Jump to content

Talk:2006 North Korean nuclear test/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Venezuela

I found it interesting that Venezuela even spoke out against the test. If someone can find the quote that the Venezuelan Government released, it's definitely worth noting, just because usually anything that goes against the United States is something Venezuela supports. (As far as I know it was not a statement directly from Hugo Chavez). Mientkiewicz5508 23:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I found it. Feel free to make any edits as necessary.
China voiced some concerns too. By the way, this kind of discussion page is not the place for partisan politics. Whatever grudge you hold against Venezuela (or against any other country), it would be foolish to believe that their diplomacy is unidimensional. Hugo Dufort 02:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
China called it a 'brazen act' according to the BBC. I don't know about Chavez. Walton monarchist89 09:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

CORRECTION

North America is the continent and so is Asia and Ocenia, so leave it as sucha nd stop reverting it to jst America.


ummm it happened oct 08 2006 not oct 09 2006, it has only been cot 9th for 5 minutes.

North Korea time, not US Eastern time --Doom777 04:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ok agreed... http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=205 --mokaiba



Although all the news agencies are reporting this somwhat breathlessly, we should be careful until it's confirmed. North Korea has a long history of playing hijinks with the international community to get what it wants.

We can report that they reported it. --Fastfission 03:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
true enough cm205
the USGS thing is all over CNN and on MSNBC, so its not original research. Just a note to the user who said it is doubtful the USGS would be able to tell, due to the nature of seismic waves and sensitive equipment the USGS is able to detect earthquakes and seismic events nearly worldwide.. as far as Im aware anyway. They detected the 2004 earthquake that caused the Indian Ocean tsunami. Cm205 03:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
More than that, guys. The blast came from zero kilometers depth. Surface blast. That's either a LOT of TNT or a nuclear explosion touched off at the surface. --Blacken 07:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Seismic activity can be measured anywhere on the planet, it doesnt have to be within the US for the USGS to detect it. That's the nature of seismic activity, feel free to read up.
The USGS just picked it up, duh; it takes time to sense that stuff.
You can SEE there was an "event" in the Japanese and North Korean seismic stations. Here's a diagram demonstrating the difference between natural events and explosions
North Korea does not have a seismic station that reports data to the international community. That seismic station at Inchon is in South Korea. The IRIS seismic center has not reported any significant activity, yet. If you look carefully at the seismic records reported from Japan and South Korea, they more closely resemble an earthquake signature rather than an explosion. Thanks for the links.
True, true. CNN is reporting that military sources have confirmed that something happened, as have other 'unnammed officials in government' Cm205 03:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

whats up with this stock market business? thats def. orig. research

Actually, I heard that on CNN and the BBC just a few minutes ago... it wasnt me that added it but it seems to be correct. And not just South Korean stocks, apparently all the Asians are down a bit Cm205 04:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't me either but it was also on the local news here in NZ. I believe the South Korean stock market was closed for 5 minutes to calm things down. I believe oil prices are up as well above the US$60/barrel mark Nil Einne 05:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional Info

It said South Korea's Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources had detected a tremor of a magnitude 3.58 to 3.7 at 0135 GMT. from : [1] mokaiba

That may have just been a prelude to the 6.2 earthquake in Tonga (0150 GMT)

-->tonga is 4 hrs ahead of north korea [2] tonga earthquake happened at 150am oct 8th, NK did test oct 9th 1pmmokaiba

USGS website now lists a 4.2 mag event having taken place in North Korea.

But if it's true that NK gave China a 20 minute heads up, then that supposition isn't likely. ...unless NK has made a major breakthrough in earthquake predictions. Rklawton 04:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it rather strange that NK would give China a heads up given that one of the reasons they apparently became so desperate to carry out a test ASAP was because of China's condemnation of their plans. Then again I've never really understood the minds of many insane world leaders be it Kim Jong Il or GWB Nil Einne 05:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible Yield?

The USGS is now saying 4.2 magnitude tremor, does anyone know of a potential yield that the bomb could have had? Some of the rumors I have heard say 400 Kilotons, but that seems a little big for their very first test, but then again, the USGS has confirmed that the bomb was stronger than originally thought. I think it will be a safe assumption to say that a device was tested, there is virtually no evidence right now that says it did not occur. Australia is really the only nation that picked it up who is still trying to figure it out for sure.Green Machine 6 04:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A 4.2 mag event might indicate a 1 kiloton device at 300 feet. Good info here: [3] [4]

1 kt is much more likely than 400kt. A 400kt fission device is a BIG fission device, huge in fact. Those kind of yields are typically reserved to sub-megaton staged fusion devices.

The source for the 400kt figure has since edited its article down to read 4kt. Rklawton 05:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I added in an estimate as 1-5 kilotons. This is based off of Wikipedia's own page on the Richter Scale. I figured the wide range was better than doing a little Original Research with my graphing calculator and plotting out exactly what a 4.2 would be on that chart. --Rodzilla 06:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Update: Someone beat me to it and found a website with more detailed richter scale listings. I fixed up the sentence to indicate it's no longer a range and reformatted the citation to match the other citations. --Rodzilla 06:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This source looks like its self-published by an English professor. I think we might need a better source. Rklawton 06:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It was the best I could find. You can do the calculations yourself [5] but you can see that the geological conditions are also a variable that we do not have information about. Somebody at the CIA is probably working on it right now.
Unfortunately, the section on Richter to TNT conversions on Wikipedia's Richter Scale page is lacking citations. --Rodzilla 06:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The only data we have to calculate yield is the seismic data. It varies from 3.8 to 4.2 based on source, leading to a yield estimate of .5 to 2 kilotons. I know of no source for a more accurate number, and both figures (3.8 and 4.2) are being widely reported. It is not clear where the '500 ton' or '550 ton' number is coming from, but it's most likely an inference based on the initial South Korean seismic. (Confirmed, the widely reported '550 tons' number comes from initial South Korean seismic data, that would make it obsolete if the USGS seismic data is better.)JoelKatz

BBC is reporting an 3.5 magnitude seismic tremor. Conscious 06:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Kelly Kiloton Index [6] says that a 4.2 magnitude earthquake is equal to 2 kilotons of energy released. I don't know if nuclear weapons cause a different magnitude reading on seismographs, but the magnitude measured is consistent with the 550 ton to 2 kiloton estimates.--Burzum 06:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is too complicated and/or too much of an unknown for us to be able to do without bordering on OR Nil Einne 07:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Reading the latest additions I'm even more of the opinion we're approaching OR here. I'm not denying the test appears to have been a fizzle but I personally think the way it's discussed at the moment is OR. I suspect this will be discussed elsewhere in the near future but I still don't think we should leave the section as is Nil Einne 08:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Without venturing my own opinion, I've quoted JDW's estimate of the yield. Dbromage 13:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I decided to remove the contentious section:

Estimations based off a rough correlation between seismic activity and nuclear yield according to the Richter Scale would place the bomb's yield at somewhere between ½ and 2 kilotons. [1] If this is the actual yield of the device it would possibly qualify the test as a fizzle.

I've been looking in to this a bit. I had been planning to give up and just leave it until things are clearer. But more information has come to light. The JDW bit which is at least sourced seems to suggest the 4.2 on the Ritcher scale may not 100% correlate with the yield. Even if my understanding here is incorrect or they're just wrong, I still don't think we can justify the above. The Pokhran-II case also causes doubt in my mind. I haven't looked in to it that well but as far as I can tell there was a lot of debate as to the yield [[7]] [[8]] of one of the tests (although in a different scale). As such, until and unless we can find a resonably reliable source which states that if the seismic event was 4.2 then the yield of the test was 2 kt we should leave this out. Nil Einne 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If North Korea actually detonated a half-kiloton (550 tons) yield A-bomb then the west better be worried, because the smaller the bomb yield the more advanced and complicated technology it is. If the NK commies actually managed to cause a controlled 550-ton fission explosion then they are not far from creating tactical nukes! I wish the russians were right and it was indeed 5-15 kilotons in yield (hopefully near the higher bound) because that would imply lesser technology, like WWII american Manhattan project, so it would be several tons heavy and not easy to put on bomber plane, let alone rockets. 195.70.48.242 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Not if they intended the yield to be higher but the device was a fizzle.
Yield of nuclear devices can get as low as 0.01 kilotons (see the Davy Crockett pocket nuke, which was produced by the US a long time ago). Producing smaller-yield detonations does NOT imply, however, that the device is any smaller! A crude nuclear bomb with a yield of 2 kilotons could require a big, heavy and ineffective installation. Hugo Dufort 02:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Dud or not dud, one has to remember that the Soviet tested their first true hydrogen bomb with a voluntarily "scaled down" design (see Joe 4), because they were merely doing a "proof of concept" and they wanted the "political tool" from the aftermath ASAP. I'd compare the Korean nuke to that; the second test could be of a higher scale, probably in the range of the Fat Man (which is the "natural" design for a first, simpler nuke -- see USSR's Joe 1). Hugo Dufort 02:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, the North Koreans could also have had an 'anti-embarrassment' charge (of several hundred tons of conventional ordnance) standing-by nearby in case nothing happened when they pushed the button on the nuke :-) 160.84.253.241 07:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised, knowing their fondness of propaganda! However, I'm pretty sure the seismographic data will help clearing any doubt. And anyway there will probably be a second, bigger test in a few days/weeks. Hugo Dufort 17:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

More Info!

Do we have any official news links saying this actually happened or is this just self-researched news? And if so, lets please try to make this page as accurate as possible, as this is major news. Effer 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to what? I think this article is pretty well sourced. It reports that various agences are reporting... Rklawton 04:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand that, but often in such situations, news agencies tend to jump to various conclusions. Effer 04:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hence the "current event" tag. Rklawton 05:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess we'll just have to see what happens then. Effer 05:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Official announcement

I have removed the first part of the "official announcement" text, because it didn't appear in the original announcement from the cited source. If it's genuine, it needs a good source. The removed text is "The citizens of the North Korean nation salutes our heroic leaders in making this great leap in achievement in defeating the international band of imperialists led by the chief imperialist George Bush. We salute our Dear Leader who continues the legacy of our Great Leader in building our proud nation into a bastion of socialist paradise." --Reuben 05:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly sounds like the DPRK media. Probably genuine. Walton monarchist89 09:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I see four problems with it. First, it's unsourced. Second, it gets zero hits on Google News. Third, KCNA doesn't usually use "Dear Leader" any more. It sounds to me a lot more like somebody trying to imitate North Korean rhetoric. And indeed: Fourth, it was added by a user with a history of fabricating quotes. --Reuben 16:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of...

There is a quote in the Introduction, I think, pertaining to the fact that the Google Earth view of the area where the test is presumed to have taken place is standalone, a picture in its own right.

So? Who cares? What difference does it make? So, some old satellite imagery was taken of it... sure, it is supposed to be a missile testing facility.

What does this have to do with news? If you want an official reason to get rid of the quote, anything to do with Google Earth would be original research, and the research does not indicate anything of value to a news piece, or any piece on the wikipedia.


EDIT: Secondly :P What is the point of the Pakistani section under "International Response". It just says "No official comment". Why is this country listed under "International Response" if it hasn't yet actually responded?

Because "No comment" is a response in of itself. It says many things, most noteable that they don't know what to make of the situation yet what face they should show the world. Least noticeable they're assessing the direct threat to them of the event - especially in the case of Pakistan who has a history of "loosing" or letting slip through the blackmarkets rocket parts to countries on the international shitlist. Shadowrun 20:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Analysis section

I'm not opposed to an Analysis section. However, it should include well-sourced perspectives from expert analysts and should be carefully written. In my view, the Analysis section that I deleted did not meet these criteria. -Scottwiki 10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Which yen?

It says in there "The yen also fell to a seven-month low against the US dollar while oil on the world market rose above US$60 a barrel." I'm guessing Korean yen, but I don't know. --WikiSlasher 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How could a extinct currency fall? You can link yen to its article or add "Japanese" behind if you don't think it's obvious and you don't mind to read a blue article.--cloviz 12:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I added that. Really I think this is extremely silly. I often defend the need for and international focus, clarity and to not assume the reader should know what we're talking about when there is room for confusion. And I also think we should be as fair as possible and not treat bigger and/or more popular uses of a word as the sole use in most circumstances. If there was a non extinct currency called the yen, even if it was a country with only 10k people I would have admitted my mistake and fixed it. But there isn't and there's a reason Yen redirects to Japanese yen. If you really want to change yen to Japanese yen go ahead I won't revert it. However if anything I only think we should wikify it but leave it as yen. Nil Einne 12:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
come on guys, there's been no Korean Yen since 1945 - even then, were they not issued by japan anyways? --Streaky 13:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Dude, in international finance, dollar means United States Dollar ISO code USD, yen means Japanese Yen ISO code JPY, and Euro means European Union Currency ISO code EUR. The first reference to "yen" should read 'Japanese yen', thereafter 'yen', and when quoting yen amounts 'JPY xxx,xxx,xxx'. The won unfortunately is not as widely known and perhaps somebody else could fill this in. Revmachine21 14:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


The Korean currency is known as the won (pronounced as "jaun") Drew1369 15:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Korean won is pronounced exactly like the English word "one". Rhialto 00:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Or equivalently, the English word "won." :-) --Reuben 01:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


American elections

Any word yet on this event's effect on U.S. elections this November? Rklawton 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Former ambassador to South Korea, Donald Greg, stated on "Good Morning America" on October 9, 2006 that "I think in a way he is playing into the hands of the hard-line elements in the Bush administration who would like nothing better than to make North Korea part of the war on terror." Rklawton 13:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems you have a problem with irony (as you deleted mine and one other poster's), so here's in clearer words: Nobody on Earth can know anything about this event's effect on US elections in the future. We can only speculate, but this isn't a place for speculations. --MartinSojka 14:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The matter at hand is what media analysts have to say on the matter. Our speculations aren't permitted, but the speculation of experts is - and this information would be useful to this article on the matter of this test's impact. Last week analysts were speculating that one or both houses might change over to Democratic control. Is that still the case now? Rklawton 18:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The event has undoubtfully an impact on the speculations of so-called "experts", and we can add that to the article if you like (although I'm more concerned with SE Asia then with the politics of some country a third of a globe away from the event's site, so I won't go searching for it). It's still about five to ten years to early to write about the impact on the US elections themselves. --MartinSojka 20:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


"Chewmerica"

User:Moore123456 is vandalising. See the section on "Chewmerica", just after New Zealand. Admins, how do we deal with him? Tjwagner 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest telephoning Kim Jong Il and asking him to conduct NK's next nuclear test in User:Moore123456's bedroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.111.60.113 (talk • contribs)


"Environmental Effects"

"It is expected that the test will have significantly raised the radioactivity level in the region." Not likely - NK says it was an underground test, and I haven't seen anything that says otherwise. Unless they totally botched it, an underground test releases little or no radiation. Certainly not enough to "significantly" raise the radioactivity level. That sentence should either be deleted, or change to something like "Underground tests to not release significant amounts of radiation." 63.161.86.254 13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I nuked (haw haw) the whole section. At the moment I don't see any good reason to speculate one way or another on environmental effects based only on the seismic report and the DPRK's announcement. Too many unknowns at the moment. --Fastfission 14:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Chronology of events

Is it normal for a chronology to start with the most recent event? I'm not sure how its usually done on wikipedia, but this seems backwards to me. Harley peters 15:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Go ahead and fix it. dposse 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Changed the order so that it ends with the most recent event. JPK 19:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dud?

I think it's time we compose a paragraphy outlining the case for a non-nuclear explosion.[9] Rklawton 14:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to say that people aren't sure and just link to some real sources for that, let them make their own case. I think it is best to stay fairly conservative when we are writing about reporting on speculation. Otherwise this will turn into a playground for everyone's pet engineering theories like the 9/11 pages. --Fastfission 14:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Links sound good to me - now that some are available. Rklawton 14:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that I re-read the article, I see that these possibilities are sufficiently covered at this time. Rklawton 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No Gamma Radiation or EMP

As of this writing, a careful search of Google News has not revealed any reports of gamma rays or EMP Electromagnetic pulse, despite the existence of US and presumably Russian satellites designed to detect these. Search terms were "North Korea" in quotes combined in different searches with 'pulse', 'gamma', 'gamma radiation', or 'gamma rays'. Hu 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm fairly sure that EMPs do not form from underground tests for fairly obvious reasons (read our article on EMPs and you'll see that they are largely an atmospheric phenomena). I'm not even sure if one would expect to detect gamma rays. You'd need to first substantiate what should be detected before going through a laundry list of what wasn't detected. --Fastfission 20:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
EMPs are not generally destructive except in intentional upper atmosphere blasts, but even an underground blast should release detectable EMP. Astronomical gamma ray objects were first detected by US military satellites designed to use gamma ray observations to detect nuclear explosions. Hu 21:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Gamma rays are completely absorbed by a few meters of soil. See [10], figure 27.16. For silicon ( main ingredient of soil ) you get peak attenuation length of ~25 cm, assuming density 2 g/cm3. Unless Koreans screw up and fail to seal the tunnel properly, or plant the bomb very close to the surface, there should be no gamma radiation on the surface at all. --Itinerant1 21:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Educational to Mention Non-Nuclear Blasts

Without evidence that strongly or definitively marks it as nuclear, it is good that "claims" is the third word in the article. However, it would be usefully educational and Neutral Point of View to point out to readers of the article that there have been a number of kiloton non-nuclear blasts in the past 100 or so years. N. Korea has an incentive to fake a nuclear blast if they are not capable of a nuclear weapon. Hu 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I've since added a line about Minor Scale and links to actual experts who can do the speculating for us. The accident blasts are irrelevant here in comparison with the simulated blasts. --Fastfission 21:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Accidental blasts are evidence of the power of kiloton conventional explosions and are much more accessible and documented than secret military tests. Hu 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • But they have little to do with this. Their factors are much more unpredictable and most of them result from situations which are not like those at the bottom of a mine (i.e. the explosion of an arms ship which then blows up another arms ship). More analogous and to the point are situations where the US Army has put together a lot of conventional explosives and blown them up in a controlled fashion by far. --Fastfission 21:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • They also have the educational effect of showing skeptical people that conventional explosions can have the power of small nuclear blasts. It's real info and it is relevant to the background and it is not distracting since it is a two word link! Hu 21:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
All this seems reasonable so long as its coming from verifiable sources. Rklawton 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Since we do have a source speculating it's non-nuclear I think it's fair for us to mention minor scale. But I have to say personally I'm not so sure whether this is likely. It seems far more likely it was a fizzle. We know NK had the plutonium. All the info we have suggests they had the tech and resources to at least produce a fizzle. On the other hand successfully creating and properly carring out a controlled explosion especially if is larger then 1 kiloton say of this magnitude is likely to require a level of resources and expenditure and tech etc I would hope and think NK doesn't have. Oh and BTW, I would remind people we are talking about blast sizes i.e. TNT equivalent. A blast which have 1 kiloton equivalence would have required more or less material depending on what conventional explosive we're talking about Nil Einne 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Swiss?!?!?!

I found an article about the reaction of the swiss: Swiss Reaction Could someone add there reaction to the page. I'm not the best at major edits. --Zrulli 17:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the link and added a bit of info from it to the Switzerland section that someone else missed.--Falconus|Talk 21:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Philippines

"undermine various threats" is non-sensical and either a poor translation or mistyped "treaties". --Belg4mit 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Quote in lead

Why is most of the lead a quote from North Korea? Christopher Parham (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Because that is the main story. That's how the rest of the world got the info that they tested a nuke, by the statement made by the N. Korean media. dposse 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

Could somebody please tell me how to or where to go to properly cite sources. The whole "References" section is throwing me for a loop...

Thanks, Falconus|Talk 21:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

North Korea wants congratulations

"The U.N. Security Council should congratulate North Korea for its nuclear test instead of passing "useless" resolutions or statements, North Korea's U.N. ambassador said Monday." --- Yahoo! News

I think it's hilarious. That's all. LOL XD --Heilme 23:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of picture?

I'm wondering why we need a second photo from Bush's speech, featuring, out of three people, only one who is even remotely relevant to the situation at hand (Dr. Rice). No offense to Mr. Bolten or the First Lady, but they don't have much to do with this article. Wouldn't an image of another world leader's reaction to the test be more meaningful? Heck, even a photo of Kim Jong-Il would be more informative. Kasreyn 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was also skeptical about the merit of that picture. However I had assumed it was there primarily there because it was one of the few free pictures we had available since I assumed it was from a US government source. Checking I found out it's fair use. As such, IMHO this picture has absolutely no merit in this article. Since unfortunately no South Korean has been able to provide a free image of protests that we can use, I suggest we include a fair use one from a newspaper for now Nil Einne 23:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the Rice, Bolton, and Lady Bush's picture. I think it has no significance whatsoever. Heilme 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

reference 31.

reference 31 is blank. Either the code is messed up, or the citation just isnt there. Will someone please fix it? thanks. dposse 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job guys and gals

I think that after 24 hours of furious and frantic editing this is, in the end, a pretty good article, better than many of the news reports and far better cited than any of them. --Fastfission 03:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Now if only us nuclear experts had a frigging clue about the significance of the low yield... Georgewilliamherbert 05:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Realign the template

Can someone move the Korean nuclear template to the left side, in order not to have the big gap after the Background section? Or teach me how to do it. Thank you.--Doom777 03:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Romania

Someone could add that the earthquake (almost 4 degrees on the richter scale) from the testing was detected by Romanian quake detectors.

Be bold and do it yourself --Doom777 03:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
sometimes it's good to reach a consensus before editing. people who have been watching articles sometimes know more about them and can direct new information in a more effective way. someone needs to write a rebuttal for wp bold. i don't think it works in a lot of cases. --gatoatigrado 05:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
wp bold is only a guideline, not a policy. any improvement in articles is welcome. --gatoatigrado 05:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

wording in lead

I realize that it's the Wikipedia standard to start articles formulaically, but a sentence like "The 2006 North Korea nuclear test was a nuclear test which the Democratic Peopl' Republic of Korea ..." just sounds silly. I think it would be reasonable to start with "In 2006 the Democratic People's Republic of Korea claimed to have successfully detonated a nuclear test ..." or something that sounds like a person would actually say it. - Che Nuevara 04:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You want to have the title of the article in the first sentence of it. --Doom777 06:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence wasn't even complete. I've reworded it. -- Captaindan 07:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

please edit

I have not been looking at this page so if I do something it might be incorrect or not reflect other edits. this concerns the statement "International condemnation of the test has been unanimous, coming even from North Korea's closest ally, the People's Republic of China." isn't it important Iran had a slightly different reaction - to claim the test was a result of American arrogance? --gatoatigrado 05:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

someone needs to add the {{-}} after the sections. I have a nice monitor and the sections are running together. --gatoatigrado 05:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
test site location should be merged with yield, and renamed. the heading should reflect the suspicions whether the test was actually nuclear. --gatoatigrado 05:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree it was a bit misleading and I've changed it appropriately to include Iran's response Nil Einne 06:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

North Korea reaction

Currently we have mention of the NK envoy's comment expressing disappoinment that they were not congratulated in the internatonal reactions section. Does anyone else think it should be moved back to here? It isn't really an 'international' reaction... Nil Einne 06:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The announcement is the DPRK reaction, so it can be added in that section. El_C 06:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It does seem the best section but I changed the title as the title to me implied it was only about the first DPRK annoucement Nil Einne 07:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

International reaction

Where is the international reactions are gone? --Deenoe 21:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Threats to launch a nuclear weapon

I was thinking that maybe somebody should put in the actual quote from the N. Korean Officer. Whats there now seems alittle misleading. Im sure that is what they are trying to do, but he never states it, or aleast the quote doesn't make any mention of it.--Hasty5o 04:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. An actual overt threat would've been headline-continued-on-page-2 material. We need a quote. --Kizor 09:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

N.Korea had help?

I just caught that they had possible help on the radio... I do not have access to view news articules here at work so if anyone can elaborate alittle more it would be helpful. Drew1369r 19:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • They were part of A.Q. Khan's proliferation network, though it is not exactly clear whether or not he gave them info relating to this particular test (he sold them uranium enrichment technology, not plutonium technology; most are assuming this was a plutonium weapon though there isn't any evidence that I know of one way or another). He probably also threw in a Chinese bomb design to sweeten the deal, as he did with the Libyans, but I don't think there's any concrete evidence of that. I don't know if there's anything beyond that, though. --Fastfission 19:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Kelly Kiloton Index of Earthquake Moment Magnitudes". Retrieved 2006-10-09.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_North_Korean_nuclear_test/Archive_1&oldid=1092068192"