Also, they’ve test-fired a short-range missile.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iURO8fOyWVOA0ytFlaAGuC9F7R9wD98D2ESG1
I’m sure more will come of this…
Sorry, link to first quote is here:
Any word on the yield?
There was an 4.7 magintude earthquake in NK today. Not really sure how you’d calculate yield based on these facts.
Note that I cannot guarantee the test caused this quake. Although, it’s unlikely to be some mere coincidence.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2009hbaf.php
There’s a chart on the same site.
Going from that, it’s about 400+ tons TNT equivalent. As someone on another forum pointed out, that means it’s either small ( and thus more likely to fit on a missile ), or inefficient and really, really dirty.
I’m living in Seoul, South Korea until the end of this year but now I’m wondering if I should go home early. I have a really bad feeling about what that nutcase dictator in the north might have in mind.
The problem is that if I go home I will be homeless and unemployed, but I guess that’s better than getting fried.
Third-world countries get nukes for attention and self-defense. Even ‘crazy’ leaders aren’t in all honesty suicidal.
NPR is reporting a 20 kiloton yield, based on a Russian source. Very respectable (which was probably their intent), especially compared to their last test, which apparently ended in a fizzle.
From here:
Six miles? Surely that’s a misprint, right?
And to add to your question, should it be 6 miles underground, wouldn’t that have some effect on it’s yield?
IOW, are yields calculated based on groundlevel detonations or underground? If underground, how deep?.. Obv the deeper it’d be the weaker the quake, right?
Obv not my field of expertise.
The real question is, did they make/test something with a respectable yeild that is even remotely deliverable by a plane, much less a rocket?
That is a MUCH harder thing to do, and we have no idea if thats what they did or were even trying to do.
IANA a nuclear bomb engineer, but I highly suspect you could rig up a test that would be much more likely to work as well as give a nice yeild, but be so far from the nukes developed by “major” countries that a big ass boat or sub would be the only practical way to deliver it.
Besides, we all know you can survive at least two atomic bombings before you need to get worried 
The N. Koreans have had the ability to level Seoul with artillery for fifty years, there isn’t really much difference between the damage they could do now to that city and the damage they could’ve done ten years ago if they felt like it. So if you weren’t worried then, I wouldn’t be worried now.
In more general terms, I don’t really think this changes anything either. The situation is basically at the same stalemate it was before the test (though I guess N. Korea now has slightly less Plutonium, since they’ve now detonated part of it).
Meh, I’ve followed North Korea since my army days (i.e.–a long, long time), and I’m not particularly worried. Matter of fact, I’m hoping to be in Korea by the end of the summer, and I plan to spend a year there teaching English.
There’s always the chance that Kim Jong Illin’ might decide to pay Seoul a visit, and I’m not telling you to stay if you truly feel uncomfortable, but I’m not changing my plans over this.
There are more options than just “coincidence” and “nuke”. Given that the test wasn’t announced in advance, they could have just decided to wait until the next small quake came along (they’re not all that rare), and then claimed it was a nuke after the fact.
And even if it was the real thing, that’s still not all that bad. Kim Jong Mentally-Ill only has enough fissile material for a very small number of bombs (less than 10, from what I remember), and every one he uses for a test is one he’s not using for a weapon.
The epicenter was in the same region as the previous test. That’d be a considerable coincidence.
The North Koreans will use this as a bargaining chip. Look North Korea has basically nothing. But it has this nuke. So they have the advantage. “Give us food, or we’ll SELL this bomb to someone who WILL use it.”
Or lesser effect, “give us food or we’ll sell the plans and materials to make a bomb.”
North Korea knows it’s perfectly safe as long as China is on it’s side. The Chinese would never tolerate one inch of American intrusion onto North Korea. So unless the Chinese invade, they are safe and they know it.
So this weapon is really a way to give the world the middle finger.
Markxxx is right-this stunt is a prelude to another demand from N. Korea, for $5billion , food and oil. And we will fall for it (again), jsut as Bill Clinton did. It’s an old act and a tired act, but it works. This time, we should butt out and tell the Chinese we will not shell out-let the rest of the world play this silly game.
Perhaps there’s another possibility: “Steer clear while I secure my son’s succession”?
“Sorry, chum, but we can’t afford to; why don’t you ask China?”
North Korea faces a dilemma in developing nukes: once it set off it’s first test device, it would then have all the opprobrium of having set off a bomb, and none of the deterrence until it could field a deliverable warhead.My guess is that since a primitive Little Boy or Fat Man style bomb would be too heavy for NK to deliver and use too much scarce fissionable material, the North Koreans opted to try to build a more modern design as their first effort. The first try was lackluster, and NK backpedaled furiously trying to buy time to improve the design. The latest reports I’ve read were that the yield is estimated to be <10 kilotons. That’s still pretty poor, but if that’s for a lightweight warhead that uses a small amount of plutonium, it could meet the standard of being quickly weaponizable.