• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "James M. Acton"
  ],
  "type": "questionAnswer",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "China’s Foreign Relations",
    "U.S.-China Relations",
    "U.S. Nuclear Policy",
    "Korean Peninsula"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "East Asia",
    "North Korea"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Arms Control",
    "Security"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Q&A

Nuclear Defiance out of North Korea

An evaluation of North Korea’s third nuclear test and its developing nuclear capability.

Link Copied
By James M. Acton
Published on Feb 12, 2013

Following through on its threat, North Korea conducted its third nuclear test. In a Q&A, James M. Acton details what we know about the test and North Korea’s developing nuclear capability. 

  • What is the evidence that North Korea tested a nuclear weapon?

  • How big was the blast?

  • Did Pyongyang test a miniaturized device?

  • What else could it have been, apart from a miniaturized device?

  • Is it possible North Korea tested a miniaturized uranium device?

  • Will more information become available?

What is the evidence that North Korea tested a nuclear weapon?

A significant earth tremor originating from the vicinity of North Korea’s test site was detected across Asia on Tuesday. It was immediately clear from the seismic data that the cause was an explosion rather than an earthquake.

Although seismic signals cannot unambiguously distinguish between conventional and nuclear explosions, there is effectively no doubt that the explosion was nuclear. Satellite imagery would have revealed a North Korean attempt to assemble the required quantity of conventional explosives.

How big was the blast?

The United States Geological Survey initially reported the magnitude of the seismic motion as 4.9, but this was subsequently revised to 5.1. By comparison, North Korea’s first two tests, conducted on October 9, 2006, and May 25, 2009, led to magnitude 4.3 and 4.7 events, respectively.

Unfortunately, because the depth of the test is not known and the geology of the test site is uncertain, translating the seismic magnitude into yield is difficult. The U.S. director of national intelligence stated that the yield was “several kilotons,” which is equivalent to several thousand tons of TNT. The South Korean government placed it at 6–7 kilotons. My own back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests a yield of between 4 and 15 kilotons.

By way of comparison, the 2006 test had a yield of about 0.9 kilotons. There is much more uncertainty about the yield of the second test, but most estimates range from about 2 kilotons to 7 kilotons. Therefore, it is likely but not certain that the most recent test was the largest of the three.

Did Pyongyang test a miniaturized device?

There was extensive speculation before the test that Pyongyang would test a miniaturized device that could be fitted to a ballistic missile (most analysts believe North Korea’s goal is to be able to threaten South Korea, Japan, and, in the longer run, the United States with nuclear missiles). Moreover, Pyongyang has stated that it tested a “smaller and light A-bomb unlike the previous ones,” implying that it did indeed test a miniaturized device.

That said, there is not yet any independent confirmation of Pyongyang’s claims because neither the size nor the weight of a device can be extracted from seismic data. Moreover, in an interesting—and distinctly North Korean—twist, a separate and apparently contradictory statement from Pyongyang implied that, even before the test, it had already developed a miniaturized warhead.

What else could it have been, apart from a miniaturized device?

A few weeks ago, North Korea announced its intention to conduct “a nuclear test of higher level.”  This statement was generally interpreted to mean that it was aiming for a higher yield than either of its first two tests. While it may have achieved this goal, it is possible that Pyongyang was aiming for a significantly higher yield—on a par with early American weapons (15–20 kilotons) or perhaps even larger. If this was North Korea’s goal, then the test should be considered a partial failure.

A second alternative (not mutually exclusive with the first) is that North Korea tested a highly enriched uranium design. North Korea’s first test used plutonium. It is widely assumed that its second test also used plutonium, although this has not been definitively established. A third test, therefore, may have been intended to validate a design using highly enriched uranium.

A highly enriched uranium test would be a significant development. North Korea’s plutonium stockpile is small and has been depleted somewhat by earlier tests. Given the dilapidated state of its plutonium-production infrastructure, it would be both difficult and expensive to produce more. If, however, North Korea has mastered uranium enrichment, it could expand its arsenal relatively cheaply and quickly.

Unfortunately, we don’t yet have any evidence as to the device’s design yield or whether it was made from plutonium or highly enriched uranium.

Is it possible North Korea tested a miniaturized uranium device?

Yes. It is technically harder to miniaturize a uranium device than a plutonium one. So, a test of a miniaturized uranium device would be particularly worrying. It would not only mean that Pyongyang had mastered uranium enrichment and developed (or was well on its way to developing) a warhead that could be mounted on a ballistic missile but also point to rapid improvement in North Korea’s technical prowess.

Will more information become available?

If radioactive material from North Korea’s test has leaked into the atmosphere, then it might be possible to learn more about the device. There are many air monitors capable of detecting minute amounts of radiation across the world (some of which are part of the monitoring system set up to verify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty). In advance of the test, many governments deployed additional such assets to the region.

If radioactivity is detected, it should be possible to distinguish between a uranium and a plutonium device. It may also be possible to assess what other materials were present in the device and hence make educated guesses about its design (but the government is unlikely to be forthcoming with this information).

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee of radioactive leakage or that any radioactive leakage that does occur will be detected. No material from North Korea’s second test was detected, for instance. However, many U.S. and Russian tests leaked, even with those countries’ considerable experience in underground tests. So don’t assume that the 2013 test won’t leak.

About the Author

James M. Acton

Jessica T. Mathews Chair, Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program

Acton holds the Jessica T. Mathews Chair and is co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Recent Work

  • Other
    Unpacking Trump’s National Security Strategy
      • Cecily Brewer
      • +18

      James M. Acton, Saskia Brechenmacher, Cecily Brewer, …

  • Commentary
    Trump Has an Out on Nuclear Testing. He Should Take It.

      James M. Acton

James M. Acton
Jessica T. Mathews Chair, Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program
James M. Acton
Nuclear PolicyArms ControlSecurityNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaNorth Korea

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The Fog of AI War

    In Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, AI warfare has come to dominate, with barely any oversight or accountability. Europe must lead the charge on the responsible use of new military technologies.

      Raluca Csernatoni

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Can NATO Survive the Iran War?

    Donald Trump has repeatedly bashed NATO and European allies, threatening to annex Canada and Greenland and deploring their lack of enthusiasm for his war of choice in Iran. Is this latest round of abuse the final straw?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    On NATO, Trump Should Embrace France Instead of Bashing It

    Donald Trump’s repudiation of NATO goes against the Make America Great Again vision of a U.S.-centered foreign policy. If the goal is to preserve the alliance by boosting Europe’s commitments, leaning into France’s vision is the most America First way forward.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Commentary
    Europe Doesn’t Like War—for Good Reasons

    The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are existential threats to Europe as a peace project. Leaders and citizens alike must reaffirm their solidarity to face up to today’s multifaceted challenges.

      Marc Pierini

  • Article
    Rewiring the South Caucasus: TRIPP and the New Geopolitics of Connectivity

    The U.S.-sponsored TRIPP deal is driving the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process forward. But foreign and domestic hurdles remain before connectivity and economic interdependence can open up the South Caucasus.

      • Areg Kochinyan

      Thomas de Waal, Areg Kochinyan, Zaur Shiriyev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.