North Korea claims H-bomb test: Is that worse than an atomic bomb?

While hydrogen bombs are more powerful, they are also that much more difficult to create.

Kyodo News/Reuters
People watch a huge screen broadcasting the government's announcement in Pyongyang, North Korea, in this photo released by Kyodo January 6, 2016. North Korea said it successfully tested a miniaturised hydrogen nuclear bomb on Wednesday, claiming a significant advance in its strike capability and setting off alarm bells in Japan and South Korea.

If North Korea successfully detonated a hydrogen bomb, as state-run news agencies claimed Wednesday, it signifies a significant advancement in the nation's nuclear capabilities.

But why?

A hydrogen bomb, also called a thermonuclear bomb, packs a one-two punch with nearly simultaneous twin explosions, and employs a nuclear fusion reaction for most of its destructive power. This makes it potentially hundreds or even a thousand times more explosive than an atomic bomb.

While H-bombs pose a greater threat, they are also that much more difficult to create.

To initiate the process of nuclear fusion, thermonuclear bombs rely on a two-stage design. In the first stage, conventional high explosives trigger a nuclear fission reaction. The atomic energy released by the first stage initiates a fusion reaction on nearby hydrogen isotopes, creating helium, which, in a chain reaction, triggers nuclear fusion in a second stage usually composed of isotopes of hydrogen or lithium. The results can be extremely destructive.

Like an atomic bomb, hydrogen bombs are measured in megatons of TNT. As powerful as H-bombs are, they also can come in much smaller packages. Most H-bombs can be built compactly enough to be carried by an artillery shell or missile, PBS reports, and are the basis for most nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the US, Russia, France, and other Non-Proliferation Treaty nations.

The three bombs North Korea has tested since 2006 and up to this point have been less sophisticated plutonium-based atomic weapons, say observers. Such weapons were similar to the atomic bombs dropped by US forces on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 that killed more than 200,000 people, and effectively forced an end to World War II. The US first conducted tests of hydrogen bombs in the early 1950s. 

If North Korea has tested a thermonuclear weapon, it suggests that Kim Jong-Un has a significant addition to his nuclear arsenal.

A few weeks ago, Mr. Kim reportedly declared the country is now "a powerful nuclear weapons state ready to detonate [an] A-bomb and H-bomb to reliably defend its sovereignty and the dignity of the nation,” according to North Korean state-run KCNA news agency.

That assertion – met with global skepticism – may carry more weight following the seismic activity and reports coming from North Korea Wednesday morning: the North’s announcement that it had successfully detonated an H-bomb came an hour after seismic devices picked up a magnitude 5.1 event east-northeast of Sungjibaegam, according to the United States Geological Survey.

Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, Calif., told the Washington Post that Wednesday’s explosion was similar to past tests and was not enormous, suggesting it was not a hydrogen bomb. South Korean lawmakers told local reporters that the explosion had a yield of about six kilotons — making it about the same size as North Korea’s 2013 atomic test.

It could take weeks, or perhaps longer, for US officials to ascertain what kind of tests Kim deployed, according to The New York Times. Ned Price, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said in a statement that American officials “cannot confirm these claims at this time.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.