Talk:2006 North Korean nuclear test

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Venezuela

I found it interesting that Venezuela even spoke out against the test. If someone can find the quote that the Venezuelan Government released, it's definitely worth noting, just because usually anything that goes against the United States is something Venezuela supports. (As far as I know it was not a statement directly from Hugo Chavez). Mientkiewicz5508 23:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I found it. Feel free to make any edits as necessary.

China voiced some concerns too. By the way, this kind of discussion page is not the place for partisan politics. Whatever grudge you hold against Venezuela (or against any other country), it would be foolish to believe that their diplomacy is unidimensional. Hugo Dufort 02:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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 perviously 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)

CORRECTION

North America is the continent and so is Asia and Ocenia, so leave it as sucha nd stop reverting it to jst America.

ummm it happened oct 08 2006 not oct 09 2006, it has only been cot 9th for 5 minutes.

North Korea time, not US Eastern time --Doom777 04:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ok agreed... http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=205 --mokaiba

Although all the news agencies are reporting this somwhat breathlessly, we should be careful until it's confirmed. North Korea has a long history of playing hijinks with the international community to get what it wants.

We can report that they reported it. --Fastfission 03:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

true enough cm205

the USGS thing is all over CNN and on MSNBC, so its not original research. Just a note to the user who said it is doubtful the USGS would be able to tell, due to the nature of seismic waves and sensitive equipment the USGS is able to detect earthquakes and seismic events nearly worldwide.. as far as Im aware anyway. They detected the 2004 earthquake that caused the Indian Ocean tsunami. Cm205 03:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

More than that, guys. The blast came from zero kilometers depth. Surface blast. That's either a LOT of TNT or a nuclear explosion touched off at the surface. --Blacken 07:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Seismic activity can be measured anywhere on the planet, it doesnt have to be within the US for the USGS to detect it. That's the nature of seismic activity, feel free to read up.

The USGS just picked it up, duh; it takes time to sense that stuff.

You can SEE there was an "event" in the Japanese and North Korean seismic stations. Here's a diagram demonstrating the difference between natural events and explosions

North Korea does not have a seismic station that reports data to the international community. That seismic station at Inchon is in South Korea. The IRIS seismic center has not reported any significant activity, yet. If you look carefully at the seismic records reported from Japan and South Korea, they more closely resemble an earthquake signature rather than an explosion. Thanks for the links.

True, true. CNN is reporting that military sources have confirmed that something happened, as have other 'unnammed officials in government' Cm205 03:48, 9 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. — Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Original Research

whats up with this stock market business? thats def. orig. research

Actually, I heard that on CNN and the BBC just a few minutes ago... it wasnt me that added it but it seems to be correct. And not just South Korean stocks, apparently all the Asians are down a bit Cm205 04:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me either but it was also on the local news here in NZ. I believe the South Korean stock market was closed for 5 minutes to calm things down. I believe oil prices are up as well above the US$60/barrel mark Nil Einne 05:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional Info

It said South Korea's Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources had detected a tremor of a magnitude 3.58 to 3.7 at 0135 GMT. from : [1] mokaiba

That may have just been a prelude to the 6.2 earthquake in Tonga (0150 GMT)

-->tonga is 4 hrs ahead of north korea [2] tonga earthquake happened at 150am oct 8th, NK did test oct 9th 1pmmokaiba

USGS website now lists a 4.2 mag event having taken place in North Korea.

But if it's true that NK gave China a 20 minute heads up, then that supposition isn't likely. ...unless NK has made a major breakthrough in earthquake predictions. Rklawton 04:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather strange that NK would give China a heads up given that one of the reasons they apparently became so desperate to carry out a test ASAP was because of China's condemnation of their plans. Then again I've never really understood the minds of many insane world leaders be it Kim Jong Il or GWB Nil Einne 05:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible Yield?

The USGS is now saying 4.2 magnitude tremor, does anyone know of a potential yield that the bomb could have had? Some of the rumors I have heard say 400 Kilotons, but that seems a little big for their very first test, but then again, the USGS has confirmed that the bomb was stronger than originally thought. I think it will be a safe assumption to say that a device was tested, there is virtually no evidence right now that says it did not occur. Australia is really the only nation that picked it up who is still trying to figure it out for sure.Green Machine 6 04:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A 4.2 mag event might indicate a 1 kiloton device at 300 feet. Good info here: [3] [4]

1 kt is much more likely than 400kt. A 400kt fission device is a BIG fission device, huge in fact. Those kind of yields are typically reserved to sub-megaton staged fusion devices.

The source for the 400kt figure has since edited its article down to read 4kt. Rklawton 05:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I added in an estimate as 1-5 kilotons. This is based off of Wikipedia's own page on the Richter Scale. I figured the wide range was better than doing a little Original Research with my graphing calculator and plotting out exactly what a 4.2 would be on that chart. --Rodzilla 06:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: Someone beat me to it and found a website with more detailed richter scale listings. I fixed up the sentence to indicate it's no longer a range and reformatted the citation to match the other citations. --Rodzilla 06:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This source looks like its self-published by an English professor. I think we might need a better source. Rklawton 06:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It was the best I could find. You can do the calculations yourself [5] but you can see that the geological conditions are also a variable that we do not have information about. Somebody at the CIA is probably working on it right now.

Unfortunately, the section on Richter to TNT conversions on Wikipedia's Richter Scale page is lacking citations. --Rodzilla 06:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The only data we have to calculate yield is the seismic data. It varies from 3.8 to 4.2 based on source, leading to a yield estimate of .5 to 2 kilotons. I know of no source for a more accurate number, and both figures (3.8 and 4.2) are being widely reported. It is not clear where the '500 ton' or '550 ton' number is coming from, but it's most likely an inference based on the initial South Korean seismic. (Confirmed, the widely reported '550 tons' number comes from initial South Korean seismic data, that would make it obsolete if the USGS seismic data is better.)JoelKatz

BBC is reporting an 3.5 magnitude seismic tremor. Conscious 06:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Kelly Kiloton Index [6] says that a 4.2 magnitude earthquake is equal to 2 kilotons of energy released. I don't know if nuclear weapons cause a different magnitude reading on seismographs, but the magnitude measured is consistent with the 550 ton to 2 kiloton estimates.--Burzum 06:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is too complicated and/or too much of an unknown for us to be able to do without bordering on OR Nil Einne 07:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading the latest additions I'm even more of the opinion we're approaching OR here. I'm not denying the test appears to have been a fizzle but I personally think the way it's discussed at the moment is OR. I suspect this will be discussed elsewhere in the near future but I still don't think we should leave the section as is Nil Einne 08:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Without venturing my own opinion, I've quoted JDW's estimate of the yield. Dbromage 13:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I decided to remove the contentious section:

Estimations based off a rough correlation between seismic activity and nuclear yield according to the Richter Scale would place the bomb's yield at somewhere between ½ and 2 kilotons. If this is the actual yield of the device it would possibly qualify the test as a fizzle.

I've been looking in to this a bit. I had been planning to give up and just leave it until things are clearer. But more information has come to light. The JDW bit which is at least sourced seems to suggest the 4.2 on the Ritcher scale may not 100% correlate with the yield. Even if my understanding here is incorrect or they're just wrong, I still don't think we can justify the above. The Pokhran-II case also causes doubt in my mind. I haven't looked in to it that well but as far as I can tell there was a lot of debate as to the yield [[7]] [[8]] of one of the tests (although in a different scale). As such, until and unless we can find a resonably reliable source which states that if the seismic event was 4.2 then the yield of the test was 2 kt we should leave this out. Nil Einne 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If North Korea actually detonated a half-kiloton (550 tons) yield A-bomb then the west better be worried, because the smaller the bomb yield the more advanced and complicated technology it is. If the NK commies actually managed to cause a controlled 550-ton fission explosion then they are not far from creating tactical nukes! I wish the russians were right and it was indeed 5-15 kilotons in yield (hopefully near the higher bound) because that would imply lesser technology, like WWII american Manhattan project, so it would be several tons heavy and not easy to put on bomber plane, let alone rockets. 195.70.48.242 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not if they intended the yield to be higher but the device was a fizzle.

Yield of nuclear devices can get as low as 0.01 kilotons (see the Davy Crockett pocket nuke, which was produced by the US a long time ago). Producing smaller-yield detonations does NOT imply, however, that the device is any smaller! A crude nuclear bomb with a yield of 2 kilotons could require a big, heavy and ineffective installation. Hugo Dufort 02:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dud or not dud, one has to remember that the Soviet tested their first true hydrogen bomb with a voluntarily "scaled down" design (see Joe 4), because they were merely doing a "proof of concept" and they wanted the "political tool" from the aftermath ASAP. I'd compare the Korean nuke to that; the second test could be of a higher scale, probably in the range of the Fat Man (which is the "natural" design for a first, simpler nuke -- see USSR's Joe 1). Hugo Dufort 02:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

More Info!

Do we have any official news links saying this actually happened or is this just self-researched news? And if so, lets please try to make this page as accurate as possible, as this is major news. Effer 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to what? I think this article is pretty well sourced. It reports that various agences are reporting... Rklawton 04:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but often in such situations, news agencies tend to jump to various conclusions. Effer 04:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hence the "current event" tag. Rklawton 05:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to see what happens then. Effer 05:04, 9 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)

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. [12]

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. [13]

Official announcement

I have removed the first part of the "official announcement" text, because it didn't appear in the original announcement from the cited source. If it's genuine, it needs a good source. The removed text is "The citizens of the North Korean nation salutes our heroic leaders in making this great leap in achievement in defeating the international band of imperialists led by the chief imperialist George Bush. We salute our Dear Leader who continues the legacy of our Great Leader in building our proud nation into a bastion of socialist paradise." --Reuben 05:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 [14] and another Daily Telegraph [15] 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)

Pictures

It would be good if our South Korean readers could provide some pictures of reactions for our gallery. For example, see this page [16]. 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)

What is the point of...

There is a quote in the Introduction, I think, pertaining to the fact that the Google Earth view of the area where the test is presumed to have taken place is standalone, a picture in its own right.

So? Who cares? What difference does it make? So, some old satellite imagery was taken of it... sure, it is supposed to be a missile testing facility.

What does this have to do with news? If you want an official reason to get rid of the quote, anything to do with Google Earth would be original research, and the research does not indicate anything of value to a news piece, or any piece on the wikipedia.

EDIT: Secondly :P What is the point of the Pakistani section under "International Response". It just says "No official comment". Why is this country listed under "International Response" if it hasn't yet actually responded?

Because "No comment" is a response in of itself. It says many things, most noteable that they don't know what to make of the situation yet what face they should show the world. Least noticeable they're assessing the direct threat to them of the event - especially in the case of Pakistan who has a history of "loosing" or letting slip through the blackmarkets rocket parts to countries on the international shitlist. Shadowrun 20:15, 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)

Deletion of Analysis section

I'm not opposed to an Analysis section. However, it should include well-sourced perspectives from expert analysts and should be carefully written. In my view, the Analysis section that I deleted did not meet these criteria. -Scottwiki 10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Super-K

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

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)

Fox 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)

Which yen?

It says in there "The yen also fell to a seven-month low against the US dollar while oil on the world market rose above US$60 a barrel." I'm guessing Korean yen, but I don't know. --WikiSlasher 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How could a extinct currency fall? You can link yen to its article or add "Japanese" behind if you don't think it's obvious and you don't mind to read a blue article.--cloviz 12:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I added that. Really I think this is extremely silly. I often defend the need for and international focus, clarity and to not assume the reader should know what we're talking about when there is room for confusion. And I also think we should be as fair as possible and not treat bigger and/or more popular uses of a word as the sole use in most circumstances. If there was a non extinct currency called the yen, even if it was a country with only 10k people I would have admitted my mistake and fixed it. But there isn't and there's a reason Yen redirects to Japanese yen. If you really want to change yen to Japanese yen go ahead I won't revert it. However if anything I only think we should wikify it but leave it as yen. Nil Einne 12:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

come on guys, there's been no Korean Yen since 1945 - even then, were they not issued by japan anyways? --Streaky 13:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, in international finance, dollar means United States Dollar ISO code USD, yen means Japanese Yen ISO code JPY, and Euro means European Union Currency ISO code EUR. The first reference to "yen" should read 'Japanese yen', thereafter 'yen', and when quoting yen amounts 'JPY xxx,xxx,xxx'. The won unfortunately is not as widely known and perhaps somebody else could fill this in. Revmachine21 14:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Korean currency is known as the won (pronounced as "jaun") Drew1369 15:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

American elections

Any word yet on this event's effect on U.S. elections this November? Rklawton 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Former ambassador to South Korea, Donald Greg, stated on "Good Morning America" on October 9, 2006 that "I think in a way he is playing into the hands of the hard-line elements in the Bush administration who would like nothing better than to make North Korea part of the war on terror." Rklawton 13:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems you have a problem with irony (as you deleted mine and one other poster's), so here's in clearer words: Nobody on Earth can know anything about this event's effect on US elections in the future. We can only speculate, but this isn't a place for speculations. --MartinSojka 14:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The matter at hand is what media analysts have to say on the matter. Our speculations aren't permitted, but the speculation of experts is - and this information would be useful to this article on the matter of this test's impact. Last week analysts were speculating that one or both houses might change over to Democratic control. Is that still the case now? Rklawton 18:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The event has undoubtfully an impact on the speculations of so-called "experts", and we can add that to the article if you like (although I'm more concerned with SE Asia then with the politics of some country a third of a globe away from the event's site, so I won't go searching for it). It's still about five to ten years to early to write about the impact on the US elections themselves. --MartinSojka 20:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Chewmerica"

User:Moore123456 is vandalising. See the section on "Chewmerica", just after New Zealand. Admins, how do we deal with him? Tjwagner 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest telephoning Kim Jong Il and asking him to conduct NK's next nuclear test in User:Moore123456's bedroom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.111.60.113 (talk)

"Environmental Effects"

"It is expected that the test will have significantly raised the radioactivity level in the region." Not likely - NK says it was an underground test, and I haven't seen anything that says otherwise. Unless they totally botched it, an underground test releases little or no radiation. Certainly not enough to "significantly" raise the radioactivity level. That sentence should either be deleted, or change to something like "Underground tests to not release significant amounts of radiation." 63.161.86.254 13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I nuked (haw haw) the whole section. At the moment I don't see any good reason to speculate one way or another on environmental effects based only on the seismic report and the DPRK's announcement. Too many unknowns at the moment. --Fastfission 14:51, 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)

Chronology of events

Is it normal for a chronology to start with the most recent event? I'm not sure how its usually done on wikipedia, but this seems backwards to me. Harley peters 15:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Go ahead and fix it. dposse 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed the order so that it ends with the most recent event. JPK 19:07, 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)

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)

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)

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 (explosion)) --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)

No Gamma Radiation or EMP

As of this writing, a careful search of Google News has not revealed any reports of gamma rays or EMP Electromagnetic pulse, despite the existence of US and presumably Russian satellites designed to detect these. Search terms were "North Korea" in quotes combined in different searches with 'pulse', 'gamma', 'gamma radiation', or 'gamma rays'. Hu 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm fairly sure that EMPs do not form from underground tests for fairly obvious reasons (read our article on EMPs and you'll see that they are largely an atmospheric phenomena). I'm not even sure if one would expect to detect gamma rays. You'd need to first substantiate what should be detected before going through a laundry list of what wasn't detected. --Fastfission 20:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

EMPs are not generally destructive except in intentional upper atmosphere blasts, but even an underground blast should release detectable EMP. Astronomical gamma ray objects were first detected by US military satellites designed to use gamma ray observations to detect nuclear explosions. Hu 21:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• • In any case, let's leave the speculation to the experts, shall we? Per WP:NOR. --Fastfission 21:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Gamma rays are completely absorbed by a few meters of soil. See [17], figure 27.16. For silicon ( main ingredient of soil ) you get peak attenuation length of ~25 cm, assuming density 2 g/cm3. Unless Koreans screw up and fail to seal the tunnel properly, or plant the bomb very close to the surface, there should be no gamma radiation on the surface at all. --Itinerant1 21:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Educational to Mention Non-Nuclear Blasts

Without evidence that strongly or definitively marks it as nuclear, it is good that "claims" is the third word in the article. However, it would be usefully educational and Neutral Point of View to point out to readers of the article that there have been a number of kiloton non-nuclear blasts in the past 100 or so years. N. Korea has an incentive to fake a nuclear blast if they are not capable of a nuclear weapon. Hu 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've since added a line about Minor Scale and links to actual experts who can do the speculating for us. The accident blasts are irrelevant here in comparison with the simulated blasts. --Fastfission 21:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Accidental blasts are evidence of the power of kiloton conventional explosions and are much more accessible and documented than secret military tests. Hu 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• • But they have little to do with this. Their factors are much more unpredictable and most of them result from situations which are not like those at the bottom of a mine (i.e. the explosion of an arms ship which then blows up another arms ship). More analogous and to the point are situations where the US Army has put together a lot of conventional explosives and blown them up in a controlled fashion by far. --Fastfission 21:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• They also have the educational effect of showing skeptical people that conventional explosions can have the power of small nuclear blasts. It's real info and it is relevant to the background and it is not distracting since it is a two word link! Hu 21:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

All this seems reasonable so long as its coming from verifiable sources. Rklawton 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Since we do have a source speculating it's non-nuclear I think it's fair for us to mention minor scale. But I have to say personally I'm not so sure whether this is likely. It seems far more likely it was a fizzle. We know NK had the plutonium. All the info we have suggests they had the tech and resources to at least produce a fizzle. On the other hand successfully creating and properly carring out a controlled explosion especially if is larger then 1 kiloton say of this magnitude is likely to require a level of resources and expenditure and tech etc I would hope and think NK doesn't have. Oh and BTW, I would remind people we are talking about blast sizes i.e. TNT equivalent. A blast which have 1 kiloton equivalence would have required more or less material depending on what conventional explosive we're talking about Nil Einne 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Swiss?!?!?!

I found an article about the reaction of the swiss: Swiss Reaction Could someone add there reaction to the page. I'm not the best at major edits. --Zrulli 17:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the link and added a bit of info from it to the Switzerland section that someone else missed.--Falconus|Talk 21:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Philippines

"undermine various threats" is non-sensical and either a poor translation or mistyped "treaties". --Belg4mit 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote in lead

Why is most of the lead a quote from North Korea? Christopher Parham (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Because that is the main story. That's how the rest of the world got the info that they tested a nuke, by the statement made by the N. Korean media. dposse 18:56, 9 October 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)

vandalisim

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)

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)

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)

NPR

Is NPR reading this page? Listen to this story on Morning Edition by Mike Shuster [18]. 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[19]. --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)

Citing sources

Could somebody please tell me how to or where to go to properly cite sources. The whole "References" section is throwing me for a loop...

Thanks, Falconus|Talk 21:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've left a message on your talk page. --Fastfission 21:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you much --Falconus|Talk 21:22, 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)

North Korea wants congratulations

"The U.N. Security Council should congratulate North Korea for its nuclear test instead of passing "useless" resolutions or statements, North Korea's U.N. ambassador said Monday." --- Yahoo! News

I think it's hilarious. That's all. LOL XD --Heilme 23:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Purpose of picture?

I'm wondering why we need a second photo from Bush's speech, featuring, out of three people, only one who is even remotely relevant to the situation at hand (Dr. Rice). No offense to Mr. Bolten or the First Lady, but they don't have much to do with this article. Wouldn't an image of another world leader's reaction to the test be more meaningful? Heck, even a photo of Kim Jong-Il would be more informative. Kasreyn 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was also skeptical about the merit of that picture. However I had assumed it was there primarily there because it was one of the few free pictures we had available since I assumed it was from a US government source. Checking I found out it's fair use. As such, IMHO this picture has absolutely no merit in this article. Since unfortunately no South Korean has been able to provide a free image of protests that we can use, I suggest we include a fair use one from a newspaper for now Nil Einne 23:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Rice, Bolton, and Lady Bush's picture. I think it has no significance whatsoever. Heilme 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

reference 31.

reference 31 is blank. Either the code is messed up, or the citation just isnt there. Will someone please fix it? thanks. dposse 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• The citation just wasn't there, but I figured out which one it was from and fixed it. --Fastfission 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)