• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • 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
Program mobile hero image

Program

Nuclear Policy

The Nuclear Policy Program aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Our experts diagnose acute risks stemming from technical and geopolitical developments, generate pragmatic solutions, and use our global network to advance risk-reduction policies. Our work covers deterrence, disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy.

Learn More

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 Endowment for International Peace

  • Man speaking into two mics
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Three Scenarios for the Gulf States After the Iran War

    One is hopeful. One is realistic. One is cautionary.

      • Andrew Leber

      Andrew Leber, Sam Worby

  • 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
    Diwan
    Egypt’s Discrete Role in the Ceasefire with Iran

    Cairo’s efforts send a message to the United States and the region that it still has a place at the diplomatic table.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • Army personnel stand guard after a pro-monarchy protest turns violent in Kathmandu, Nepal, on March 28, 2025.
    Article
    The Shadow of the Military in Modern South Asia

    Military rule is now a defining political factor in South Asia. Here’s how analysts can understand and account for it.

      Paul Staniland

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Realism and the Lebanon-Israel Talks

    Beirut’s desire to break free from Iranian hegemony may push it into a situation where it has to accept Israel’s hegemony.  

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.