
North Korea nuclear test: Hydrogen bomb 'missile-ready' - bdcravens
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41139445
======
drawkbox
Every 10 years or so North Korea starts to run out of money from the last deal
(1994, 2003). A big money maker has been concessions for not pursuing nukes
[1]. The money must almost be dried up from the last one, thus the posturing.

In the end this stems from a lack of coherent plans after invading Korea back
in the day. We are lucky Vietnam didn't end up the way Korea did or we'd have
the same situation still today. The middle east may also turn into something
like this.

The US has to learn to win wars by economically winning over people and giving
them more opportunity and freedoms, like Marshall plans back after WWII, ones
in which we were also paid for but benefitted all.

We are greatly failing at rebuilding after invasions and this is another
example of how that has blowback.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework)

~~~
xiaoma
The US _did_ invest heavily in rebuilding Korea after the war and in
"economically winning over people and giving them more opportunity and
freedoms". The portion of Korea that was and still is occupied by UN
(primarily US) armed forces is now a healthy, well-educated, free and
prosperous country—South Korea.

North Korea, on the other hand, is an impoverished totalitarian state that has
been using the threats to demand aid for decades. It wouldn't even exist if
China hadn't decided to intervene against the UN command in Korea and flood
troops into the peninsula, and to this day it is the one and only country in
the world China has formed an alliance with.

And your assessment is that the problem wasn't that the PRK chose communism,
but instead it was the US not offering enough freedom or economic
opportunity!? What about its communist allies?

I'm not a fan of all of some the US's military actions in recent decades, but
if ever there was a war worth fighting since WWII, then surely the Korean War
was it. You'd have a hard time finding anyone in the south wishing the
communists had won the entire peninsula and that they'd become part of the
PRK.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#China_intervenes_.2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#China_intervenes_.28October_.E2.80.93_December_1950.29)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
PRK chose communism but they've got dictatorship now - insane, totalitarian
dictatorship.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_Korea...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_Korea#Program)

Excerpt of the aims:

"... guaranteed basic human rights and freedoms, including those of speech,
press, assembly, and faith; universal suffrage to adults over the age of
eighteen; equality for women; labor law reforms ..."

Sounds pretty good.

Many in the North probably would love communism (or anything!) in preference
to what they have.

The communists didn't hold the North, the PRK was killed off quickly, the Kims
soon took over as dictators - Wikipedia says the suggestion to have a
"trusteeship" was from USA, that then put the Kims in power ...

An ignorant reading of this would be "USA saves communism from spreading by
installing evil dictators instead". As a child we got our share of USA
propaganda - in UK - the hated commies.

Except now it seems they were hated because they form a challenge to the rich
capitalists. If workers demanded the profits from their labour in other
countries, and the rich lost their places of power, then why wouldn't US
Americans do the same?

Is that why USA has been at war against communism? To protect the positions of
the wealthy elite over their own countrymen?

Am I wrong?

~~~
_r5wf
I will say the obvious. History showed that whoever wanted to implement
Communism ended up in a similar situation. Perhaps we should drop the game of
empiricism and accept that Communism is very very hard to implement and no
matter how much you tune the parameters most likely it will end up a freak
Totalitarian setup. It just does not worth it.

~~~
SerLava
Yeah it doesn't matter what the stated intent is.

Let's overthrow the old government.

Now let's say the population is in charge but they don't actually vote...
We'll just have to "represent" them, vigorously.

Now let's choose our leader according to who can murder their rivals the best.

...how can that turn out well?

------
testolog
That nuclear technology from Russian, also you can to see "topol-m" and mobile
launcher of korea.

------
anfractuosity
Is there a particular signature from a seismograph that would indicate this
isn't solely a fission bomb?

~~~
bb611
No, but experts in the field tend to believe a yield this large is explained
by a hydrogen bomb:

> That means it's probably "only" a few hundred kilotons depending on depth.
> 8/ Still a staged TN weapon. But I need to sleep. 9/

[https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/90419708681554329...](https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/904197086815543296)

~~~
anfractuosity
Cheers, that's very interesting.

I just found this too (from 2016), which backs up what you're saying

[https://www.wired.com/2016/01/science-can-tell-if-north-
kore...](https://www.wired.com/2016/01/science-can-tell-if-north-koreas-test-
was-really-an-h-bomb/)

It seems according to that, you could only tell from the radionuclides emitted
as to what type of bomb it was.

Interestingly there was a 500kt fission bomb -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_King](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_King)
(but I assume experts must have a particular reason for thinking the DPRK
detonation was a type of hydrogen bomb).

------
sargun
What if we just invited the Kim family over? Brought them to some state
dinners, and conferences, or some such?

They're not great people, the stick doesn't seem to be working.

What's the worst that'll happen?

~~~
tomjen3
I doubt they would come. If they came we might not let them go.

~~~
rwmj
I also doubt they'd come or be invited, but if they did, they would be
protected by the Vienna Convention
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity)
[http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/convention...](http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf)).
The US _could_ break that, but not without serious consequences for their own
leaders and diplomats abroad.

Could the ICC issue an arrest warrant? Yes
([https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article-
abstract/7/2/315/90220...](https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article-
abstract/7/2/315/902208/Does-President-Al-Bashir-Enjoy-Immunity-from)) if only
the US was a participant in the ICC.

------
hwillis
Using the 6.3 Richter scale, the energy released would be ~43 kilotons of TNT.
I think that's a pretty good guess- they seem kind of skeptical of the 6.3,
but there may be some additional energy that wasn't transferred into the
quake, like heat loss/air pressure.

I plotted a 43.2 kiloton airburst bomb over LA using NUKEMAP[1], which is
under heavy load right now (surprise surprise). tl;dr: 166k fatalities, 341k
injuries, 270 m fireball and 100% fatalities within 1km. Almost all structures
destroyed within 2.5 km, and 3rd degree burns within 3.2 km. Still far from a
"real" nuke, but significantly more impressive than their last tests. It's
about 1/10th the size of the biggest fission bomb the US made, the Mark 18.
Our current missiles are ~475 kilotons per warhead, with 12 warheads per
missile (several hundred times more destructive).

[1]:
[https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=43.2&lat=34.0453902&...](https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=43.2&lat=34.0453902&lng=-118.2525158&hob_ft=0&casualties=1&zm=13)

~~~
jsnathan
> Using the 6.3 Richter scale, the energy released would be ~43 kilotons of
> TNT.

That's curious. Every yield estimate I've seen so far was substantially higher
than this. Could you explain how you arrive at this number?

~~~
tscs37
I'm curious as well, my estimates based on data from a 5MT explosion being
about 6.8 on the scale and various formulas, I'd get into the megaton range,
then again, other methods do arrive at a sub-100kT range too.

~~~
MichaelMoser123
Jeffrey Lewis says that its a megaton, that would make them part of the club.
[https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/90419708681554329...](https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/904197086815543296)
(the guy from
[http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/](http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/) says so)

Interesting if India and Pakistan will decide that they now need to acquire
and test thermonuclear weapons of their own. (unexpected side effects?)

~~~
bb611
Lewis' completion of that line of tweets says it's in the couple hundred kT
range, but still a staged TN device.

------
tech6
Does anyone know how NK is able to successfully fully develop Nuclear and
missile tech inspite of sanctions. I believe many countries like Iran Iraq
have been trying without success for many years

~~~
wsgeek
Google Bill Clinton North Korea deal... there ya go.

~~~
rst
That deal had North Korea's weapons-grade production facilities shut down for
eight years, despite US foot-dragging on our side (we'd agreed to supply
reactors that were _not_ suitable for weapons production, and then the GOP
Congress refused to fund that).

So, what restarted weapons-grade plutonium production there? The George W.
Bush administration effectively abrogated the deal, claiming that the DPRK had
a separate active nuclear weapons program, based on evidence about as sketchy
as what they provided to argue that Saddam Hussein had one. (He didn't.) The
Yongbyon plutonium-production reactor was back in operation within a month.

Clinton's deal was imperfect, but it worked a whole lot better than get-tough
shit from his Republican successor.

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

~~~
mythrwy
That's some serious revisionism.

Bill Clinton's administration allowed NK to obtain nuclear weapons while
supplying them with food and fuel. Their approach didn't work at all and is
how we wound up in this state.

For the record not blaming the administration (Republican administration have
done things equally or more stupid so not a partisan taking point, it's just
they can't be excused for the dramatic failure on this because someone prefers
Democrats). Likely it seemed the best course of action, they expected at least
some compliance, but NK did not abide by it's agreements _at all_.

[https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron)

<edit> NK also made commitments to Putin to suspend the ICBM program in
exchange for aid which they also violated. So again, Clinton is not the only
one burnt by them. But saying the Clinton administration's approach was a
success is not right. It was very much an unsuccess.

~~~
rst
The DPRK's first nuclear test was in 2006 --- six years after Clinton left
office, and three years after Bush's temper tantrum led to the breakdown of
Clinton's deal and the unsealing of the Yongbyon reactor. If you think it's
revisionist to say Clinton couldn't have done much about North Korea years
after leaving office, you have an odd way of defining that term.

~~~
mythrwy
Because they had been cheating on Uranium enrichment in the late 90's while
receiving food and fuel aid.

There is plenty of blame to go around, the Bush administration certainly
handled, well just about everything it came across, very badly, but saying the
Clinton approach worked is just wrong. It didn't work, NK was cheating on the
deal while being fed and fueled. Certainly we shouldn't go back to paying them
extortion and bribes, that is not a good idea at all.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-
checker/wp/2017/08/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-
checker/wp/2017/08/09/history-lesson-why-did-bill-clintons-north-korea-deal-
fail/)

------
exabrial
I thought China's wording in their statement had interesting wording: "If the
U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean
regime and change the political pattern of the Korean...."

They particularly mention "regime change" and use the "and" word, not "or"
word. Given there is a language and cultural difference, I may be reading into
this too much, but nevertheless I thought it was intersting.

------
exabrial
I'm empathetic to China's position... having a war that close the homeland is
bad for business. They have some difficult decisions ahead of them. [If
someone was threatening Canada or Mexico, we'd probably intervene for purely
geo-political reasons, for example]

What I don't understand is Russia's alliance, I'm hoping someone can explain.
NK seems a lot less of geo-political importance for Russia than it is for
China.

~~~
f137
Russia's position is "Nk is sonovabitch, but it trolls US, let's support it"

~~~
synicalx
I'd be more inclined to think of it as an "enemy of my enemy is my friend"
kind of a relationship. The USSR has historically supported North Korea as
well, so the expectation and past relationships at various levels are still
going to be there regardless of what the Russian government looks like these
days.

------
rawnlq
Morbid question: If you want to guarantee 11 9s of durability in a world where
nuclear war doesn't have negligible probability, do you need to start building
data centers inside of nuclear bunkers? Would that even help with EMP attacks?

[https://xkcd.com/705/](https://xkcd.com/705/)

~~~
Synaesthesia
South Africa, we’re quite far away from global conflict zones and have a very
low chance of natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes or volcanoes too.

~~~
sgroppino
Don't forget the great food and nice weather.

------
giardini
I think North Korea is getting lots of help: their rockets are from Ukraine
(or perhaps Taiwan) and now a hydrogen bomb? If it truly is an H-bomb, then
did some other nation gave it to them?

In any case, NK is moving in the wrong direction. If we don't stop them, Japan
will.

~~~
kumarvvr
Yeah, as long as they have nukes, even a single working one, no one will touch
them.

Kim Jong Un is no fool. His iron grip on power comes from his ability to steer
the nation towards a situation where there is adequate amount of fear about
the chaos of interfering with it.

~~~
gribbly
>Kim Jong Un is no fool.

Eh, do you actually think Kim Jong has any power in North Korea ? I see him as
a pure figurehead, with all power in the hands of top military brass.

~~~
kumarvvr
Dosen't seem like it. He seems to be in total control. It's not far fetched to
think so. In any case, on what basis do you say that he is only a figurehead?

~~~
gribbly
That his supposed power is entirely based upon the North Korean military, I
see him as nothing but a puppet.

~~~
kumarvvr
Well, his family's cult of personality ensures that the military will tow the
line.

It's not unheard of in history for one person to have absolute control over a
large military force. Hitler comes to mind.

~~~
sgroppino
Read about the Korean War and how his grandfather managed to get China and
Russia to help. This situation also reminds me of the Cuban Missile Crisis
under Kennedy - perhaps the only short term viable option if you want a real
embargo.

------
nether
We'll just have to learn to live with it. American exceptionalism is a farce.

~~~
icebraining
What American exceptionalism? There are seven countries besides the US and NK
with nuclear weapons, including China itself.

------
tomxor
> The North has previously claimed to have miniaturised a nuclear weapon

"The North" What is this game of thrones?

------
baybal2
Kim is becoming less sure of his grandpa's defence treaty with China.

Yet, NK is a Chinese proxy state. All what it did to harm SK and Japan goes on
in total synchronicity with political climate in Beijing

------
hoodoof
This guy seems to have his cards flat out on the table, open to all, that he
wants nuclear war and he will start it as soon as his weapon systems can
deliver it.

Hard to see how to avoid such an outcome when that's all he wants and all he's
planned and planning for.

And when it comes of course then the U.S. will be blamed and it will be on for
all.

And NK has spent many many years preparing for conventional war with SK so all
the artillery and weapon systems are going to be dug underground and hidden.
U.S. style bombing won't have much of on outcome and we've seen from Iraq,
Afghanistan and Vietnam that boots on the ground wars don't go anywhere good.

Great. Just great. As if the world wasn't already sufficiently fucked from
global warming.

~~~
noncoml
Why would he or anyone in NK want a nuclear war? Do they think that anyone of
them will come out alive if they try to attack South Korea or Japan?

~~~
hoodoof
I really don't think Kim gives a shit what happens. He is probably literally
living a kilometre under ground in a palace with as much food and women and
luxury as he wants.

He wants the big one - the war - and he doesn't care what happens to his
people or anyone else.

Kim is the head of a brainwashed cult of "Dear Leader" and his actions are not
rational.

~~~
crispinb
If this is so obvious, why don't any of the people who know the DPRK well
think this is what's going on? The majority of them believe the purpose is
deterrence. Literally no-one outside of blogs and newspaper comment sections
believes its intention is war. What information do you have that they don't?

~~~
hoodoof
Sorry, the missile launched over Japan is not deterrence.

Along with the many explicit statements that he intends to use his weapons.

~~~
crispinb
> Sorry, the missile launched over Japan is not deterrence.

You say that as if it's a known fact. But deterrence seems like by far the
most likely hypothesis to most observers. What's the alternative?

> Along with the many explicit statements that he intends to use his weapons

KCTV is a State TV station, issuing propaganda. It often claims it is on the
brink of invading South Korea, destroying Seoul and raining fire upon New
York, Guam, and sundry other targets. Perhaps a small proportion of the less
critical part of the DPRK population, having been force-fed State propaganda
since childhood, believes what it is told. No-one else does.

------
annon23
This is the only way to prevent a USA invasion, glad for NK

~~~
crispinb
Given the DPRK's secrecy, there's always tealeaf-reading involved in any
interpretation of its behaviour. Many DPRK-watchers do suggest that the neocon
drive to regime change in general, and the 2011 Libyan intervention in
particular, cemented its determination to gain a credible nuclear deterrent.

If the US had a normal President, this might be rational enough. As things
stand, we're a whisker away from a war which will incinerate millions, kill
the world economy stone dead for decades, and prevent all progress on the many
critical issues facing our dying planet.

~~~
fiblye
You say a normal president would help, but a "normal president" was behind the
shit in Libya that you said cemented NK's determination. No matter what kind
of president America has, our reckless foreign intervention through the past
few decades is to blame.

~~~
crispinb
I didn't say a normal president would 'help', nor did I defend the US's MIC. I
said nuclear deterrence as a rational response on the part of the DPRK depends
on the assumption of a normal functioning President. Given the incumbent, the
DPRK may have made a miscalculation that will end in ashes.

------
adsthrowaway12
Does anyone remember in 1999, the Bosnian war. Where the US bombed the Chinese
embassy?

Who is to say, that if HK nuked Guam. That the US launches missiles and a few
of those hit China (by mistake). I mean, in this instance a first strike in
key locations. Would mean that China couldn't retaliate as quick.

Thoughts?

~~~
alacombe
I don't think the US would launch anything without China's tacit approval of
non-retaliation.

~~~
adsthrowaway12
China already stated that if the US first strike, they would retaliate. But if
HK first strike, then they would be neutral.

