Could be, according to Bill Gertz in the Washington Times:
U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday.
U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that seismic readings show that the conventional high explosives used to create a chain reaction in a plutonium-based device went off, but that the blast's readings were shy of a typical nuclear detonation.
"We're still evaluating the data, and as more data comes in, we hope to develop a clearer picture," said one official familiar with intelligence reports.
"There was a seismic event that registered about 4 on the Richter scale, but it still isn't clear if it was a nuclear test. You can get that kind of seismic reading from high explosives."
While the way in which you create a nuclear explosion is well known to anyone with a background in physics, it like you just blow up some plutonium and, whammo, you've got a nuke. It is a tricky and exacting process requiring very high skill - so, this test might well have been a fizzle. But before anyone goes out and celebrates, keep in mind that the NK's learned a great deal, even if this was a failure - they'll do much better next time.
Even if a fizzle, the problem still remains - lunatics in charge of disintegrating regimes who have access to nuclear weapons. Fizzle or no, the world should keep concentrated on this.
Posted by Mark Noonan at October 10, 2006 02:29 AM
Comments
I need some help from the liberals who frequent this site in understanding the North Korean Nuclear Weapons issue.
Let me see, in the '90's, President Clinton, former-President Carter, and Secretary of State Albright negotiated a deal with the North Koreans to supply them with the money, technology, and materials to build nuclear reactors capable of producing weapons-grade materials with the promise that they wouldn't actually persue nuclear weapons. When they lied and actually began to produce weapons-grade materials, in the '90's, it was President Bush's fault?
When the CIA belived that North Korea had 1-2 nuclear weapons by 2000, because of the wonderful job Clinton, Carter, and Albright did in preventing them from developing nukes, and now they may have 10-12 nuclear weapons, it is President Bush's fault? I guess as Governor of Texas he should have taken a more active role in ensuring the North Koreans lived up to their part of the bargain.
Have I got it right? It's all President Bush's fault? As Governor of Texas, he gave them the technology. He gave them the billions in foreign aid. He gave them the light-water reactors. But he failed, as Governor of Texas, to keep a watchful eye on the North Koreans to make sure they were only using the money, technology, and reactors for peaceful means.
You know, you might generate a sliver of credibility on national security issues if instead of blaming President Bush for the failures of the Clinton Administration, you came up with a viable solution to the problem. But no, when the Chair of the Democrat National Committee issues a press release there is no mention of viable options, just historical revision: "[the]Clinton administration, ...actually stopped plutonium production in North Korea." Of course, Chairman Dean doesn't explain how "during the Clinton Administration, North Korea had no plutonium" but "Pyongyang had enough fissile material to manufacture 1-2 nuclear weapons" when President Bush took office in 2000 (note to Dr. Dean, President Bush didn't take office until January 20th, 2001). I guess it's something like "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it".
In the words of the Democrats: "Democrats remain committed to a foreign policy that is both tough and smart.” You're just not going to tell anyone what that foreign policy is.
Posted by: A-10 at October 10, 2006 09:18 AM
Its all Clinton's fault! 50 years from now you'll be spouting the same crap, 'Not our fault,[insert opposition party here] That is such drivel... Its not all Bush's fault just as its not all Clinton's fault.
The US Government announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.
Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.
In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.
President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States".
And he did that roughly three months after saying they were part of the "Axis."
Good Job!
Posted by: Morphie at October 10, 2006 12:25 PM
"50 years from now you'll be spouting the same crap,"
- 50 years from now no one will be spouting anything if we continue to sit on our hands while rouge governments become nuclear powers.
Posted by: Parker at October 10, 2006 03:52 PM
A nuclear North Korea has greatly simplified our planning. It was going to be an awful bloody mess if we had to fight a conventional war there. Now, with the threat of nuclear weapons we'll have no choice but to use overwhelming force (read that as lots of nukes) if war breaks out.
oh and morphine - Bush caught them cheating. We think they already had the nukes (just because they just chose to pop one does not tell you how long they've had the). The damage was done. Clinton and Allbright were clueless on Korea.
Posted by: Kahn at October 10, 2006 05:00 PM
Genghis,
"Clinton and Allbright were clueless on Korea."
Apparently, so is Mr. Bush....just as he is clueless on Iraq.
Posted by: Morphie at October 11, 2006 12:04 PM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment
I need some help from the liberals who frequent this site in understanding the North Korean Nuclear Weapons issue.
Let me see, in the '90's, President Clinton, former-President Carter, and Secretary of State Albright negotiated a deal with the North Koreans to supply them with the money, technology, and materials to build nuclear reactors capable of producing weapons-grade materials with the promise that they wouldn't actually persue nuclear weapons. When they lied and actually began to produce weapons-grade materials, in the '90's, it was President Bush's fault?
When the CIA belived that North Korea had 1-2 nuclear weapons by 2000, because of the wonderful job Clinton, Carter, and Albright did in preventing them from developing nukes, and now they may have 10-12 nuclear weapons, it is President Bush's fault? I guess as Governor of Texas he should have taken a more active role in ensuring the North Koreans lived up to their part of the bargain.
Have I got it right? It's all President Bush's fault? As Governor of Texas, he gave them the technology. He gave them the billions in foreign aid. He gave them the light-water reactors. But he failed, as Governor of Texas, to keep a watchful eye on the North Koreans to make sure they were only using the money, technology, and reactors for peaceful means.
You know, you might generate a sliver of credibility on national security issues if instead of blaming President Bush for the failures of the Clinton Administration, you came up with a viable solution to the problem. But no, when the Chair of the Democrat National Committee issues a press release there is no mention of viable options, just historical revision: "[the]Clinton administration, ...actually stopped plutonium production in North Korea." Of course, Chairman Dean doesn't explain how "during the Clinton Administration, North Korea had no plutonium" but "Pyongyang had enough fissile material to manufacture 1-2 nuclear weapons" when President Bush took office in 2000 (note to Dr. Dean, President Bush didn't take office until January 20th, 2001). I guess it's something like "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it".
In the words of the Democrats: "Democrats remain committed to a foreign policy that is both tough and smart.” You're just not going to tell anyone what that foreign policy is.
Its all Clinton's fault! 50 years from now you'll be spouting the same crap, 'Not our fault,[insert opposition party here] That is such drivel... Its not all Bush's fault just as its not all Clinton's fault.
The US Government announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.
Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.
In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.
President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States".
And he did that roughly three months after saying they were part of the "Axis."
Good Job!
"50 years from now you'll be spouting the same crap,"
- 50 years from now no one will be spouting anything if we continue to sit on our hands while rouge governments become nuclear powers.
A nuclear North Korea has greatly simplified our planning. It was going to be an awful bloody mess if we had to fight a conventional war there. Now, with the threat of nuclear weapons we'll have no choice but to use overwhelming force (read that as lots of nukes) if war breaks out.
oh and morphine - Bush caught them cheating. We think they already had the nukes (just because they just chose to pop one does not tell you how long they've had the). The damage was done. Clinton and Allbright were clueless on Korea.
Genghis,
"Clinton and Allbright were clueless on Korea."
Apparently, so is Mr. Bush....just as he is clueless on Iraq.