
North Korea Announces That It Has Detonated First Hydrogen Bomb - mcgwiz
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/world/asia/north-korean-tremor-raises-suspicions-of-a-new-nuclear-test.html?module=Notification&version=BreakingNews&region=FixedTop&action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=56876323&pgtype=Homepage&_r=0
======
trhway
60 years ago it took several years from fission to fusion bomb. H-bomb is
simple once you got the fission one. NK got their first fission several years
ago. So it is about time.

It is frequently suggested that NK explosions are [half]failures because of
low yields. Well, making low yield fission or fusion bomb is actually much
harder then a powerful one and historically the pinnacle of nukes have been
the low yield "neutron" ones. The low yield ones are also much more scarier as
a weapon because they require lower threshold of craziness to use - i.e.
sending a 1MT ballistic missile on a city even Kim III may be not ready to
order while 0.5KT is just like that Chinese port explosion several month ago.

Anyway, giving the amount of tech assistance NK got in 199x from former Soviet
researchers, one can only blame NK economy on why it has been taking them so
long to join the club.

~~~
Symmetry
Making nukes out of small amounts of plutonium is indeed hard to do but making
a small explosion using a large amount of plutonium is much easier than making
a large explosion from a large amount of plutonium.

~~~
mikeash
Exactly. If NK's tests are low-yield because they're testing miniaturized
devices intended to produce a low yield, that's scary. But it's far more
likely that they're trying to make a bigger bang and it's just not working
right.

------
sanxiyn
Last time North Korea did nuclear test, Comprehensive Nulcear-Test-Ban Treaty
Organization(CTBTO)'s radionuclide monitoring station at Takasaki, Japan
successfully detected Xenon. So let's wait for CTBTO.

[http://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press3e_000001.html](http://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press3e_000001.html)

By the way, CTBTO has a website:
[https://www.ctbto.org/](https://www.ctbto.org/)

~~~
hodwik
The CTBTO already said they saw it:

"At 01:30:00 (UTC) on 06 January 2016 the CTBTO's monitoring stations picked
up an unusual seismic event in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
(DPRK). The location is very similar to the event our system registered on 12
February 2013. Our initial location estimate shows that the event took place
in the area of the DPRK’s nuclear test site. The DPRK also claimed today that
it has conducted yet another nuclear test, the fourth since 2006."

~~~
sanxiyn
Yup, seismic result is in, radionuclide takes some time. CTBTO explains how it
does monitoring in a lot of details here: [https://www.ctbto.org/verification-
regime/](https://www.ctbto.org/verification-regime/)

------
dbcooper
Apparently their last test was also detected at magnitude 5.1, so I suppose
that this was probably not an H-bomb.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mas...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mas..).

>On February 11, 2013, the U.S. Geological Survey detected a magnitude 5.1
seismic disturbance,[13] reported to be a third underground nuclear test.[14]
North Korea has officially reported it as a successful nuclear test with a
lighter warhead that delivers more force than before, but has not revealed the
exact yield. Multiple South Korean sources estimate the yield at 6–9 kilotons,
while the German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources
estimates the yield at 40 kilotons.[15][16][17]

~~~
esnard
Correct link:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mas...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)

------
jandrewrogers
If that was a hydrogen bomb test, it sounds an awful lot like the trigger did
not achieve the intended criticality with respect to the fusion component.
This would not be surprising in that their prior fission tests also had
dubious yields.

~~~
iaw
I suspect that this was a very powerful (for NK) fissile weapon and not an
actual hydrogen bomb as claimed (regardless of if they had fusible materials
in the device).

------
jrlocke
In arguments over the relative safeness of the world it is often pointed out
that relatively few people have died recently in terrorist attacks, but as N.
N. Taleb points out, the distribution of deaths by terrorist attacks is a fat
tailed one: the current average does not preclude much higher future numbers.
Such devices as this in the hands of such actors as NK give us more concrete
feelings for the real risks involved. More focus needs to be paid to these
sorts of risks, we will be lucky to live out our lives without a major nuclear
terrorism event.

~~~
serge2k
> More focus needs to be paid to these sorts of risks

Yeah, we should really up the level of fear and tension over the terrorists.

~~~
jrlocke
Try to imagine the effects a nuclear detonation or dirty bomb in Manhattan. I
believe most people are undervaluing the probability and results.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Try to compare it with the entire New York area, or the entire United States.
It's a minor event. It won't destroy a country. Having one nuke doesn't make
you a danger on a geopolitical scale.

That said, such attack would obviously be a horrible thing, and reasonable
preventive efforts are justified. The key word being _reasonable_.

~~~
fokinsean
> It's a minor event

What train of thought brings you to considering the destruction of a major
city by a nuclear bomb a 'minor' event?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Minor in comparison to the scale of a country. Especially if you consider that
the yield you can expect from anyone who is not Russia or the US will level at
most _a district_ of a large western city.

In no way I want to imply that such an event would not be absolutely horrible
and an act of evil. But considering the _actual_ damage that nukes do is what
finally cured me of being scared shitless of nuke-wielding terrorists. And
yes, I used to be _really_ scared of that.

------
FreedomToCreate
Extremely worrying for South Korea and Japan. Not sure how China treats this.
This is like a crazy neighbor who you learn just got a gun.

~~~
cpursley
Disagree. The chances of NK using a nuclear weapon offensively is 0.03%
They're crazy in Pyongyang, but not stupid. Same situation if Iran builds one.
Doing so would be suicide, and they know it. This is about defense.

Also, I'm glad you brought up the point about a neighbor with the gun. When
somebody has a gun, you're not likely to walk over and screw with them.
Nuclear weapons have lead to a great peace between nation-states.

~~~
angdis
The MAD doctrine seems to have worked with binary superpowers up through the
80's.

But, I think its an open (and rather scary) question as to whether MAD will
continue to work with multiple parties some of whom are batshit crazy and have
demonstrated utter disregard for the safety and well-being of their populace.

Is their leadership insane enough to sit in a well-stocked bunker while
setting off an H-Bomb in South Korea or elsewhere.... umm yeah, I think so.

~~~
cpursley
Let's hope. The world did survive the breakup of the soviet union, which left
nuclear weapons and material all over the former soviet block without a major
incident. If they do set off their one bomb (under the slim chance they could
even deliver it), it would be utterly terrible. End of a major city? Probably.
But not the end of the world. Japan, South Korea and the US would wipe NK out
so fast they wouldn't even know what hit them. The end of North Korea regime?
For sure.

~~~
jlebar
> South Korea and the US would wipe NK out so fast they wouldn't even know
> what hit them. The end of North Korea regime? For sure.

Let's not forget about the millions North Koreans who would die as a result.
They're people, and the number of them who are culpable for their regime's
madness is a rounding error.

------
mvardin
You can see it in wolframalpha
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=earthquakes+in+north+ko...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=earthquakes+in+north+korea)

------
ck2
We are never ever going to free those poor people in North Korea.

Such horrible lives.

China should be ashamed for perpetuating this.

Was hoping to see within my lifetime a re-unification like Germany but that's
basically never going to happen.

Unless they find oil in Korea, unlike Iran we are never going to give a damn,
politically, morally or otherwise.

~~~
serge2k
> unlike Iran we are never going to give a damn, politically, morally or
> otherwise.

Disagree, the US troops and mines have been there for a long time. South Korea
is doing well exactly because the world cared and the US in particular
continues to.

~~~
sametmax
Iran by itself hasn't attacked another another country for more 2 centuries
([http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/20121248513...](http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201212485135149579.html)).
Meanwhile, not only all our countries did it in the very last decade, but we
surrounded Iran with military bases.

So we are not doing it because Iran is a threat. Occidental countries are
technically more threatening ([http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-
take-out-7-count...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-
out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166)),
we just don't see it because we don't threaten each other. We are doing it for
other reasons.

They got oil and a strategic position in the middlewest, There is probably a
lot more to know to understand the motivation to make it the number one enemy.

Bottom line, we are not good doers, and attacking NK doesn't bring anything to
our table, so we won't do it.

------
quantumpotato_
Where do I sign up for these North Korean press releases?

~~~
hyperliner
[https://www.reddit.com/r/northkorea](https://www.reddit.com/r/northkorea)

------
theinternetman
Funny how this is now considered a bad thing when the only country ever to
murder innocents and children with one is America.

~~~
sbjustin
This is a comfortable stance to take 70 years after the fact.

In WWII: Over 60 million people were killed, which was about 3% of the 1940
world population (est. 2.3 billion).

The US ended the war in the pacific with those bombs(129,000–246,000+ killed),
who knows how many more would have died with an invasion of Japan. The second
would not have been dropped if the Japanese had surrounded and ended the war.
BTW, the US did not start the war. I'm not saying I support it, I'm just
saying stop Monday morning quarterbacking.

~~~
ageofwant
The US could have "ended" the war by simply walking away. At that stage the
war was effectively won and dropping the Bombs had very little to do with
military strategy.

The argument that the Bombs "ended the war" is patent bs, and it keeps being
repeated unchallenged as a justification for what was effectively a war crime.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
Actually, even after the bombs were dropped, several high-ranking Japanese
military officials were planning a coup to stop those were planning on
surrendering to the Allies at that point. There was significant support to
fight until the very last.

It is debatable where it was necessary to drop the bombs on populated areas as
opposed to Tokyo Bay, but it is without a doubt that the nuclear bomb and
subsequent further threat ended the conflict.

~~~
ageofwant
And what would they do ? Swim to California with knifes between their teeth ?
Japan posed no thread to the US at that stage of the war. The conflict was
over, the allies have won.

The bombings were geopolitical stage props.

~~~
khuey
The allies had hardly won. Much of Asia was still under Japanese rule. The
Japanese still controlled Singapore, Hong Kong, massive swaths of China and
South East Asia, Korea, Taiwan, etc. The idea that the US could have simply
"walked away" at that point is ludicrous.

~~~
ageofwant
Nonsense. Russia would have occupied Tokyo within the month, maybe less, Japan
was defeated, and thoroughly. The US needed Japan to surrender to them, not
Russia, and so it was.

~~~
mikeash
The USSR had no real amphibious capability to carry out such a plan.

Civilians were dying at a rate of something like a quarter million per month
in all the various Japanese-occupied areas at this point in the war. If the
atomic bombings sped up the surrender by just three weeks they were a net win
in terms of lives. (And yeah, I know how morally difficult that calculation
is, but that's war.)

------
gadders
And in ten years time, we'll have the "pleasure" of seeing similar from Iran.

~~~
threeseed
No chance. The problems associated with the sanctions were far more of a
problem for the Ayatollahs than the benefits of having a nuclear weapon. Obama
was spot on with the diplomatic solution.

Pretty sure Iran is quite fine with its proxy wars and regional
destabilisation. They are getting pretty good at it and causing far more
headaches for the West.

~~~
gadders
Let's circle back to this thread in ten years, if HN is still here ;-)

------
OvidStavrica
If that was indeed a fusion weapon, then North Korea may have just handed the
presidency to Trump.

~~~
meagain20000
I seriously doubt that the American population is that gullible. On top of
that hispanics and blacks hate him. Those two groups represent a large voting
block. Other groups like woman, muslim, and asians don't appear to like him
very much so I don't see how he is going to win.

~~~
WildUtah
Black voters seem likely to vote in higher numbers for Trump than any other
Republican as do working class White Democrats. That isn't to say Trump will
win those demographics, but 20% of the Black vote should be enough for any
Republican to win nationally when the Republican average is 5% lately.

Hispanics don't vote in large numbers and Chicanos -- the only category Trump
might be especially unpopular with -- overwhelmingly don't live in swing
states or turn out to vote. Muslims don't make up a large voting block and
already are overwhelmingly Democrats.

I'm not predicting a Trump victory, but you are far too sanguine about his
chances and the underlying demographic realities.

~~~
meagain20000
Well,every vote Trump looses counts. The White vote is not one unified voting
block that will vote republican. You have his main supporters that will vote
for him no matter what and then you have everybody else. Not every republican
will vote for him. Unless he can unify the white vote, doubt it, then how is
supposed to win?

I guess the newspaper articles claiming you need certain percentage of
Hispanics to win the presidency have lied. I will not debate you on this point
since I'm no expert. Add to the fact that he has pissed off more people than
just Latinos and his chances appear slimmer. But maybe I'm just misinformed.

------
mkehrt
This seems incredibly unlikely. Anyone with a good machine shop and some
fissile material can build a fission bomb in their garage (ok, it's not _that_
easy). But fusion bombs are another beast altogether.

Fusion bombs work by setting off a fission primary stage inside a closed
container, which ignites fusion in a deuterium secondary stage. But the devil
is in the details. The energy from the primary (in the form of either
neutrons, heat, or X-rays; which one it is is highly classified) needs to be
focused through an interstage (the details of which are, again, classified)
into some sort of styrofoam (really) medium which turns into plasma. This
somehow starts fusing the deuterium inside it, which involves the use of a
fissile "spark plug" to produce more neutrons. And deuterium isn't that easy
to come by. The whole process is so tricky that the British couldn't get it to
work for a long time after the Americans gave them plans.

So, yeah, I don't believe it.

~~~
jandrese
I like to think that NK built their bomb based on plans they found on the
Internet from some Anarchist Cookbook wannabe and are now scratching their
heads as to why it didn't work properly.

