear at all (at the time). I'm for keeping it heterogeneous; I see no need for absolute uniformity, either way. El_C 04:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no objection to your approach as outlined above, either (I simply do not have a strong opinion on the matter). El_C 04:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To add my voice to the growing consensus: North Korea is the journalistic standard, the term readers are most likely to be familar with. For a longer article focusing on the country such as this one, the offical name can be give as the first reference. For later references, it should be "North Korea." If "DPRK" is adopted as standard, we have to use ROK for South Korea. This would lead to such monstrosities as "DPRK/ROK relations."Kauffner 17:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Our standards should be historiographic, not journalistic. El_C 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Our standards are neither; they are in the interests of best communication to the reader. --Fastfission 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That is oversimplistic. El_C 21:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added ", also known as North Korea" to clarify for those who have not heard of it refered to as the DPRK before. Hello32020 02:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't needed, I agree with Fastfission's edit. Anyway, I'm only advancing the broader point that Wikipedia entries should reflect the writing style of the pertinent scholarship (i.e. over newspapers). El_C 04:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is being looked for?

What gasses are being looked for in the air samples taken in order to determine if NK's test was nuclear. I'm going to guess they HAVE to be noble gasses. What else would be able to seep from so far below ground without being absorbed etc.? So if they are looking for noble gasses what are they? ⁸⁵Kr? ¹³³Xe? What else could there be? Also, how would you know that you were detecting these gasses from a nuclear test and not for instance, the Yongbyon nuclear reactor? --Deglr6328 08:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• According to this, radioactive krypton is usually what is detected after a fission test. I imagine the timing, the location, the amount, and probably the specific isotopes is how one tells the difference between a reactor or a test. --Fastfission 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Radioactivity found

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1523862006 http://www.buzzle.com/articles/112303.html

This, if correct (mind: it is US data) would make the test genuine and a fizzle. Which would mean NK has joined the nuclear club.

The article has long since been updated about this. As to whether it means NK has joined the nuclear club, I dunno. I'm not sure a failed detonation makes you a bona-fide nuclear weapons state. --Fastfission 18:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You can learn much more from a failure than a success. dposse 18:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that doesn't make a failure the same thing as a success. Though I am quite interested in finding out what went wrong specifically — I've heard a few theories — though obviously that probably won't be known for quite a long time (i.e. probably not under the current DPRK regime at all). --Fastfission 14:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole point of exploding that first nuke is to prove that they have a working weapon. The scientific and technical goals aren't as important in the current case. Hugo Dufort 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I'm not sure they actually count as being a nuclear weapons state, personally — they haven't shown that they have a working weapon. --Fastfission 20:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why it's called a "test". Americans weren't perfect when we created the bomb. dposse 18:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, but the first test of the US, and every other nuclear state, were successes, demonstrating full if rudimentary control over the technology. In this case North Korea appears to have been unique in having spent all that time to make a dud. There is no parallel with any other country, except perhaps Pakistan's first nuke, but even that was still in the range of being called a success. --Fastfission 12:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, all we can safely say is that the first announced tests of those nations were successful. While the history of nuclear development is fairly well documented in some nations (esp. the US), in others relatively little is known. Jakew 12:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that NK's test was also (AFAWK) the smallest planned first test. No one else tried such a small first test which makes it not that surprising that it failed (given that a small nuke is particularly hard to implement). The fact that they tried such a small one might seem silly but as I mentioned many times, they're unlikely to want to use much plutonium which AFAIK is unlike every other country which didn't really care that much. However I don't think the fact it was a failure really concerns the military et al of other countries very much, it's still likely to be nearly as much of a msg as a success (especially since they know 4kt is not easy)... Nil Einne 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

UN announces sanctions.

[22] I added some infomation on this breaking news. Can anyone expand it please? dposse 18:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Clever Hoax?

Is it not possible that ordinary explosives were used and the material was laced with radioactive materials from their nuclear reactor in order to throw off any airbourne detection (knowing the outside world would attempt to detect radiation)? 86.133.136.190 18:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is possible, i suppose. dposse 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It'd probably be harder to do than actually trying to detonate a nuclear weapon (and not being totally successful). Occam's razor would dictate going towards the option with the least assumptions. --Fastfission 23:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically, but to do so would require capturing radio active materials from a reactor around time of the planned fake test, then shipping them to near the test site and releasing them in air. Since some radio active materials decay rather quickly, you can't store them in advance and expect no one to notice. A nuclear reactor also uses less refined materials than a nuclear weapon, so its radio active materials would be contaminated with large doses of innert materials. --Revth 01:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the radioactives searched for in the confirmation are probably the fissile (fission) products of an explosion which may be different from those produced during regular reactor operations and otherwise in any case I'm sure they are produced in different ratios. Hu 01:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point but there was also a report saying that there was a tremor which registered at 3.58 on the Richter scale. Later they said it was 4.2 but the point is that if it is a hoax how did they come up with the quakes?--Midnight Rider 02:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A fake, while technically possible, has been pretty well ruled out. Analysts have noted that it's unlikely they could transport hundreds of tons of conventional explosives into a remote area of NK completely undetected (there are no autobahns/Interstates/motorways in northeastern NK and the area is being closely monitored). There was some discussion about this in the media over the weekend. Much more likely it was a real nuke that fizzled -- pre-detonated or the like. A wild speculation on my part is that they tried to use as little fissile material as possible. Since a small nuke is in some ways more of a technical challenge than a medium-sized one, they weren't able to pull it off. Raymond Arritt 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your speculation is not wild that they'd want to use as little as possible. It has been mentioned in the media. Another point is that Pu-240 can dampen a reaction by absorbing neutrons, compared to the fissile Pu-239. It is possible that their plutonium was not as pure as they would have liked. Hu 03:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Pu-240 is fissile. [23] [24] Somewhat more fissile than U-235 (Mc about 40 kg, compared to 10.5 kg or so for pure Pu-239 or 48 kg for 93.5% enriched U-235). Its larger critical mass would reduce the overall criticality of the core, compared to a bomb with less Pu-240 however. The isotope ratio is trivially available by basic analysis of the material during fabrication; it's inconceivable that they didn't know what it was going into the design.

We don't have enough information public now to tell if this was a predetonation, a small bomb which undershot, a 550 ton boosted bomb which was intended to boost to 4 kilotons and didn't ignite the boosting properly, or what. There are a number of possible scenarios. Georgewilliamherbert 04:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I had just read the plutonium article but had not absorbed it sufficiently. Re-reading the Isotope section I see that Pu-240 emits neutrons and is problematic since it can lead to premature detonation, which would be one of the major causes of a fizzle. This is the point I was trying to make. Hu 04:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As many people have pointed out, lots of things are possible. The question is what's likely? Firstly, we know that North Korea has plutionium to make a bomb. So is it likely that they went to some sort of extremely complicated, probably very difficult to properly implement hoax to convince the world that they blew up a fizzle (if they had really want to carry out a hoax like this, the could have told China it was supposed to be 1kt)? Or is it more likely that they tried to blow up a 4kt device which failed? N.B. I myself believe the would have used as little as possible which I mentioned way back when but it still seems unlikely they would have bothered with a hoax like this Nil Einne 23:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

US confirmed nuke blast.

[25]

Can someone please update the article and citations? thanks. dposse 18:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• OK. I just went through and shifted things around a bit, I think it is more or less fine though another more synthetic edit to the "yield" section might be worth doing (since at the moment it is mostly a mix of very early assessments, some of which are no longer considered valid). --Fastfission 23:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this really definitive? A little radioactivity could be explained if some radioactive materials were mixed in with the high explosives. I think the fact that NK has decided not to conduct a second test is more significant. If they really had nuclear weapons capability, they would conduct a second test and remove all doubt. A blast of less than one kiloton is puny -- not all that large even as non-nuclear explosions go.Kauffner 08:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wen Ho Lee

There is really no place for the Wen Ho Lee incident in this article; it has nothing to do with North Korea. In the end Wen Ho Lee was thought only to have mishandled information in very irresponsible and selfish ways, but not actually be a spy (and even at worst, he was supposed to have been suspected of being a spy for the PRC, not DPRK, and he was supposed to have spied on miniaturized designs for hydrogen bombs, not a primative fission bomb of the sort the DPRK would be capable of). It is totally unrelated to the North Korea bomb test, as such I've removed it. --Fastfission 23:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Blast depth

Is there any information on the blast depth? 212.42.10.194 12:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, no, though it is not thought to have been deep (it was a horizontal shaft). --Fastfission 13:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In case of second test...

How should a second test be handled? Should this article be changed to October 9, 2006 North Korean nuclear test, and a new article be created for the second test? Or should this change to 2006 North Korean nuclear tests, with the second test info added into this article.

Just something to think about, since it seems a second test (or more?) is on the way. American007 04:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "2006 North Korean nuclear tests" as it's more flexible than dating each one. If we start dating each one, we need to make a main article anyway. --Revth 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Revth's suggestion above. When the earthquake/tremor in Japan happened, it was initially announced as a second test by the media. One particular wikipedian went crazy, creating Second 2006 North Korean nuclear test and adding links to it absolutely everywhere, when a section within this article would have been sufficient - of course once the truth was known, we had to start cleaning up - as it is, the second test article is a redirect and sitting on WP:RfD. -- Chuq 12:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to see how it plays out. This one is mostly about a single test and its background; a second test may or may not have its own interesting aspects which would warrant a separate page. There is no sin in creating a separate page for each test; we have many articles about individual U.S. nuclear tests of merit (Upshot-Knothole Grable, Ivy King, Castle Union, etc.). At this point we should just go with whatever works at the time — it is impossible to be wholly systematic when the first draft of this history is not yet written, so to speak. At some point we'll have a better name than "2006 North Korean nuclear test" (when we find out what its operation name was, or even where it was held with any precision), but until then clarity should be our goal. --Fastfission 19:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There certainly might be scope for a second article - but while the entire sum of information known about the test is "North Korea was suspected of detonating a second nuclear test on xxx date.", a section in this article would be more suitable - it is easy to split it out to a second article if it outgrows this one, but it is more of a pain to "merge" a redundant article back in - especially if one person disagrees and keeps re-adding links, etc. against the majorities wishes - it just makes more work for everyone. -- Chuq 20:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Kim "sorry" over nuke blast, wants to return to Talks.

"SEOUL, South Korea - North Korean leader Kim Jong Il expressed regret about his country’s nuclear test to a Chinese delegation and said Pyongyang would return to international nuclear talks if Washington backs off a campaign to financially isolate the country, South Korean media reported Friday. "[26]

i'm going to add this under the North Korean statements section, under a new subheader. Please expand what i add, ok? thanks. dposse 17:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

the PRC spokeman said yesterday that there was no "apology" delivered. KJI just promised no further test, unless 'provoked'

North Korea tell South sanctions could mean war

See [27]. This will have to be added to the article. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 14:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)