9 ms·

CTBTO statement on the unusual seismic event detected in the DPRK

91 points by okket 9y ago

imaginenore 9y ago
"It constitutes yet another breach of the universally accepted norm against nuclear testing" The norm is toothless though. If a country wants nukes, they just have to suffer through the economic sanctions by a few countries. NK government has every incentive to continue with the research and development. They don't give a damn about their starving population, and they get the ultimate terror card that they can milk for decades. We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity.
- alacombe 9y ago
  > We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity If I'm not mistaken, to some extend, both the Russian and the US already have this tech operational. Though, this would not protect with the obvious "first blood" intent of NK, in which case, Kim better pray for cover (rightfully so).
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    Nah, we have anti-ICBM technology but it's hilariously inadequate, as in, rate of successful interception is very low. And when you have nukes attached to the ICBMs, your can't tolerate even a single one going through.
    - ben_w 9y ago
      You say we can't tolerate even a single one getting through, but… what would a war look like between Russia and the USA if there were no nukes? Sure, a conventional war would never be as bad as 7,000 nukes, but one? Seven? Seven hundred? I expect conventional munitions would likely be better targeted, simply out of necessity, so the difference would be smaller than the ratio of TNT-equivalents.
    - gambiting 9y ago
      And then US and Russia both have MIRV systems which carry 15-20 warheads on one rocket, so if you don't intercept it in the first stage of flight it's game over anyway. And Russia recently finished developing the System-6 nuclear torpedo which can destroy possibly more land than large megaton warheads anyway, since it creates a 500m tsunami wave which travels hundreds of miles in-land destroying everything in its path. And if it's salted with cobalt then that land becomes unusable for decades.
      - imaginenore 9y ago
        It's Status-6, and it's not necessarily real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyon
  - imaginenore 9y ago
    None of the countries have a technology that can reliably stop a modern ICBM, let alone 7000 warheads simultaneously that Russia has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#Current_counter-ICBM_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#Current...
    - joering2 9y ago
      Why you assume such technology would be on display or general public knowledge? I'm sure there is tons of technology we regular civilians have no idea of, and its actually a good strategy.
      - imaginenore 9y ago
        That's not a convincing argument. Whatever is shown to us doesn't work well. From 2 months ago: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-missile-defense-test-fails-to-intercept-target/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-missile-defense-test-fails-...
        joering2 9y ago
        The fact that most military projects are secret/top secret is not convincing argument? Everyone knows that what's "on display" is basically 10 years behind what military such as USA keeps in secret to use it as a last-resort type of response.
- RobertoG 9y ago
  "We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity." Maybe, but this is a very strange assessment of the NK situation. The obvious explanation is that the, in my opinion disgusting, NK regime is a rational actor that try to perpetuate itself in time. The only way to ensure that it's to avoid external interference. The only way to avoid external interference (Iraq style) is to have nuclear weapons. From this follow that they are not more eager to start a war that other nations. Probably less.
  - nindalf 9y ago
    They have two goals, not one. The first is obviously self perpetuation, but the second is to flourish. The nukes give them the ability to blackmail their neighbours for everything they want and need, like food, money, weapons etc. I imagine Kim Jong Un will get a real kick out of getting South Korea and Japan to pay for all of his bills, even the concentration camps.
    - RobertoG 9y ago
      I doubt very much this is the case. Suppose they ask for something to South Korea and they say "no way". What happens then? A war is suicide and they know it. I suppose you could extract a few sweets from things like "I will stop creating nuclear weapons" or something like this, but not serious blackmail is possible. It's just the old MAD (1) doctrine. We (the world) have a lot experience with that. As an European I'm used to the idea that my life is in the hands of some crazy guy in the Kremlin or the White House. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        MAD long term requires a world without accidents. I don't think the past 70 years and the number of near misses we've had should give anyone confidence that it will work long term.
        RobertoG 9y ago
jacquesm 9y ago
NK has rightly concluded that treaties are meaningless without the global cohesion required to enforce them and that being part of the Nuclear Club is one way to get people to look the other way when it comes to violating human rights and other despicable behavior. The CTBTO is obviously well within their rights to write press releases which amount mostly to hand wringing at this point in time, in the longer term every tin pot dictator without nukes is going to look to NK as the example of how to stay alive. FWIW I have always considered the test ban treaty itself as a means by the nuclear powers to attempt to kick the door closed behind them (because they can use numerical simulation instead of real world tests) rather than an honest attempt at reducing proliferation. So, now we have crazy people with hydrogen bombs. It is a new chapter and one that could have a pretty bad ending.
- seertaak 9y ago
  I agree with everything except the last sentence, at least insofar as it applies to Kim Jong-un. As you allude to yourself, he is behaving rationally if speculatively. I'm curious as to what you think the right course of action would be in dealing with these types? Honest question, although I realise it's a minefield.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    It is a super difficult question and people far smarter than me have banged their heads against it for a long time. The most clear example of a possible solution was Albert Einstein's proposal for a United Nations 'with teeth'. The majority of the worlds super powers were not happy about this because of course it would mean they too would have to play ball and give up their toys 'or else'. What didn't work on a global scale most likely would work on a smaller scale if the superpowers that remain could agree on any of this but so far even Kim and his bomb seem to not be enough to tip the scales. Trump being regarded as unstable and untrustworthy by the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't help either, there is an outside chance that with some cooler heads in the White House that a deal could have been made. As it is just about every other government / head of state has been insulted in one way or another and Kim seems to be mainly aiming his aggression at the United States so for the time being this is a stale-mate. And I really hope it will continue to be a stale mate. All the other options (assassination of the Dear Leader, limited war) other than sanctions seem to be off the table for now, and even the sanctions might be rolled back for simple humanitarian reasons and because they are not achieving what they are meant to achieve. The very long term future has only two possible outcomes as far as I can see: either we will have a world government, for good or for bad, or we will end up destroying a good chunk of the planet in World War III triggered by some idiot because nuclear weapons will become more and more available until even the most unstable regimes have them. And NK, even if it is pretty bad and obviously led by a megalomaniac, is not as bad as it gets. Pakistan and India are another potential area of trouble. The nuclear genie will not go back into the bottle, our only option is to try to contain it in a way that strikes large and small countries equally, anything less will not do and will only result in carnage down the road. The people that point at the mutual destruction guarantee as the thing that kept the world 'safe' for the last 70 years miss the point that 70 years is absolutely nothing on the timescale of the human race, it is a single human life-span and there is absolutely no way that you can extrapolate from that 70 years to the 1000's of years that this would have to hold true for it to really work. Too many 'close calls' for comfort during those 70 years, every single one of those could easily have led to a huge disaster. So until China, America, Russia, France, the UK, Israel, Pakistan and India are ready to give up their toys you can expect the small fry to continue to want to have theirs too.
tristram_shandy 9y ago
If one studies history, even casually, one might note that nearly all wars in history have not started as a result of rational actors making optimal decisions in accordance with game theory. Why, then, do we continue to believe this fallacy -- the fallacy that peace is guaranteed because nobody would be irrational enough to actually start a war? Wars start through miscommunication, human error, the whims of (usually despotic) leadership, internal crises, and unforeseen Black Swan events that escape our (Gaussian) models. This can be summarized thus: wars frequently start for no real reason at all. We should be more pragmatic, and look at history instead of borrowing a theory from the dismal science of economics to reassure ourselves, as there are now millions of very real lives at stake. North Korea has become a problem worthy of more rigorous analysis than the pithy comments about MAD.
- fit2rule 9y ago
  The only reason wars are stopped is because people rose up and took the reigns out of the hands of those who would wage indiscriminate war, forever. The point is: if you don't want war, stop fobbing off the responsibilities of sovereignty onto your politicians, and start taking more responsibility for the actions of your own state. Alas, Americans are not quite prepared for this - rather preferring to squabble among themselves over whose 'ism' is the rightest - but in the meantime, the Generals and CEO's who will profit from this warfare are all left, un-checked, hidden behind the curtains and mirrors and smoke that blinds us all ..
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Wars are stopped because they burn out or because peace is negotiated (if there is a clear victor, which definitely isn't always the case). What is interesting - in a very morbid way, admitted - is that if you look at how much energy goes into war how little it usually achieves. The only wars that tend to change things in a meaningful way (for better or worse) are civil wars.
- drawkbox 9y ago
  Game theory backs heavily on self-interest though. Self-interest runs the world and everything, including you. If you can solve the self interest for most of the people, things usually work out. If you attack others self interest, then yes, random things can happen when self interest is compromised or when a player loses self interest in favor of extremism or some flavor of "fuck the world, fuck everyone". The solution to that is economics and comfort, people don't go extreme when they have those.
csomar 9y ago
It says > It constitutes yet another breach of the universally accepted norm against nuclear testing; a norm that has been respected by all countries but one since 1996. But > The Treaty will enter into force once signed and ratified by the remaining eight nuclear technology holder countries: China, Egypt, the DPRK, India, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, and the United States. So, somehow, the US wants North Korea to respect a treaty that it is, itself, not accepting (though it has "respected" it). This is exactly what is wrong with our world: The US is playing the police but not the "model". In fact, they are playing a bad model while playing the police in the same time. Why, the DPRK, (a sovereign country) has to respect this treaty or any other treaty? They are a sovereign country and they have the right to develop whatever technology they please.
- poe11 9y ago
  Give me a break and grow up. If the US behaved like pacifist Japan we would all be at Kim's mercy right now. Pointing out hypocrisy and doing something about something about hypocrisy are two different things.
  - fit2rule 9y ago
    There are an awful lot of people in the world who believe that they should stop trying to pacify the US, and start fighting back against an imperialist country with an out-of-control military hell-bent on projecting its force around the world, demanding that sovereign societies do its bidding - "or else". Those people should stop being pacifists and start fighting back, "because pacifism just allows tyranny to run rampant around the world"? BTW, a lot of those people have been branded 'terrorists', which is about as close to 'non-pacifistic' a label as you can get, amiright?
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    You should check out 'Pacificst Japan's' ability to do more than they are doing and and why before you compare them to the US. Hint: World War II did not exactly end the way 'Pacifist Japan' wanted.
- BjoernKW 9y ago
zkms 9y ago
> It constitutes yet another breach of the universally accepted norm against nuclear testing; a norm that has been respected by all countries but one since 1996. I'm chronically heartbroken that I was born too late to attend a nuclear test explosion. No knowledge about the deleterious effects of nuclear testing erases the existential depression that it's a phenomenon I'll never witness.
- infinite8s 9y ago
  You will probably witness it in your lifetime, although from the relative safety of a nuclear test.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
If I was the boy King I would do the same. Nothing gives you security like nukes. Of course now that USA and the big countries have them they are against new nuclear club members, but that's self-serving. I am also certain they will negotiate--but after showing their perfected arsenal, and from a different position. Ships with grains will be just the cherry on the cake.
Kenji 9y ago
DPRK is burying kilotons of TNT and detonating them.

91 points by okket 9y ago

"It constitutes yet another breach of the universally accepted norm against nuclear testing" The norm is toothless though. If a country wants nukes, they just have to suffer through the economic sanctions by a few countries. NK government has every incentive to continue with the research and development. They don't give a damn about their starving population, and they get the ultimate terror card that they can milk for decades. We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity.

alacombe 9y ago
> We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity If I'm not mistaken, to some extend, both the Russian and the US already have this tech operational. Though, this would not protect with the obvious "first blood" intent of NK, in which case, Kim better pray for cover (rightfully so).
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  Nah, we have anti-ICBM technology but it's hilariously inadequate, as in, rate of successful interception is very low. And when you have nukes attached to the ICBMs, your can't tolerate even a single one going through.
  - ben_w 9y ago
    You say we can't tolerate even a single one getting through, but… what would a war look like between Russia and the USA if there were no nukes? Sure, a conventional war would never be as bad as 7,000 nukes, but one? Seven? Seven hundred? I expect conventional munitions would likely be better targeted, simply out of necessity, so the difference would be smaller than the ratio of TNT-equivalents.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    And then US and Russia both have MIRV systems which carry 15-20 warheads on one rocket, so if you don't intercept it in the first stage of flight it's game over anyway. And Russia recently finished developing the System-6 nuclear torpedo which can destroy possibly more land than large megaton warheads anyway, since it creates a 500m tsunami wave which travels hundreds of miles in-land destroying everything in its path. And if it's salted with cobalt then that land becomes unusable for decades.
    - imaginenore 9y ago
      It's Status-6, and it's not necessarily real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyon
- imaginenore 9y ago
  None of the countries have a technology that can reliably stop a modern ICBM, let alone 7000 warheads simultaneously that Russia has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#Current_counter-ICBM_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#Current...
  - joering2 9y ago
    Why you assume such technology would be on display or general public knowledge? I'm sure there is tons of technology we regular civilians have no idea of, and its actually a good strategy.
    - imaginenore 9y ago
      That's not a convincing argument. Whatever is shown to us doesn't work well. From 2 months ago: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-missile-defense-test-fails-to-intercept-target/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-missile-defense-test-fails-...
      - joering2 9y ago
        The fact that most military projects are secret/top secret is not convincing argument? Everyone knows that what's "on display" is basically 10 years behind what military such as USA keeps in secret to use it as a last-resort type of response.
RobertoG 9y ago
"We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity." Maybe, but this is a very strange assessment of the NK situation. The obvious explanation is that the, in my opinion disgusting, NK regime is a rational actor that try to perpetuate itself in time. The only way to ensure that it's to avoid external interference. The only way to avoid external interference (Iraq style) is to have nuclear weapons. From this follow that they are not more eager to start a war that other nations. Probably less.
- nindalf 9y ago
  They have two goals, not one. The first is obviously self perpetuation, but the second is to flourish. The nukes give them the ability to blackmail their neighbours for everything they want and need, like food, money, weapons etc. I imagine Kim Jong Un will get a real kick out of getting South Korea and Japan to pay for all of his bills, even the concentration camps.
  - RobertoG 9y ago
    I doubt very much this is the case. Suppose they ask for something to South Korea and they say "no way". What happens then? A war is suicide and they know it. I suppose you could extract a few sweets from things like "I will stop creating nuclear weapons" or something like this, but not serious blackmail is possible. It's just the old MAD (1) doctrine. We (the world) have a lot experience with that. As an European I'm used to the idea that my life is in the hands of some crazy guy in the Kremlin or the White House. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      MAD long term requires a world without accidents. I don't think the past 70 years and the number of near misses we've had should give anyone confidence that it will work long term.
      - RobertoG 9y ago

jacquesm 9y ago

NK has rightly concluded that treaties are meaningless without the global cohesion required to enforce them and that being part of the Nuclear Club is one way to get people to look the other way when it comes to violating human rights and other despicable behavior. The CTBTO is obviously well within their rights to write press releases which amount mostly to hand wringing at this point in time, in the longer term every tin pot dictator without nukes is going to look to NK as the example of how to stay alive. FWIW I have always considered the test ban treaty itself as a means by the nuclear powers to attempt to kick the door closed behind them (because they can use numerical simulation instead of real world tests) rather than an honest attempt at reducing proliferation. So, now we have crazy people with hydrogen bombs. It is a new chapter and one that could have a pretty bad ending.

seertaak 9y ago
I agree with everything except the last sentence, at least insofar as it applies to Kim Jong-un. As you allude to yourself, he is behaving rationally if speculatively. I'm curious as to what you think the right course of action would be in dealing with these types? Honest question, although I realise it's a minefield.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  It is a super difficult question and people far smarter than me have banged their heads against it for a long time. The most clear example of a possible solution was Albert Einstein's proposal for a United Nations 'with teeth'. The majority of the worlds super powers were not happy about this because of course it would mean they too would have to play ball and give up their toys 'or else'. What didn't work on a global scale most likely would work on a smaller scale if the superpowers that remain could agree on any of this but so far even Kim and his bomb seem to not be enough to tip the scales. Trump being regarded as unstable and untrustworthy by the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't help either, there is an outside chance that with some cooler heads in the White House that a deal could have been made. As it is just about every other government / head of state has been insulted in one way or another and Kim seems to be mainly aiming his aggression at the United States so for the time being this is a stale-mate. And I really hope it will continue to be a stale mate. All the other options (assassination of the Dear Leader, limited war) other than sanctions seem to be off the table for now, and even the sanctions might be rolled back for simple humanitarian reasons and because they are not achieving what they are meant to achieve. The very long term future has only two possible outcomes as far as I can see: either we will have a world government, for good or for bad, or we will end up destroying a good chunk of the planet in World War III triggered by some idiot because nuclear weapons will become more and more available until even the most unstable regimes have them. And NK, even if it is pretty bad and obviously led by a megalomaniac, is not as bad as it gets. Pakistan and India are another potential area of trouble. The nuclear genie will not go back into the bottle, our only option is to try to contain it in a way that strikes large and small countries equally, anything less will not do and will only result in carnage down the road. The people that point at the mutual destruction guarantee as the thing that kept the world 'safe' for the last 70 years miss the point that 70 years is absolutely nothing on the timescale of the human race, it is a single human life-span and there is absolutely no way that you can extrapolate from that 70 years to the 1000's of years that this would have to hold true for it to really work. Too many 'close calls' for comfort during those 70 years, every single one of those could easily have led to a huge disaster. So until China, America, Russia, France, the UK, Israel, Pakistan and India are ready to give up their toys you can expect the small fry to continue to want to have theirs too.

tristram_shandy 9y ago

If one studies history, even casually, one might note that nearly all wars in history have not started as a result of rational actors making optimal decisions in accordance with game theory. Why, then, do we continue to believe this fallacy -- the fallacy that peace is guaranteed because nobody would be irrational enough to actually start a war? Wars start through miscommunication, human error, the whims of (usually despotic) leadership, internal crises, and unforeseen Black Swan events that escape our (Gaussian) models. This can be summarized thus: wars frequently start for no real reason at all. We should be more pragmatic, and look at history instead of borrowing a theory from the dismal science of economics to reassure ourselves, as there are now millions of very real lives at stake. North Korea has become a problem worthy of more rigorous analysis than the pithy comments about MAD.

fit2rule 9y ago
The only reason wars are stopped is because people rose up and took the reigns out of the hands of those who would wage indiscriminate war, forever. The point is: if you don't want war, stop fobbing off the responsibilities of sovereignty onto your politicians, and start taking more responsibility for the actions of your own state. Alas, Americans are not quite prepared for this - rather preferring to squabble among themselves over whose 'ism' is the rightest - but in the meantime, the Generals and CEO's who will profit from this warfare are all left, un-checked, hidden behind the curtains and mirrors and smoke that blinds us all ..
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Wars are stopped because they burn out or because peace is negotiated (if there is a clear victor, which definitely isn't always the case). What is interesting - in a very morbid way, admitted - is that if you look at how much energy goes into war how little it usually achieves. The only wars that tend to change things in a meaningful way (for better or worse) are civil wars.
drawkbox 9y ago
Game theory backs heavily on self-interest though. Self-interest runs the world and everything, including you. If you can solve the self interest for most of the people, things usually work out. If you attack others self interest, then yes, random things can happen when self interest is compromised or when a player loses self interest in favor of extremism or some flavor of "fuck the world, fuck everyone". The solution to that is economics and comfort, people don't go extreme when they have those.

csomar 9y ago

It says > It constitutes yet another breach of the universally accepted norm against nuclear testing; a norm that has been respected by all countries but one since 1996. But > The Treaty will enter into force once signed and ratified by the remaining eight nuclear technology holder countries: China, Egypt, the DPRK, India, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, and the United States. So, somehow, the US wants North Korea to respect a treaty that it is, itself, not accepting (though it has "respected" it). This is exactly what is wrong with our world: The US is playing the police but not the "model". In fact, they are playing a bad model while playing the police in the same time. Why, the DPRK, (a sovereign country) has to respect this treaty or any other treaty? They are a sovereign country and they have the right to develop whatever technology they please.

poe11 9y ago
Give me a break and grow up. If the US behaved like pacifist Japan we would all be at Kim's mercy right now. Pointing out hypocrisy and doing something about something about hypocrisy are two different things.
- fit2rule 9y ago
  There are an awful lot of people in the world who believe that they should stop trying to pacify the US, and start fighting back against an imperialist country with an out-of-control military hell-bent on projecting its force around the world, demanding that sovereign societies do its bidding - "or else". Those people should stop being pacifists and start fighting back, "because pacifism just allows tyranny to run rampant around the world"? BTW, a lot of those people have been branded 'terrorists', which is about as close to 'non-pacifistic' a label as you can get, amiright?
- jacquesm 9y ago
  You should check out 'Pacificst Japan's' ability to do more than they are doing and and why before you compare them to the US. Hint: World War II did not exactly end the way 'Pacifist Japan' wanted.
BjoernKW 9y ago

zkms 9y ago

> It constitutes yet another breach of the universally accepted norm against nuclear testing; a norm that has been respected by all countries but one since 1996. I'm chronically heartbroken that I was born too late to attend a nuclear test explosion. No knowledge about the deleterious effects of nuclear testing erases the existential depression that it's a phenomenon I'll never witness.

infinite8s 9y ago
You will probably witness it in your lifetime, although from the relative safety of a nuclear test.

tryingagainbro 9y ago

If I was the boy King I would do the same. Nothing gives you security like nukes. Of course now that USA and the big countries have them they are against new nuclear club members, but that's self-serving. I am also certain they will negotiate--but after showing their perfected arsenal, and from a different position. Ships with grains will be just the cherry on the cake.

Kenji 9y ago

DPRK is burying kilotons of TNT and detonating them.