North Korea’s 2009 Nuclear Test, and More from CRS
In May 2009, North Korea announced that it had conducted its second nuclear explosive test. Although the event generated a seismic signature consistent with a nuclear explosion, it produced no detectable release of radioactive gases or particulates (fallout). This either means that North Korea actually conducted a non-nuclear simulation of a nuclear test, or else it managed to achieve complete containment of a real nuclear explosion. Since detection of radioactive emissions provides the most unambiguous confirmation of a nuclear explosion, the successful containment of a nuclear test could be problematic for verification of a treaty banning such explosions.
This conundrum is explored in a new report from the Congressional Research Service. See “North Korea’s 2009 Nuclear Test: Containment, Monitoring, Implications” (pdf), April 2, 2010.
Congress has refused to make reports like this directly available to the public. Other noteworthy new CRS products obtained by Secrecy News that have not been publicly released include the following (all pdf).
“Judicial Activity Concerning Enemy Combatant Detainees: Major Court Rulings,” April 1, 2010.
“Federal Building and Facility Security,” March 24, 2010.
“The U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry: Confronting a New Dynamic in the Global Economy,” March 26, 2010.
“U.S. Initiatives to Promote Global Internet Freedom: Issues, Policy, and Technology,” April 5, 2010.
A deeper understanding of methane could help scientists better address these impacts – including potentially through methane removal.
While it is reasonable for governments to keep the most sensitive aspects of nuclear policies secret, the rights of their citizens to have access to general knowledge about these issues is equally valid so they may know about the consequences to themselves and their country.
Advancing the U.S. leadership in emerging biotechnology is a strategic imperative, one that will shape regional development within the U.S., economic competitiveness abroad, and our national security for decades to come.
Inconsistent metrics and opaque reporting make future AI power‑demand estimates extremely uncertain, leaving grid planners in the dark and climate targets on the line