ACA just posted “an analysis”:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_11/NKTestAnalysis.asp from Richard L. Garwin and Frank N. von Hippel on the DPRK nuclear test.
It contains some evidence that I don’t think has been made public before. Here’s an example:
bq. …it is not surprising that a range of yields has been reported. One authoritative estimate from Terry Wallace, a seismologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, based on an unclassified analysis of open data, estimates a yield between 0.5 and 2 kilotons, with 90 percent confidence that the yield is less than 1 kiloton. A second authority, Lynn R. Sykes of Columbia University estimates a yield of 0.4 kilotons, with 68 percent confidence that the yield is between 0.2 and 0.7 kilotons and a 95 percent probability that the yield is less than 1 kiloton.
I also liked this observation:
bq. One notable byproduct of the test is that it has demonstrated that university and other independent seismic detection systems, as well as those of governments and the International Monitoring System of the Vienna-based Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization very effectively detect underground explosions in the sub-kiloton range.
But read the whole thing…I can’ t do it justice. And I need time to help Jeffrey pick out a third vacation home, now that our “fear-mongering has pushed revenues through the roof”:http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1260/shorter-bill-arkin.
_Jeffrey Adds_: “Perhaps North Koreaâ€™s weapon designers tried to go directly to a weapon in the 500-1000 kilogram class that could reach South Korea on a Scud missile…” “Sounds familiar, eh?”:http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1233/so-like-why-didnt-it-work