Curiously, the wording of headlines concerning North Korea’s alleged nuclear detonation are exactly that– the possibility or claim of a nuclear blast.
The Western media has been very remained insistent that North Korea may have detonated a nuclear bomb– despite the adamant insistence by the Russian Military that it was, in fact, a nuclear blast.
The media’s repeated use of the “may” caveat, however, seems to be lost on most Americans (Fox News, I’m sure, is well-pleased). Most seem to have unambiguously accepted the fact that North Korea has, in fact, detonated a nuclear bomb. Although I don’t think it unlikely that North Korea has actually successfully tested a nuclear bomb, I think the question of “did they?” is worth further consideration.
I’m unsure as to how to interpret this particular bit of ambiguity. There is certainly a viable possibility that North Korea may have actually only detonated say, several thousand tons of traditional nitrogen-based explosives. Although an unlikely course for North Korea, the Halifax disaster during the First World War more than proves the potential for conventional explosives to create a blast of nuclear proportions– the 1917 disaster involving the explosion of some 2,300 tons of traditional explosives leveled the town of Halifax for a full 2km around the blast radius, and shattered windows 100km from the blast site.
But if there’s ambiguity, there’s probably a good reason. There are two, obvious, reasons: 1) it wasn’t actually a nuclear blast (or, rather, we’re just unsure) or 2) there are ulterior motives in keeping it a “claimed” detonation.
If the latter, then North Korea has called Bush’s bluff, but the Bush administration wants to soften the loss of face (shying from N. Korea’s “so what?”) coming from a lack of the immediate and heavy-handed response promised by the Bush administration. Or 2) To ward off embarrassment if, in fact, N Korea has not detonated an atomic bomb. Especially with regards to the war in Iraq, all involved parties (governments, media sources) need to be caution of making allegations of having “weapons of mass destruction”
—
But maybe it wasn’t a nuclear blast at all.
One article published on the BCC’s website suggests that America’s invasion of Iraq has caused anxiety for small nations in Bush’s “axis of evil.” N Korea, then, (from Kim Song-il’s perspective, at the very least) needs an effective deterrent against the possibility of (wanton) American invasion.
IF one accepts the proposition that N Korea’s nuclear ambitions are for deterrents, rather than for export or proliferation, THEN it’s plausible to suppose that the blast was not, necessarily, a nuclear blast.
If North Korea’s aim is simply deterrence, such an aim could be achieved by either a genuine or faked nuclear detonation. Obviously, a deterrent functions by having the (perceived) ability to retaliate against and aggressor. So long as Western nations (America, specifically) believes that an invasion could result in a nuclear launch, then the deterrent functions– regardless of North Korea’s actual ability to launch a nuclear attack.
Certainly, North Korea’s stage was well set for a “fake” nuclear detonation. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions have been clearly announced since the advent of the 6 party talks. The global sense that North Korea’s nuclear program is under full development has been heightened especially during the last year. A week prior to the detonation, North Korea made a public announcement of their intention to test a nuclear bomb– ensuring the close, watchful eye of Western nations. Two days ago, there was an underground blast that registered significantly on seismic charts, an announcement from Pyongyang of a nuclear test, and the Russian Military, at the very least, instantly made the connection.
Playing the devil’s advocate, it’s possible to conceive that North Korea hoped all Western nations would accept the blast as a nuclear detonation with the same alacrity as the Russian military. A quick survey of Western headlines, however, reveals that they haven’t succeeded.
Obviously, this ambiguity will eventually be resolved– but in the mean time, the world waits, watches, and holds its breath.
Huh. Apparently FoxNews reads my blog– an article just popped up on their website suggesting something similar: a massive detonation of conventional explosives.
I must actually report that I find the notion that this whole thing could be a farce rather amusing. I can see the headlines now: “North Korea fakes nuclear detonation.” Oh, the shame. The ignomy!
If this whole ordeal shakes down such that North Korea didn’t detonate a nuclear bomb, it may be prove to topple their government. It’s unlikely that, should reports of a nuclear blast be proved false, that Western nations would lift the (impending) sanctions currently being discussed in the Security Council.
Or, phrased differently, if this whole thing is a haox, North Korea would have shot itself in the foot … with a fake nuclear bomb, so to speak.
Damnit, reveal the identity of the picture!
Intelligence officials have not yet determined the exact size of the device that North Korea tested, or explained why it appeared to have been fairly small, less than a kiloton. …
“During the two terms of the Clinton administration, there were no nuclear weapons tests by North Korea, no new plutonium production, and no new nuclear weapons developed in Pyongyang,” Albright’s statement said. “Through our policy of constructive engagement, the world was safer. Bush chose a different path, and the results are evident for all to see.”
(IHT
Well, I know I’m like 10 years late, but I finally got around to reading blogs today. You didn’t mention why there was a question in the first place about a nuclear explosion. The measurement on the Ricter Scale (or whatever they are actually using) was too low for full nuclear detonation. It would’ve been smaller than either the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and both of those were on the small side, approaching the minimum. So if it was Nuclear in North Korea, they had especially poor yields, or the test failed in some way. It makes me think that it actually was a nuclear explosion. If you were gonna fake it, why would you not use enough to make a convincingly huge blast. Or maybe that’s what they want us to think … either way, that’s the source of the confusion.
That would probably help explain why many officials believe that it was, perhaps, an unsuccessful (rather than faked) nuclear detonation– if North Korea used a large amount of conventional explosives to attempt to trigger the atmoic explosion, then, then that would explain 1) the reason the blast was as large as it was and 2) the reason why the blast wasn’t larger.