2006 North Korean nuclear test

Infobox Military Test Site
name = North Korean nuclear test


caption = Graphic from the United States Geological Survey showing seismic activity at the time of the test
type = Nuclear test site
coordinates = coord|41.2943|N|129.1342|E|region:KP-HAB_type:landmark
nearest_town = Kilchu
operator = Democratic People's Republic of Korea
status = Unknown
dates = October 9, 2006

The 2006 North Korean nuclear test was the detonation of a nuclear device conducted on October 9, 2006 by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

North Korea announced its intention to conduct a test on October 3, six days prior, and in doing so became the first nation to give warning of its first nuclear test. [ [http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/39737 "N. Korea to conduct 'safe' nuclear test"] , "UPI", October 3, 2006] The blast is estimated to have had an explosive force of less than one kiloton, and some radioactive output was detected. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6146320,00.html "U.S.: Test Points to N. Korea Nuke Blast"] , "Guardian Unlimited", October 14, 2006] cite web|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aO7kW.RjqqaE&refer=japan|title=North Korea Nuclear Test Confirmed by U.S. Intelligence Agency |accessdate=2006-10-16] United States officials suggested the device may have been a nuclear explosive that misfired.

An anonymous official at the North Korean Embassy in Beijing told a South Korean newspaper that the explosive output was smaller than expected. [ [http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/10/korea.building.bomb.ap/index.html " Dud or deception? Experts examine N. Korea claims"] , "CNN", October 10, 2006] Due to the secretive nature of North Korea and small yield of the test, there remains some question as to whether it was an unusually small successful test, or a partially failed "fizzle" or dud.

It was reported that the government of the People's Republic of China was given a 20-minute advance warning that the test was about to occur. [cite web | url=http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-10-09T042325Z_01_L08141538_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOREA-NORTH.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C1-TopStories-newsOne-2 | title=North Korea says conducted nuclear test| accessdate=2006-10-09] China sent an emergency alert to Washington, D.C. through the United States embassy in Beijing and President George W. Bush was told by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley "shortly after" 10 p.m. (UTC-4) that a test was imminent.cite web | url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/09/asia/web.1009korea.php | title= Test follows warning from U.N.| publisher="International Herald Tribune" | accessdate=2006-10-09]

Background

North Korea had been suspected of maintaining a clandestine nuclear weapons development program since at least the early 1990s when it constructed a plutonium-producing Magnox nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, and various diplomatic means had been used by the international community to attempt to limit North Korea's nuclear work to peaceful and scientific means and encouraging North Korea to participate in international treaties. In 1994, the United States and North Korea signed the "Agreed Framework", whereby North Korea agreed to freeze its plutonium production program in exchange for fuel, economic cooperation, and the construction of two modern nuclear power plants powered by light-water reactors. Eventually, North Korea's existing nuclear facilities were to be dismantled, and the spent reactor fuel taken out of the country.

However, in 2002, rumors circulated that North Korea was pursuing both uranium enrichment technology and plutonium reprocessing technologies in defiance of the Agreed Framework (Pakistani metallurgist Abdul Qadeer Khan confessed in 2004 to selling uranium enrichment technology to North Korea between 1991 and 1997 and additional technology up until 2000 [David E. Sanger, "Pakistan Leader Confirms Nuclear Exports," "New York Times" (13 September 2005): A10.] ). North Korea reportedly told American diplomats in private that they were in possession of nuclear weapons, citing American failures to uphold their own end of the "Agreed Framework" as a motivating force. North Korea later clarified that it did not possess weapons yet, but that it had a right to possess them. In late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea began to take steps to eject International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors while re-routing spent fuel rods for plutonium reprocessing for weapons purposes. Throughout the course of 2003, North Korean and American officials exchanged harsh words and staged military exercises which were interpreted by the other party to be aggressive. As late as the end of 2003, North Korea claimed that it would freeze its nuclear program in exchange for American concessions – in particular a non-aggression treaty – but a final agreement was not reached and talks continued to be cancelled or fall through. North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 after not receiving light-water reactors promised by the U.S. which were going to be delivered in exchange for North Korea not developing their own power plants, as understood in the "Agreed Framework."

In early 2004 former Los Alamos National Laboratory director Siegfried S. Hecker, as part of an unofficial U.S. delegation, was allowed to inspect North Korea's plutonium production facilities. Hecker later testified before the United States Congress that while North Korea seems to have successfully extracted plutonium from the spent fuel rods, he saw no evidence at the time that they had actually produced a workable weapon. [ [http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_hr/012104hecker.pdf Visit to the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center in North Korea] , Siegfried S. Hecker, 21 January 2004] In September 2004, though, North Korean officials announced they had successfully processed Yongbyon plutonium into a workable nuclear deterrent. Through 2005 more diplomatic talks were attempted between the United States, North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia (the six-party talks) but little concrete change occurred.

Because North Korea had not conducted a successful test of a nuclear device, the extent of its actual nuclear weapons program remained ambiguous through 2005 and much of 2006. Though North Korea conducted numerous missile tests (some of which were branded failures by international experts), the question of whether they had actually mastered all aspects of nuclear weapons technology – ranging from material production to complex nuclear weapon design needed to produce the final detonation – remains unanswered.

North Korean statements

Rumours of an impending nuclear test circulated during 2005 and early 2006, though none came to immediate fruition. On October 3, 2006, however, North Korea claimed that it would soon conduct a nuclear test, and on October 9, 2006, the state claimed to have successfully conducted a test. The Korean Central News Agency, the state's news agency, issued the following statement: cite web | url=http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2006/200610/news10/10.htm#1 | title=DPRK Successfully Conducts Underground Nuclear Test|publisher=KCNA|date=2006-10-10|accessdate=2006-10-10]

cquote|The field of scientific research in the DPRK successfully conducted an underground nuclear test under secure conditions on October 9, Juche 95 (2006), at a stirring time when all the people of the country are making a great leap forward in the building of a great, prosperous, powerful socialist nation.

It has been confirmed that there was no such danger as radioactive emission in the course of the nuclear test as it was carried out under scientific consideration and careful calculation.

The nuclear test was conducted with indigenous wisdom and technology 100 percent. It marks an historic event as it greatly encouraged and pleased the KPA and people that have wished to have powerful self-reliant defence capability.

It will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it.clear

Later, the North Korean envoy to the U.N. said it would be better for the Security Council to offer its congratulations rather than pass "useless" resolutions. [ [http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-10-09-voa41.cfm US Asks for Tough UN Sanctions On North Korea] "Voice of America" 9 October 2006]

Threats of war

On October 10, 2006, an unnamed North Korean official was quoted as saying that North Korea could launch a nuclear missile unless the U.S. sits down for face-to-face talks. [cite web | url=http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/10/korea.nuclear.test/index.html | title= North Korean test 'went wrong,' U.S. official says| accessdate=2006-10-11] However, few, if any, military and defense experts believe that the North Koreans possess the technology to mount a nuclear warhead to a ballistic missile. [cite web |url=http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html | title = Nuclear Weapons Program - North Korea| accessdate=2006-10-11]

On October 11, the Associated Press reported that North Korea has threatened war if attempts are made to penalize them through further sanctions.cite news | url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KOREAS_NUCLEAR?SITE=CADIU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT | title=North Korea threatens war over sanctions | date=11 October 2006 | author=Greimel, Hans | publisher=Associated Press |accessdate=2006-10-11] This statement occurred even as Japan moved to tighten sanctions on the communist country.cite news | url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KOREAS_NUCLEAR?SITE=CADIU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT | title=North Korea threatens war over sanctions | date=2006-10-11 | author=Greimel, Hans | publisher=Associated Press |accessdate=2006-10-11] South Korea said they were ensuring their troops were prepared for nuclear war.cite news | url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KOREAS_NUCLEAR?SITE=CADIU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT | title=North Korea threatens war over sanctions | date=2006-10-11 | author=Greimel, Hans | publisher=Associated Press |accessdate=2006-10-11] A U.S. Army major, stationed along the border between North and South Korea, said that the overall situation was "calm" but that "Communist troops were more boldly trying to provoke their southern counterparts: spitting across the demarcation line, making throat-slashing hand gestures, flashing their middle fingers and trying to talk to the troops."cite news | url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KOREAS_NUCLEAR?SITE=CADIU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT | title=North Korea threatens war over sanctions | date=11 October 2006 | author=Greimel, Hans | publisher=Associated Press |accessdate=2006-10-11]

On that day, the North Korean Foreign Ministry stated that "if the U.S. keeps pestering us and increases pressure, we will regard it as a declaration of war and will take a series of physical corresponding measures." [ [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219620,00.html North Korea: Increased U.S. Pressure Would Be 'Act of War'] "Fox News" October 11 2006]

On October 17 North Korea denounced U.N. sanctions over its nuclear test as a declaration of war and the United States and other nations suspect that North Korea is seeking to conduct a second nuclear test despite international pressure. [ [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061017/ts_nm/korea_north_dc_121;_ylt=AhSKxS47d5H8IVaO9STyzquCscEA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl North Korea Declares UN Scanctions As An Declaration Of war] "Yahoo News" October 17 2006]

Kim Jong Il's alleged apology

On October 20, 2006, Kim Jong Il allegedly said that he was "sorry" over his country's nuclear test, and wished to return to talk with the UN. Kim Jong Il was quoted by a Chinese envoy as saying, cquote|If the U.S. makes a concession to some degree, we will also make a concession to some degree, whether it be bilateral talks or six-party talks Kim Jong Il also said that he has no future plans to test another nuclear device. The U.S. State Department discounted this report. [cite news|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15341349/|title=Report: Kim ‘sorry’ about N. Korea nuclear test|publisher=NBC News, The Associated Press and Reuters|date=October 20, 2006]

Return to six-party talks

On October 31, 2006, North Korea agreed to rejoin six-nation disarmament talks. The agreement was struck in a day of unpublicized discussions between the senior envoys from the United States, China and North Korea at a government guesthouse in Beijing. [ [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15494100/ MSNBC article] ] The talks resumed on December 18, 2006 [ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-party_talks Wikipedia article on 6-party talks] ] .

Yield estimates and authenticity

The apparent low yield of the test has raised questions as to whether or not it was a successful nuclear detonation, as the North Korean announcement claimed. Initially doubts existed as to whether it was a detonation of conventional explosives meant to appear like a nuclear detonation, but detection of airborne radioactive isotopes appears to have confirmed that it was to some degree nuclear. The advance warning of the test sent to the Chinese government reportedly said that the planned test yield was to be equivalent to approximately four kilotons in strength, [cnn.com, [http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/11/korea.nuclear.test/index.html U.S. official: 'Something went wrong' on blast] ] but most outside estimates, based largely on seismic readings, have put the yield at much less than that.

At a meeting with President Putin, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov stated that "the power of the tests carried out was 5 to 15 kilotons", [cite web | url=http://www.kommersant.com/p712035/r_539/North_Korea_Nuclear_Test/ | title=North Korea's Power Checked | accessdate=2006-10-11] though this early estimate is now much higher than any other international estimate. An early report by the Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (South Korea) said the blast was equivalent to an earthquake registering 3.58 on the Richter scale,cite web|url=http://www.chosun.com/national/news/200610/200610090665.html|title=지진파가 나옵니다. 폭발입니다 "Seismic waves. An Explosion."|accessdate=2006-10-09|language=Korean] which corresponds to the explosion of 100 tons of TNT. This was later revised to at least 800 tons, [cite web|url=http://news.sbs.co.kr/section_news/news_read.jsp?news_id=N1000173833|title=북핵 실험의 규모와 의미 "The Scale and Implication of North Korea's Nuclear Test"|accessdate=2006-10-09|language=Korean] corresponding to a blast wave of 4.2. The U.S. Geological Survey also estimates the blast wave at 4.2. [ [http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002832.html Defense Tech: NORK Nuclear Test: It's A Dud (Updated) ] ] (Note that 4.2 is considerably more powerful than 3.58 because the Richter scale is a logarithmic scale.)

According to "Jane's Defence Weekly", "initial and unconfirmed South Korean reports indicate that the test was a fission device with a yield of 0.55 kT ... The figure of 0.55 kT, however, seems too low given the 4.2 register on the Richter scale. This could suggest — depending upon the geological make-up of the test site — a yield of 2–12 kT." [cite web | url=http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw061009_2_n.shtml | title=North Korea claims nuclear test | accessdate=2006-10-09]

An official in France's Atomic Energy Commission reported that they estimated the blast was "about or less than a kiloton" and expressed uncertainty about whether or not the blast was actually nuclear. [cite web|url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/09/europe/EU_GEN_France_Koreas_Nuclear.php|title=France says North Korean blast 'about half a kiloton'|accessdate|2006-10-09] [ [http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DETECTING_NUCLEAR_TESTS?SITE=PAYOK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Scientists Probe North Korea Nuke Test] 9 October 2006] There have been various large planned and unplanned non-nuclear explosions comparable in yield to small nuclear detonations, such as the U.S. "Minor Scale" explosion from 1985, which used conventional explosives to simulate a 4 kiloton detonation. According to the "Washington Times" anonymous U.S. intelligence sources speculated there "was a seismic event that registered about 4 on the Richter scale, but it still isn't clear if it was a nuclear test. You can get that kind of seismic reading from high explosives." [Gertiz, Bill, [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061009-115158-2477r.htm U.S. doubts Korean test was nuclear] , "Washington Times", October 10, 2006] The "Wall Street Journal" explains that this blast was equivalent to the explosive force of about $100,000 worth of ammonium nitrate.cite news | url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116070423640191496.html?mod=opinion | title=Commentary - Parody Physics Package? | author=Seitz, Russel | date=13 October 2006 | publisher=Wall Street Journal | accessdate=2006-10-13] International experts have said that it will take some time to confirm whether it was a successful nuclear test, as North Korea claimed, or an unsuccessful one, or perhaps not even a nuclear test at all. [cite web|url=http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2006/October/theworld_October303.xml&section=theworld|title=Success, failure or bluff? Scientists pore over data|accessdate=2006-10-09]

By comparison, the first plutonium-core nuclear device tested by the United States (Trinity test) had a yield of 20 kilotons of TNT, and the first nuclear device detonated by India in 1974, though of primitive design, had a yield in the region of 12 kilotons of TNT. If the North Korean nuclear test is less than even a kiloton in yield, it would be a historically small inaugural nuclear test. Even if it were as many as the reported intentional yield of 4 kt it would be the smallest nuclear test ever conducted by a state as a first test. While some advanced nuclear powers have developed very small tactical nuclear weapons which are in the low-kiloton range, these are generally regarded as being far more technologically challenging than developing weapons in the 15-20 kiloton range, requiring advanced weapons materials and core geometries.For general reference on the history of nuclear weapons and on general parameters of nuclear weapons design, see, for example, Carey Sublette's [http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/ Nuclear Weapon Archive] (esp. the Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions section). For detailed information, see Chuck Hansen, " [http://www.uscoldwar.com/ The Swords of Armageddon: US nuclear weapons development since 1945] " (Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea Publications, 1995).]

If the North Korean device has fallen significantly short of its predicted yield, it could be classified as a "fizzle," indicating that some aspect of the nuclear weapon design or material production did not function correctly. In a fizzle the warhead blows itself apart too fast for the nuclear reactions to generate a large amount of energy, or fails to form a supercritical mass for some other reason. This can indicate poor containment, design, or material quality, but not necessarily the lack of ability to correct the flaw.

In plutonium-based weapons a fizzle can result from predetonation, insufficient precision in the explosive lenses used to compress the plutonium core, or impurities in the plutonium itself, among other factors. A fizzle can also result from the use of reactor grade plutonium rather than weapons grade material. [Reactor-Grade and Weapons-Grade Plutonium in Nuclear Explosives [http://www.ccnr.org/plute.html] ]

On October 13, 2006, CNN reported that two U.S. government officials with access to classified information stated that the initial air sampling over North Korea shows no indication of radioactive debris from the event that North Korea says was an underground nuclear test. Some hours later, the report was reversed and stated there was evidence of radiation, though not enough data has been collected yet to be conclusive. The newspaper Hankyoreh reported an unnamed North Korean diplomat had acknowledged that the actual yield was smaller than expected. [cnn.com, [http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/11/korea.nuclear.test/index.html U.S. official: 'Something went wrong' on blast] ]

On October 14 2006, the United States government reported that a test had found radioactive gas compatible with a nuclear explosion.

The office of John Negroponte, the US National Intelligence Director confirmed that the size of the explosion was less than 1 kiloton. [cite web | url=http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/37C567C3-7C0A-4454-92DA-8B6B961637FA.htm | title=US confirms N Korea nuclear test | accessdate=2006-10-17]

Test site location

According to initial reports from South Korean government sources, the test was carried out at a mountain in Musadan-ri in Hwadae-kun, near the city of Kilchu, in North Hamgyŏng province on the northeast coast. [cite web | url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/n-koreas-nuclear-test-happiness/2006/10/09/1160246048496.html | title=N Korea's nuclear test backlash| accessdate=2006-10-09] However, later reports from the state National Intelligence Service identified the site as being a place in Sangpyong-ri, about 15 km from the coastal city of Kimchaek and about 50 km west of Musadan-ri. [cite web | url=http://home.kyodo.co.jp/modules/fstStory/index.php?storyid=275873 | title=North Korean nuclear test site | accessdate=2006-10-09]

The Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources reported seismic waves measuring 3.58 on the Richter scale. The United States Geological Survey reported that a seismic event occurred at 01:35:27 UTC (10:35:27 a.m. local time, UTC+9) on October 9, 2006 and measured 4.2 on the Richter scale. It occurred at the geographic coordinates coord|41|17|38.4|N|129|08|2.4|E|region:KP-HAB_type:landmark with a horizontal location uncertainty of ±9.6 km (6.0 miles). This is 73 km (45 miles) north of Kimchaek, 90 km (55 miles) southwest of Chongjin, 180 km (112 miles) south of Yanji, and 385 km (240 miles) northeast of Pyongyang. [cite web | url=http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/ustqab.php | title=Magnitude 4.2 - NORTH KOREA | accessdate=2006-10-09]

Possible further testing

October 11 false alarm

A suspected second North Korean nuclear test was reported by the Japanese broadcaster NHK the next day on October 11, 2006. While the Japanese government confirmed there was a tremor, it claimed no knowledge of whether it was due to a nuclear test. [ [http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-10-10T234209Z_01_TKV002588_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOREA-NORTH-NUCLEAR-TEST.xml&src=rss&rpc=22 "N.Korea may have conducted another nuclear test: NHK,"] Reuters, 11 Oct. 2006] [ [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15213850/ "N. Korea may have done 2nd nuke test"] , MSNBC, 11 Oct. 2006.] The second tremor was a magnitude 5.8, which is larger than the earthquake caused by the first possible nuclear explosion. [ [http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Story.aspx?guid=4cfc9044-9c9d-4f4f-ba48-46a003078016&siteid=mktw&dist=MorePulse "Japan reports magnitude-6.0 earthquake"] , "Associated Press, October 11, 2006] United States and South Korean sources stated it was unlikely the event was due to a nuclear test. [ [http://www.news1130.com/news/international/article.jsp?content=w101087A "U.S., South Korean, monitors deny Japan report North Korea conducted 2nd test"] , "Associated Press", October 11, 2006] The earthquake did not occur in North Korea but east of Japan in a seismically-active area of the Pacific. [ [http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_trb2_l.html "Magnitude 5.8 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 23:58:07 UTC"] , "United States Geological Survey", October 11, 2006]

Evidence of second test preparation

On October 16, 2006, U.S. spy satellites detected vehicles and people near the site of North Korea's initial nuclear test. U.S. officials said they could not be certain of what the North Koreans were doing in the area, but the activity could be preparations for a second nuclear blast, NBC and ABC said. [cite web|url=http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-10-17T005702Z_01_N14268552_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOREA-NORTH.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-4|title=Activity at NKorea Test Site|accessdate=2006-10-16]

On October 18, 2006, U.S. officials say North Korea's military has informed the People's Republic of China it intends to carry out a series of underground nuclear tests, NBC News reported. [cite web|url=http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-10-18T072351Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-272719-1.xml|title=NKorea to China: NK will conduct more nuclear tests|accessdate=2006-10-18] The Associated Press, citing CNN Television, reports that the North Koreans have informed the People's Republic of China that they are prepared to make "as many as three additional tests." [cite web|url=http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/18/D8KR5TG00.html|title= N. Korea informs China of plan to conduct 3 more nuke tests: CNN+|accessdate=2006-10-18] No further tests occurred in 2006, however.

International reaction

International condemnation of the tests by governments has been nearly unanimous, including from North Korea's close ally and benefactor, [cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-10-03-north-korea-nuclear_x.htm|title=North Korea's neighbors caution it not to conduct nuclear test|accessdate=2006-10-10] the People's Republic of China. All five veto-wielding permanent members of the United Nations Security Council condemned the nuclear test. On October 10, however, South Korean Prime Minister Han Myung-Sook told Parliament that South Korea will not support any United Nations resolution containing military measures against North Korea in retaliation for its nuclear test. [cite web|url=http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/234718/1/.html|title=South Korea opposes any UN military measures against North|accessdate=2006-10-10] The People's Republic of China and Russia have also ruled out "military measures" against North Korea. The Japanese government also deemed the nuclear test "totally unforgivable."

Economic impact

Negative economic effects were seen throughout the region after the test. South Korea's KOSPI index fell 2.4% to 1319.4, [cite web | url=http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B8416EB92-BEF2-4D62-A9C7-C886F283F75A%7D&siteid= | title=Seoul stocks tumble after North Korea confirms nuke test| accessdate=2006-10-09] forcing the Korea Exchange to suspend trading for five minutes upon receiving the news. [cite web | url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7c9f359a-5744-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html | title=N Korea says conducted nuclear test| accessdate=2006-10-09] The Japanese and Taiwanese stock exchanges were closed for a market holiday on the day of the test. [cite web | url=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602063&sid=a3VyBF9OeQ4Y&refer=movers_by_index | title=Market impact | accessdate=2006-10-09] The Japanese yen also fell to a seven-month low against the United States dollar while oil on the world market rose above US$60 a barrel. [cite web | url=http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/848142 | title=Nth Korea says nuclear test conducted | accessdate=2006-10-09] Gold prices rose 1% as a safe haven investment. [cite web | url=http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/markets.aspx?ID=BD4A286371 | title=Gold prices rise 1% | accessdate=2006-10-09] Several stock markets in Asia from Singapore to Manila have traded lower possibly due to the tests. [cite web| url=http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/234563/1/.html | title= Asian stocks tumble on North Korean nuclear test announcement | accessdate=2006-10-09] American stock markets were mixed, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average down at its open the next day; however, at 10:30 a.m. EDT, the Dow rebounded and concluded the day with an increase of 7.60 points (+0.06%). [cite web| url=http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EDJI|title=Current Dow Jones Industrial Average trading|accessdate=2006-10-09] . NSE and BSE of India, however, showed some strength.

United Nations' response

On October 14, 2006, the UN Security Council unanimously approved limited military and economic sanctions against North Korea. All five permanent members stated that the sanctions, set out in UNSC Resolution 1718, were intended to penalize the country's regime, not inhabitants. They also stated that if North Korea were willing to cooperate and complied with all the measures contained in the resolution, the sanctions would be lifted. The U.S. compromised on its initial desire to block all imports of military equipment, and to have an unlimited reference to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter so providing a legal justification for future military action, in order to gain full support for the resolution. [cite journal|journal=Arms Control Today|url=http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_11/NKTest.asp|title=North Korean Test Provokes Widespread Condemnation|month=November | year=2006|accessdate=2006-11-05]

See also

Related topics

* North Korea and weapons of mass destruction
* Six-party talks (2003 - ?)
* North Korean-American relations
* Agreed Framework between the US and the DPRK (1994)
* Japan-Korea relations#Japan-North Korea
* Japan-North Korea Pyongyang Declaration (2002)
* Milestone nuclear explosions
* 2006 North Korean missile test
* United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718

Wikinews story chronology

;2005
* February 10:
* February 19:
* May 11:
* June 23:
* September 19:

;2006
* August 18:
* October 3:
* October 9:

References

External links

* [http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_11/ Feature: North Korean Nuclear Test] , Arms Control Today, November 2006
* [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8853.doc.htm UN-Resolution 1718 full text]
* [http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2006/ustqab/ USGS Earthquake Details]
* [http://www.iris.edu/news/special.htm Seismic data from Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology]
* [http://freekorea.us/2008/01/27/satellite-images-of-north-koreas-nuclear-facilities/ North Korea's nuclear facilities by Google Earth] , including the site of the October 2006 test
* [http://maps.google.com/maps?q=41.2943+129.1342(M4.2%20-%20NORTH%20KOREA%20-%202006%20October%209%20%2001:35:27%20UTC)&ll=41.2943,129.1342&spn=2,2&f=d&t=h&hl=e Position (according to USGS) at Google Maps]
* [http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet_media.asp?fsID=1920 Military history of the Chik-Tong area]
* [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2395977,00.html Newspaper article on reasons for conducting test]
* [http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42178000/gif/_42178765_n_korea_test_inf416.gifSatellite Picture of test site on BBC News website]
* [http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test/ CNN report on nuclear test]