And those others actually claim to know what they're talking about!
Option number three (a faked test) also seems unlikely. The 2006 test was never proven to be fake, and more largely, there's no reason for Pyonyang to fake a test if it could at least attempt a real nuclear detonation. Nor has any world leader ever publicly called out North Korea for executing a failed or fake test in 2006; such a response probably would have pushed Pyongyang to attempt a second test much more quickly. It's the same reason why the United States and Europe--despite seismic data to the contrary--didn't call India's thermonuclear bluff in 1998; they wanted to reduce tensions, not raise them.
Says these guys:
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/the-north-korean-nuclear-test-what-the-seismic-data-says
I, however, vehemently disagree. In fact, the last sentence in that quote above provides the very reason why nobody would call NK's bluff if it was a fake. Claiming the test was a fake would only spur efforts to build a real one.
Saying the original test was "never proven to be fake" is hardly convincing when one considers that the North Koreans have clearly gone out of their way to make sure that can't be proven either way.
A faked test does not necessarily preclude an actual weapon. The design of the first nuclear weapon dropped, the Little Boy, was never tested because the Manhattan project scientists were absolutely certain it would work as it did.
As far as there being "no reason" to fake a test, bullshit! If you have only one bomb, you have every reason in the world to fake a test and keep the bomb. Because you don't have it anymore if you test it!
Imperfect analysis aside, the fact of the matter is that the seismic readings on both tests suggest that the detonations were considerably smaller than the Little Boy detonation on Hiroshima. It takes a lot more technology and effort to make a nuclear weapon smaller than Little Boy was, because it's not a simple matter of crashing two puzzle pieces together inside of an artillery tube. It seems very unlikely to me that the NKs skipped that step.
And then there's the question of the messenger. If it's in the US's interest to pretend the tests were real, then that's a national security issue not bound by the niceties of free press and independent analysis. A lone voice of dissent such as my own would be...will be?... quickly shouted down.
= new reply since forum marked as read