France: North Korean Nuke Test a Failure
by Richardson ~ October 13th, 2006. Filed under: Arms Race, Nuclear Proliferation, WMD.So far they’re the first to officially says so:
France said outright for the first time Wednesday that North Korea’s proclaimed nuclear test — if that is what it was — produced such a small blast that it must have failed, and analysts warned that such challenging talk could lead Pyongyang to try again.
[. . .]
France’s Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said French. . . [said] “In any case, if this was a nuclear explosion, it would be a case of a failed explosion.”
[. . .]
“The reaction could be exactly to carry out another explosion, to make sure it succeeds,” said Georges Le Guelte, a nuclear expert at France’s Institute for International and Strategic Research.
That, of course, if it was a nuclear test, and Kevin and Jeff point out. Saddam can attest to the possible penalty for bluffing, but that’s not for North Korea, at least yet.
Being shown to have orchestrated a fake nuclear test would cause a considerable loss of face for the Dear Leader. That would be embarrassing; almost like claiming you’re a certain height on live international TV, only to have the camera man zoom in on your platform shoes showing you to be a liar. The claim that it was a “100 percent” indigenous program is highly unlikely, no matter is the test was real or not.
Or even worse…
Doctor: I’m sorry Dear Leader, but it seems you were born sterile.
Kim: That’s impossible! I have three official sons you know.
Doctor: Uh… yes… about that…
October 13th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
The Dear Leader must be feering very ronery indeed.
All kidding aside, one wonders if the French really have some evidence on the test’s failure (i.e. something inside), or if they’re just interpreting circumstantial facts in a convenient way. If the NK test was a failure, some would argue that addressing the issue in any meaningful or inconvenient manner is unnecessary.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Failure or not, new reporting indiciates radiation at the test site:
October 13th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
To see what approximately 1.4 kilotons of conventional high explosives (three times the ROK estimate of the NK “test” yield), which I believe was mostly dynamite, going off in hard rock, under water, fairly close to the surface looks like, see the story at http://www.vancouverislandabound.com/tamingof.htm
The means by which the Ripple Rock blast was accomplished and the means known with certainty to be at the disposal of the North Koreans are pretty much the same. The reason why the Ripple Rock blast was seen on the surface was that the intention was to remove a hazard to navigation close to the surface of the water. The show was secondary but well attended. Had it been as deep as the typical nuclear test, likely virtually nothing would have been seen on the surface, even on dry land, beyond maybe a little subsidence immediately above the blast. At the time, the Ripple Rock blast was a very big deal in western Canada and the northwestern US and received hours of live TV coverage in glorious but grainy black and white.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Sorry, the link does not work - it seems to take you no further than the homepage, from which you have to navigate to Vancouver Island Stories on another page. The address of the document is correct, however.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Took the /./ off the end of /.htm/, now the link works.