Nuclear missile DPRK program | |
Developments
Weapons
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
| |
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear program is the code name for North Korea’s research in the field of nuclear warheads and their launch vehicles (see the DPRK Missile Program ).
The official names of the programs being implemented and the structure of scientific projects are not published , research on the topic is carried out on the basis of observations and official reports of North Korean government agencies external to the DPRK. For example, rocket tests, according to the official version, are of a peaceful nature and are produced for the purpose of exploring outer space.
February 10, 2005, the DPRK for the first time openly announced the creation of nuclear weapons in the country [1] . On October 9, 2006, the first nuclear explosion was carried out [2] . In April 2012, the DPRK Constitution was amended on the country's nuclear status [3] .
The nuclear program and the launch of the DPRK missiles are of concern to the United States and Japan - they have repeatedly imposed tough sanctions against the DPRK. At the same time, China , despite formal condemnation, remains a military ally and economic partner of the DPRK [4]
The founder of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Kim Il Sung , advocated universal nuclear disarmament. [five]
1950-1970s
The United States of America throughout all post-war decades continued to threaten North Korea with the use of nuclear weapons [6] .
Under the protection of the USSR , the DPRK ruler Kim Il Sung was calm about the nuclear threat against his country until he learned that during the Korean War of 1950-1953, the United States planned to drop seven nuclear charges on Pyongyang and its environs. After that, in 1956, the DPRK and the USSR signed an agreement on the training of nuclear specialists. Often, researchers call the beginning of North Korea’s nuclear activities in 1952 , when it was decided to establish the Atomic Energy Research Institute . The actual creation of a nuclear infrastructure began in the mid-1960s.
In 1959, the DPRK entered into agreements on cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy with the USSR [7] of the People's Republic of China and began construction of a research center in Nyongbyon , where in 1965 the Soviet reactor IRT-2000 was installed with a capacity of 2 MW. The IRT-2000 reactor is a research light water with a water- beryllium reflector of neutrons . The fuel used in this reactor is relatively highly enriched uranium .
In 1993, representatives of the DPRK informed the IAEA inspectors that as far back as 1975, about 300 mg of plutonium from irradiated fuel cells had been isolated in ИРТ-2000. [eight]
Since 1985, construction of another nuclear reactor was launched in Yongbyon, with a capacity of 50 megawatts. The construction of a 200 megawatt reactor in the Tonchon area was also launched. According to experts, all these reactors have a dual purpose: to generate electricity and produce weapons-grade plutonium. [9]
Work on the creation of nuclear weapons began in the 1970s. In 1974, the DPRK joined the IAEA . In the same year, Pyongyang appealed for help in developing nuclear weapons to China ; North Korean specialists have been admitted to the Chinese polygons .
DPRK and IAEA
Calder Hall's magnox- type reactor design was declassified in the late 1950s and was openly available to IAEA members, North Korea became a member of the IAEA in 1974, thereby obtaining a reactor circuit. The DPRK started the construction of the first gas - graphite nuclear reactor in 1979 or 1980. On August 14, 1985, the reactor reached criticality and began operating in 1986. In the DPRK, it is called an experimental nuclear power reactor. The electrical power of the first North Korean nuclear reactor is 5 MW, thermal power - from 20 to 30 MW. [8] Reactors of this type were used in England for producing plutonium and electricity. [ten]
In April 1985 , under pressure from the USSR and in view of the construction with it of a nuclear power plant , the DPRK signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). An agreement was also signed on the construction of a nuclear power plant in North Korea with four light water reactors of the type VVER-440 .
In 1990, this agreement was clarified, and instead of four light-water reactors, it was decided to supply three, but more powerful, VVER-640 reactors. A contract was also signed for the supply by the Soviet Union of fuel assemblies in the amount of about $ 185,000. Since June of the same year, IAEA inspections began at nuclear facilities in the country, after the United States announced the withdrawal of its tactical nuclear weapons from the territory of South Korea. In the period from 1992-1994. Six inspections were carried out, the results of which raised some doubts on the part of the IAEA.
North Korean Nuclear Crisis
On February 11, 1993, the Director General of the IAEA, H. Blix , initiated the holding of a “special inspection” in the DPRK. Ten days later, the DPRK Atomic Energy Minister informed the IAEA of his country's refusal to allow this inspection, and on March 12 of his decision to abandon the NPT . In June of the same year, the DPRK, in exchange for a promise by the United States not to interfere in its affairs, suspended its withdrawal from the treaty, but a year later, on June 13, 1994, withdrew from the IAEA.
According to declassified data, in 1994, US President B. Clinton, together with Secretary of Defense William Perry, considered the possibility of launching a missile attack on a nuclear reactor in Yongbyon [11] , however, after analyzing data from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States General John Shalikashvili , it became clear that such a strike could lead to a full-scale war with a large number of American and South Korean casualties, as well as huge civilian casualties, Ultimately, the Clinton administration was forced to go on unprofitable, from its point of view, with North Korea [12] .
US and DPRK
The processes of preparing the United States for the military action against North Korea were “put on the brakes” by the visit of former US President Jimmy Carter to the DPRK leader Kim Il Sung in Pyongyang in 1994 , at which an agreement was reached on freezing the North Korean nuclear program [13] . This event was a turning point that translated the crisis into the negotiating plane and ensured its diplomatic resolution. In October 1994 , after lengthy consultations, the DPRK signed a “Framework Agreement” with the United States, under which North Korea assumed certain obligations, for example:
- the cessation of the construction and use of reactors and uranium enrichment plants ;
- failure to extract plutonium from reactor fuel assemblies;
- removal of SNF outside the country;
- taking measures to dismantle all objects whose designation in one way or another speaks of the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In turn, the US authorities have committed themselves to:
- supply fuel oil ;
- instead of the stopped reactor in Yongbyon with a capacity of 5 MW, to build two much more modern light-water reactors with a capacity of 1000 MW each, which also could not be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium [14] .
The coming to power of the new president, Bush (junior) , led to an aggravation of relations between the two countries. Light water reactors were never built, which did not prevent the United States from putting more and more new demands on the DPRK [14] . Bush turned North Korea into a rogue state , and in October 2002, US Undersecretary of State James Kelly announced that the DPRK was enriching uranium. After some time, the United States suspended fuel supplies for North Korean power plants, and on December 12, 2002, the DPRK officially announced the resumption of the nuclear program and the expulsion of IAEA inspectors. By the end of 2002, in the DPRK, according to the CIA , between 7 and 24 kg of weapons - grade plutonium were accumulated.
On January 10, 2003, the DPRK officially withdrew from the NPT.
On February 5, 2018, negotiations on the DPRK nuclear missile program were held in Seoul between the Special Representative of the Republic of Korea Lee Du Hong and the US representative on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula Joseph Yun, during which the parties noted the high level of cooperation and cooperation between the United States and the Republic of Korea.
The South Korean television channel Utien, citing data from an analysis of commercial satellite imagery (dated February 17 and 25, 2018), presented on March 6, 2018 by the John Hopkins American-South Korean Institute 38 North North, reported that the DPRK is likely to be operational its experimental light water reactor at the Yongben nuclear center in the province of Pyongan-Pukto.
On February 28, 2018, the American media, citing an unpublished report of a group of UN experts, accused the DPRK of supplying components for creating ballistic missiles and chemical weapons to the Syrian government.
On April 15, 2019, the US Department of State press office announced that US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo was in favor of holding a new summit of American and North Korean leaders. [15]
June 30, 2019 the third meeting of US President Donald Trump and the head of the DPRK Kim Jong-un took place. The meeting took place in the demilitarized zone. Thus, Donald Trump became the first president of the United States to visit the DPRK. [sixteen]
Six-Party Talks
In 2003, negotiations began on the DPRK nuclear program with the participation of China, the United States, Russia , South Korea and Japan . The first three rounds (August 2003, February and June 2004) did not bring any special results. And from participating in the fourth, scheduled for September, Pyongyang dodged in connection with the next aggravation of American-Korean and Japanese-Korean relations [17] .
In the first round of negotiations (August 2003), the United States began to seek not only the closure of the North Korean nuclear program, but also the elimination of the nuclear infrastructure already established in the DPRK. In exchange, the United States agreed to give security guarantees to the DPRK and provide economic assistance to Pyongyang by supplying it, in particular, two light-water reactors. However, the United States and Japan demanded the closure of the DPRK nuclear program under the control of the IAEA or the commission of the five powers. The DPRK did not agree to such conditions [17] .
In the second round (February 2004 ), the DPRK agreed to freeze its nuclear program under the control of the IAEA and in exchange for supplies of fuel oil. However, now the United States, with the support of Japan, demanded not freezing, but complete elimination of the DPRK nuclear facilities under the control of the IAEA. North Korea rejected such proposals [17] .
Hope for a successful resolution of the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula first appeared in the third round of the six-party talks, which took place from June 23 to June 26, 2004, when the United States agreed to a “freeze fee”. In response to this, North Korea declared that it was ready to refrain from the production, testing and transfer of nuclear weapons and freeze all objects related to WMD. The United States has put forward a project for the transfer of DPRK nuclear facilities under the temporary international administration of the commission of the five powers or the IAEA. In the future, proposed the elimination of North Korean nuclear facilities under international control. But North Korea did not agree with this option either. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK expressed dissatisfaction with the results of the negotiations [17] .
Unidentified Blast
On September 9, 2004, a South Korean reconnaissance satellite recorded a strongest explosion in a remote region of the DPRK ( Yanggando Province ) near the border with China [18] . A crater visible from space remained at the scene of the explosion, and a huge mushroom cloud with a diameter of about four kilometers grew over the scene.
On September 13, the DPRK authorities explained the emergence of a cloud similar to a mushroom cloud by explosive engineering during the construction of the Samsu HPP (in Yangando, the two largest rivers of this region, Amnokkan and Tumangan, originate ).
South Korean experts doubt that it was a nuclear explosion . In their opinion, the explosion could not have been at all, and the emission of smoke into the atmosphere was a consequence of a major fire. According to some reports, there may be a plant for the production of missile components in the area, and the cause of the explosion could be ignition of rocket fuel or detonation of warheads.
According to other information, military-strategic objects are concentrated in this area, in particular, the recently built Yondzhory rocket base, which is an underground missile testing ground where ballistic missiles capable of flying to Japan are stored and tested in deep tunnels.
Official American sources believe that there was no nuclear explosion. At the same time, US intelligence agencies noted a strange activity in the area of the country's nuclear facilities.
Refusal to negotiate
On September 16, 2004, the DPRK announced that it would not participate in the six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue until the situation with the secret uranium and plutonium developments in South Korea was clarified. In early September, South Korea recognized that in 2000 it received a small amount of enriched uranium. According to the officials, all experiments were purely scientific in nature and were soon completely curtailed.
On September 28, 2004, the DPRK Deputy Foreign Minister announced at a session of the UN General Assembly that North Korea had already converted into uranium nuclear weapons from 8,000 recycled fuel rods from its atomic reactor. He stressed that the DPRK had no other choice in creating nuclear deterrent forces in conditions when the United States declared its goal of destroying the DPRK and threatened with preventive nuclear strikes.
At the same time, the diplomat rejected reports on the preparation of the DPRK for the resumption of missile tests as "unverified rumors." The DPRK unilateral moratorium on ballistic missile tests was introduced in 1999, and in 2001 it was extended until 2003. In 1998, the DPRK tested a ballistic missile that flew over Japan and fell into the Pacific Ocean .
On October 21, 2004, the then US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, stated that “intelligence cannot say whether the DPRK has nuclear weapons”.
On February 10, 2005, the DPRK MFA openly announced the creation of nuclear weapons in the country for the first time [7] : “We are in favor of the six-party talks, but are forced to suspend our participation in them indefinitely, until we are convinced that sufficient conditions have been created and atmosphere, allowing to hope for the results of the dialogue. The negotiation process has come to a standstill because of the anti-Korean hostile policy of the United States. As long as America is waving a nuclear club, intending to eliminate our system at all costs, we will expand the stockpiles of nuclear weapons in order to protect our people’s historical choice, freedom and socialism. ” [nineteen]
International Reaction
There was no real evidence that the DPRK was actually carrying out a military nuclear program and, moreover, it had already created a nuclear bomb. Therefore, it was suggested that the leadership of the DPRK with such a statement simply intended to demonstrate that it was not afraid of anyone and was ready to withstand the potential threat from the United States - including nuclear weapons. But since the North Koreans did not provide evidence of its existence, Russian experts considered this statement to be another manifestation of the policy of “blackmail with elements of bluff” [20] . As for the Russian Foreign Ministry, its representatives called the refusal of North Korea to participate in the six-party talks and the intention to build up its nuclear arsenal "not in line with the desire expressed by Pyongyang for the nuclear-free status of the Korean Peninsula."
In South Korea, an emergency meeting of the country's Security Council was convened in connection with the statement by the DPRK. The South Korean Foreign Ministry called on the DPRK to "resume participation in the negotiations without any conditions."
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that if the information on the presence of nuclear weapons by the DPRK is confirmed, this will “only increase the isolation of this country.” She later added: “We hope that the six-party talks will still take place, and we will be able to solve the problem with them.”
Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi said that the Japanese "will continue to convince the DPRK that renouncing nuclear weapons will serve their own good."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in March 2005 suggested that the PRC put economic pressure on Pyongyang by stopping the supply of oil and coal, which would be tantamount to a trade and economic blockade [21] . According to experts, the PRC’s share in providing economic assistance to North Korea is, according to various sources, from 30 to 70%.
South Korea was opposed to resorting to sanctions and refusing to provide humanitarian aid to the DPRK or joint economic projects. A spokesman for the ruling party Uridan even demanded that the United States provide evidence of its accusations that the DPRK is exporting nuclear materials, or to stop “engaging in propaganda,” since such a policy can cause serious problems between South Korea and the United States.
It later emerged that the United States had distorted the data that they had previously provided to other countries regarding the North Korean nuclear program. In particular, in early 2005, the United States informed Japan, South Korea and China that the DPRK had supplied uranium hexafluoride to Libya - the source material in the uranium enrichment process, which can also be used to create a nuclear warhead. However, as the Washington Post reported, the DPRK actually delivered uranium hexafluoride to Pakistan - not knowing about its further shipment to Libya [22] .
The main thing that Japan was able to do was to block the flow of foreign exchange earnings to the DPRK from Koreans living in Japan by creating a number of bureaucratic barriers. On March 22, 2005, Pyongyang demanded that Japan be excluded from participation in the six-party talks, since Japan "fully follows American policy and does not make any contribution to the talks."
At the same time, the DPRK hastened to express its solidarity with Seoul, whose relations with Japan deteriorated sharply due to Japan’s territorial claims on the South Korean island of Dokto , stressing even the possibility of military support for Seoul [23] .
Resumption of negotiations
In July 2005 , after lengthy informal consultations, the DPRK agreed to return to the six-party talks on the nuclear program in Beijing . As a condition, the DPRK put forward one demand - that the United States "recognize North Korea as a partner and treat it with respect."
The fourth round of negotiations was held in July-August 2005, when the participants for the first time managed to agree on the adoption of a joint document. On September 19, 2005, the Joint Statement on the Principles of Denuclearization was adopted. North Korea recognized the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and all negotiators agreed to discuss the supply of a light water nuclear reactor to the DPRK. In addition to confirming the DPRK's commitments to wind down its nuclear program, to return to the NPT and under IAEA inspection, the document contained declarations of intent to normalize relations between the DPRK and the US, and between North Korea and Japan [24] .
During the fifth round of talks (November 9-11, 2005), North Korea announced its readiness to suspend nuclear weapons testing. Pyongyang has promised to postpone the testing of nuclear weapons as a first step in the program of the gradual transformation of the Korean Peninsula into a nuclear-free zone.
However, after December 10, 2005, the US ambassador to Seoul, Alexander Vershbow, said that the communist system in North Korea could be called a “ criminal regime”, the DPRK stated that it considered the words of the American ambassador as a “ declaration of war ”, and called on South Korea to send Vershbow from the country. Pyongyang also said that the ambassador’s statement can nullify all previously reached agreements on the DPRK’s nuclear program.
Already on December 20, 2005, the Central Telegraph Agency of Korea announced that North Korea intends to intensify nuclear development based on graphite reactors with which it is possible to obtain weapons-grade plutonium. The Pyongyang authorities explained their actions by stopping the 2003 NPP construction program at two light-water reactors in Sinpkho (east coast of the DPRK) by the international consortium "Organization for the Promotion of Nuclear Energy Development of the Korean Peninsula" (KEDO) under the auspices of the United States: light-water reactors, we will actively develop independent nuclear power based on graphite reactors of 50 and 200 megawatts. ”
At the same time, North Korea planned to build its own light-water nuclear reactor and reconstruct two plants that could produce large quantities of nuclear fuel.
With this statement, the DPRK effectively denounced its previous promises to abandon all nuclear programs in exchange for security guarantees and economic assistance.
The statement was a reaction to the introduction of US sanctions against North Korean companies that were accused of supplying missiles and making fake dollars, as well as to the adoption by the UN of a resolution on human rights in North Korea.
In early 2006, Foreign Ministry spokesman Kun Quan reaffirmed the position of the Chinese side: you cannot refuse to further advance the negotiation process, the fundamental goal - to implement the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the principles of achieving this goal through peaceful negotiations [25] .
The first stage of the sixth round of negotiations took place on March 19-22, 2007 in Beijing, and the second stage of the sixth round of meetings was held from 27 to 30 September 2007 in Beijing [17] .
On April 20, 2018, DPRK Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un announced that he was freezing nuclear and missile tests, as well as a nuclear test site in the north of the country. On October 8, 2018, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un agreed to allow international inspectors to visit his country's nuclear and missile test sites [26] .
Nuclear tests
In late September 2006, a bill approved by both houses of the American Congress was sent to US President George W. Bush for signature. The bill introduced sanctions against North Korea and companies cooperating with it, which, according to the United States, assist the DPRK in distributing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), missiles and other WMD delivery technologies. The sanctions also provided for a ban on financial transactions and the refusal to issue export licenses.
On October 3, 2006, the DPRK MFA issued a statement stating North Korea’s intention to "conduct a nuclear test, provided that its safety is reliably guaranteed." As a justification for such a decision, it was stated about the threat of a nuclear war from the United States and economic sanctions aimed at strangling the DPRK - in these conditions Pyongyang sees no other option than conducting a nuclear test. At the same time, as noted in the statement, “North Korea is not going to use nuclear weapons first,” but rather “will continue to make efforts to ensure the nuclear-free status of the Korean Peninsula and make comprehensive efforts towards nuclear disarmament and a total ban on nuclear weapons”.
On October 6, members of the UN Security Council unanimously approved a statement by the chairman of the Security Council, urging North Korea to abandon nuclear tests and immediately return to talks in the six-party format without preconditions. A draft statement was prepared by Japan. It was she who took the initiative to work out a common position of the world powers regarding the North Korean threat.
On October 8, 2006, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe went to Beijing and Seoul to discuss the “Korean problem”, thus resuming contacts at the highest level between Japan and the PRC (interrupted five years earlier). This fact testifies to the significance that the countries of the region attach to the first ever test of the Korean atomic bomb. The Chinese leader, Hu Jintao, made it clear before the talks began that the Chinese leadership is ready for constructive engagement with Japan on all issues, including the Korean crisis.
First Test
On October 9, 2006, the DPRK announced the successful conduct of a nuclear test . A report from the Central Telegraph Agency of Korea (CTC) said: “Our research unit safely and successfully carried out an underground nuclear test ... The nuclear test became a historical event that brought happiness to our military and people. Nuclear testing will contribute to maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the surrounding area. "
According to the South Korean Yonhap Agency, the test was carried out at 10:36 local time (1:36 UTC ) at the Punheri nuclear test site (Phunheri), near the town of Kilchu ( Hamgyon Province ) in the north-east of the DPRK, 170-180 kilometers from the border with Russia .
At a point with coordinates was registered an earthquake with a magnitude of 4.2. The earthquake was recorded in South Korea, Japan, USA, Australia and Russia.
As the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported the next day, “Pyongyang informed Moscow through diplomatic channels about the planned testing time two hours before the explosion.” The PRC , which Pyongyang warned about testing only 20 minutes before the explosion, almost immediately informed the partners in the six-party talks - the USA, Japan and South Korea - about this.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov reported to President Putin that the capacity of the underground explosion was from 5 to 15 kilotons. According to other sources, the capacity was about 0.5 kilotons. Because of so low power suspicion is expressed that the explosion was not nuclear, and several hundred tons of TNT was blown up.
According to the DPRK authorities and the monitoring of the relevant services of the surrounding countries, no radiation leakage has been recorded.
All the leading world powers, including Russia and (for the first time) China, as well as the leadership of NATO and the European Union, condemned the conduct of nuclear testing in the DPRK. Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting with members of the government: "Russia certainly condemns the tests carried out by the DPRK, and not only in Korea itself - it is in the form of enormous damage to the process of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the world."
South Korea canceled the shipment to the DPRK of a regular batch of humanitarian aid and brought its armed forces on high alert.
According to American experts, the DPRK has enough plutonium to produce 12 nuclear weapons. At the same time, experts believe that the DPRK does not have the technology to create ammunition that could be placed in the head of the rocket.
Second Test
On May 25, 2009, the DPRK again conducted nuclear tests. The power of an underground nuclear explosion, according to the Russian military, ranged from 10 to 20 kilotons [27] [28] . On May 27, the North Korean radio station for Voice of Korea abroad in all 9 languages of its broadcasting (including Russian) reported on a “mass public rally” the day before in Pyongyang, at which the official rationale for conducting a nuclear test was given by Secretary of the TPK Central Committee Che Te Bok [29] : "the nuclear tests are a decisive measure to protect the best interests of the republic to defend the country's sovereignty and the nation in an environment where the threat is amplified by the United States of America nuclear next page ntivnogo strike, their machinations on the application of sanctions ". Then the program cited a statement from the Korean People’s Army Representation in Panmunjon, which stated that “despite the armistice agreement in Korea, which prohibited any blocking of the warring parties, South Korea joined the initiative to limit nuclear weapons, and the United States introduced sanctions against the DPRK. The statement stated that if there were attempts to force the proliferation of the initiative to limit nuclear weapons on the DPRK, such as attempts to inspect the country's maritime transport, the DPRK would consider this a declaration of war. ”
Third Test
At the end of January 2013, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea announced its intention to conduct third nuclear tests [30] . On February 12, 2013, the US Geological Survey recorded earthquakes with a magnitude of 4.9, the epicenter of which was located in the region of the North Korean nuclear test site. The UN Nuclear Monitoring Agency announced an “unusual seismic event” with “explosion characteristics” [31] . On the same day, the Korean Central Telegraph Agency officially announced the successful nuclear test [32] . Considering that on December 12, 2012, the DPRK for the first time launched an artificial satellite, Kwanmensoon-3 , into orbit, this caused a new crisis.
Development of thermonuclear weapons
December 10, 2015, Kim Jong-un said the DPRK had a hydrogen bomb [33] [34] . At the same time, most foreign experts agree that the DPRK, most likely, is developing this type of nuclear weapon, but Pyongyang does not yet have ready-made thermonuclear warheads [35] . On January 3, 2016, the Ministry of Defense of South Korea announced that they had information about the preparation of the DPRK authorities for testing hydrogen weapons [36] . South Korean intelligence experts believe that the DPRK could already start producing the tritium needed to create a hydrogen bomb, and also say that “the possibility that the new tunnel being built by the North at the Punheri testing ground cannot be ruled out [37 ] [38] .
On January 8, 2017, on the orders of Kim Jong-un, an explosion of the first thermonuclear bomb was made underground near the border of China. This is also confirmed by Chinese seismologists who recorded a strong earthquake. Information about the presence of the DPRK hydrogen bomb was confirmed in September 2017 [39] .
Fourth Test
On January 6, 2016, a magnitude 5.1 earthquake was recorded on the territory of the DPRK, which was associated with an underground nuclear explosion [40] . North Korea announced the first successful hydrogen bomb test in its history [41] . In the world, experts expressed doubts that the DPRK detonated precisely the hydrogen bomb [42] [43] . The Chinese news portal Sina reported that experts interviewed by the publication believe that the power of the explosion carried out is equivalent to about 22 thousand tons of TNT, while the corresponding figure for the hydrogen bomb ranges from a few hundred thousand to one million tons of explosive. Experts stressed that the data they have attested suggests that the test was similar to the tests carried out by the DPRK in 2009, and the charge power was comparable to a bomb detonated in Hiroshima [44] . South Korean intelligence also questioned the hydrogen explosion in North Korea [45] .
Fifth Test
September 9, 2016 at 9:30 am local time in the territory of the DPRK, a seismic event of a magnitude of 5.3 was recorded. Its epicenter was located near the settlement, located 20 kilometers from the Pungeri nuclear test site . The US Geological Survey classified earthquake as an “explosion” [46] . Later, the DPRK officially announced the fifth nuclear test. The estimated power of the explosion is from 10 to 30 kilotons [47] .
Sixth Test
September 3, 2017 , seismic stations of different countries recorded powerful tremors on the territory of the DPRK. The magnitude of the earthquake was estimated in the range from 6.1 to 6.4, while the scientists said that the earthquake was located on the surface of the earth. The shocks occurred at 12:30 local time in the province of Hamguong-Pukto, where the North Korean nuclear ground Pungheri is located . North Korean authorities have announced the successful testing of a thermonuclear warhead . The power of the explosion, according to estimates by Japanese seismologists, was up to 100 kilotons, which is ten times the power of the charge tested on September 9, 2016 [48] [49] . Eight and a half minutes after the first earthquake, the US Geological Survey (USGS) recorded a second push with a magnitude of 4.1. The satellite images taken after the test recorded numerous landslides on Mount Mantap [50] .
See also
- Censorship in the DPRK
- Peace Treaty with North Korea
- Korean crisis (2013)
- North Korean crisis (2017–2018)
Notes
- ↑ North Korea is preparing to resume negotiations and make peace with the United States (Inaccessible link) . Lenta.ru (February 28, 2005). Circulation date August 1, 2012. Archived November 29, 2013.
- ↑ North Korea is preparing to continue nuclear tests (Inaccessible link) . Lenta.ru (October 9, 2006). The appeal date is August 1, 2012. Archived July 26, 2012.
- ↑ Veselov Arthur. The DPRK has announced its nuclear status (Inaccessible link) . Utro.ru (May 31, 2012). The appeal date is August 1, 2012. Archived July 6, 2012.
- ↑ One Flew Over the Abe Nest // RS / RFE , 29 August 2017
- ↑ For a free and peaceful new world
- ↑ Seoul Herald: the United States has repeatedly considered the possibility of a nuclear strike on the DPRK
- ↑ 1 2 Chronology of the DPRK nuclear program . PIR Center . The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ 1 2 Yuri Yudin. Technical aspects of the DPRK nuclear program .
- ↑ RIA. DPRK Nuclear Program . ria.ru (08/03/2017).
- ↑ TASS. DPRK nuclear program. Dossier . tass.ru (01/09/2018).
- ↑ Jamie McIntyre. Washington was on the brink of war with North Korea 5 years ago . CNN (4/10/1999). Archived April 28, 2017.
- ↑ Examining The Lessons Of The 1994 Us-North Korea . PBS (04/10/2003). Archived July 6, 2017.
- ↑ Donald Kir . Ex-US President Jimmy Carter arrived in North Korea amid hopes for six-party talks (Rus.) , InoSMI.Ru (April 27, 2011). The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ 1 2 Direction of non-main strike , Izvestia (September 13, 2013). The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ Pompeo spoke in favor of holding a new summit with the DPRK before the end of the year . RT in Russian. The appeal date is April 17, 2019.
- П PR and Show: Why Trump entered the DPRK Gazeta.Ru. The appeal date is June 30, 2019.
- ↑ 1 2 3 4 5 Six-Party Talks on the DPRK Nuclear Program. Help (inaccessible link) . RIA News. The date of circulation is February 3, 2013. Archived on February 5, 2013.
- ↑ DPRK Nuclear Program (inaccessible link) . NEWSru.com . The date of circulation is February 5, 2013. Archived February 5, 2013.
- ↑ DPRK withdrew from the Six-Party Talks and for the first time recognized the creation of nuclear weapons by it (Rus.) , RIA Novosti (February 10, 2005). The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ Victor Esin . Nuclear Weapons of the DPRK: Threat or Blackmail , Independent Military Review (February 25, 2005). The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ Rice asks China to put pressure on North Korea , BBC (March 20, 2005). The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ Hexafluoride could be supplied to Libya by North Korea . Iran.ru (May 24, 2004). The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- Японии Japan’s claims on Dokdo are determined by the island’s resources and transit role (Rus.) , Rossiyskaya Gazeta (July 20, 2009). The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ Six-Party Talks on the DPRK Nuclear Program. Help , RIA News (August 24, 2011). The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ Answers of the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kun Quan to the questions of correspondents at the next press conference on January 12, 2006 . Foreign Ministry of China (January 12, 2006). The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ DPRK authorities stop developing nuclear weapons Ideologs.com (November 29, 2018). The appeal date is December 5, 2018.
- ↑ North Korea conducted nuclear tests , Lenta.ru (May 25, 2009).
- ↑ The UN Security Council convenes an emergency meeting on North Korea , podrobnosti (May 25, 2009). The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ Audio recording of North Korean foreign broadcasting in a news release in Russian of the Voice of Korea Radio dated May 27, 2009 about the “mass rally of the public” the day before in Pyongyang, which presented the official rationale for conducting the 2009 North Korean nuclear test
- ↑ North Korea will conduct nuclear tests "with an eye on the US" // rbc.ru
- ↑ North Korea announced nuclear testing (not available link) . BBC Russian Service (February 12, 2013). The appeal date is February 12, 2013. Archived February 12, 2013.
- ↑ DPRK officially announced successful nuclear testing (inaccessible link) . Rosbalt (12/02/2013). The appeal date is February 12, 2013. Archived February 15, 2013.
- ↑ Kim Jong-un said that the DPRK has a hydrogen bomb . TASS (December 10, 2015). The appeal date is December 13, 2015.
- ↑ Kim Jong-un said that the DPRK has a hydrogen bomb . BBC Russian Service (December 10, 2015). The appeal date is December 13, 2015.
- ↑ Pyongyang announced a bomb. The leader of the DPRK declared the presence of destructive weapons . Russian newspaper (December 10, 2015). The appeal date is December 13, 2015.
- ↑ South Korean authorities said that the DPRK is preparing to test the hydrogen bomb . New Time (Ukrainian magazine and website) (January 3, 2016). The appeal date is January 3, 2016.
- ↑ South Korea warned about the preparation of the DPRK to test the hydrogen bomb . RBC (January 3, 2016). The appeal date is January 3, 2016.
- ↑ The media reported on the preparation of the DPRK to test the hydrogen bomb . RIA News (January 3, 2016). The appeal date is January 3, 2016.
- LE (LEAD) NK claims development of ICBM (English) , Yonhap News Agency . The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ North Korea allegedly conducted another nuclear charge test , Lenta.ru (January 6, 2016). The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ The DPRK announced the successful testing of a hydrogen bomb . BBC Russian Service (January 6, 2016). The appeal date is January 6, 2015.
- К Statements of the DPRK about the hydrogen bomb: doubts and condemnation in the world . BBC Russian Service (January 7, 2016). The appeal date is January 6, 2015.
- ↑ Review of InoSMI: DPRK atomic or hydrogen bomb, oil anti-record . RIA News (January 6, 2016). The appeal date is January 7, 2015.
- ↑ The DPRK announced the successful testing of the hydrogen bomb . TASS (January 6, 2016). The appeal date is January 6, 2015.
- Южной South Korea's exploration questions the hydrogen explosion in North Korea . RIA News (January 6, 2016). The appeal date is January 7, 2015.
- ↑ North Korea conducted another nuclear test , NEWSru.com . The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ DPRK officially announced nuclear testing . RBC (September 9, 2016). The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
- ↑ Pyongyang announced the successful testing of the hydrogen bomb , RBC (September 3, 2017). The appeal date is September 3, 2017.
- ↑ DPRK announced the creation of a hydrogen bomb , BBC Russian Service (September 3, 2017). The appeal date is September 3, 2017.
- ↑ Repeated seismic push after a nuclear test in the DPRK puzzled scientists . POLIT.RU (September 15, 2017). The appeal date is February 13, 2018.
Literature
- Pinkston, Daniel A. The North Korean Ballistic Missile Program . - Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2008. - 103 p.
- Arbatov G. A. Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism. Part 1-3.
- Davydov V. F. Russia and the United States: Problems of Cooperation in Strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime Moscow: Institute of the USA and Canada, Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997.
- Kuznetsov D.V. The problem of WMD nonproliferation and public opinion. In 2 parts. Part I. Iran's nuclear program. - Blagoveshchensk: Publishing house BSPU, 2009. - 404 p.
- A new challenge after the Cold War: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Report of the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation. M .: SVR RF, 1993.
- V. Orlov. 1995 Conference on the Review and Extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Features, Results, Lessons // PIR Center Scientific Notes. October 1999.
- Problems of nuclear nonproliferation in the Russian-American relations: history, possibilities and prospects for further cooperation / V. A. Orlov, R. M. Timerbaev, A. V. Khlopkov. M .: PIR Center, 2001.
- Romashkina N. P. Nuclear Programs of the DPRK and Iran in the Context of the Modern System of International Relations // World Economy and International Relations. 2006. No. 1. P.35-48.
- System history of international relations in four volumes / Ed. A. D. Bogaturov. T.III. 1945-2003. Developments. M .: NOFMO, 2004.
- Tkachenko V.P. Korean Peninsula and Russia's Interests. - M .: Science, 2006.
- At the nuclear threshold: Lessons from the nuclear crises of North Korea and Iran for the non-proliferation regime / Ed. A. Arbatov. M .: ROSSPEN, 2007.
- Nuclear nonproliferation: Short encyclopedia / Under total. ed. A. V. Khlopkova. M .: ROSSPEN, 2009.
- Nuclear nonproliferation: Textbook for students of higher educational institutions: In 2 volumes / Under total. ed. V. O. Orlova. M .: PIR Center, 2002.
- Nuclear deterrence and nonproliferation / Ed. A. Arbatov and V. Dvorkin. M .: Mosk. Carnegie Center, 2005.
- Nuclear weapons after the Cold War / Ed. A. Arbatov and V. Dvorkin; Mosk. Carnegie Center. M .: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN), 2006.
- G. Bulychev, A. Vorontsov, V. Novikov. What is the essence of the choice in the "Korean Question"? Ways of overcoming the crisis on the Korean Peninsula // Yader. Spread. - 2003. - Vol. 47., April — June
- Volodin D. А. USA and North Korea: from Bush Sr. to Bush Jr. // USA-Canada: economics, politics, culture. 2007, No. 3
- Zhebin A. Negotiations on the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula: interim results // Problems of the Far East . 2007, № 1.
- Fedorov Yu. Korean Nuclear Problem. - M., 2003. - (Analy. Zap. / Int. But. International. Researches; № 1, v. 2)
- Korea and US Nuclear Weapons, FAS Nuclear Information Project. Documenting nuclear policy and operations, September 28, 2005 // Text
- Reflections on the North Korean Nuclear Test and the US Diplomacy // http://www.enfondsk.ru .
- V. Orlov, R. Timerbaev, A. Khlopkov, “Problems of Nuclear Non-Proliferation in Russian-American Relations: History, Opportunities and Prospects for Further Interaction”; PIR Center for Political Studies, 2001.
Links
- Nuclear weapons of North Korea. Background . RIA News (October 10, 2006).
- North Korea's 'home-made' bomb . BBC World Service (9 October 2006).
- A. Fenenko. The strategy of “forced disarmament” and international business // International processes. - T. 3 , No. 3 (9) .
- Nuclear disarmament. The DPRK authorities have taken the first step . TV channel "Star" (June 27, 2008).
- Vorontsov. A. V. US policy on the Korean Peninsula in the 90s of the XX century // New and newest history 2001. № 6. - p. 32-46.
- “A way to defend sovereignty”: is North Korea ready to use nuclear weapons , RT (February 10, 2018).