Maharashtra Times - Aftermath of North Korea's Nuclear Test

Published in Maharashtra Times, January 17, 2016

Available at http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31835&articlexml=17012016014007

Source: Egyptian Streets Website

I wrote an op-ed article in Maharashtra Times on the recent (Jan 6, 2016) North Korean nuclear test. The article analysed the whether the North Korean claim that they had tested a thermonuclear weapon was plausible. It also discussed North Korean and Pakistani nuclear and missile linkages and its implications for India. 

To read the complete article click here

Share:

Read more

North Korea’s 2016 Nuclear Test: An Analysis

Authors: Arun Vishwanathan, S. Chandrashekar, L.V. Krishnan and Lalitha Sundaresan

Published as ISSSP Report 01-2016, January 10, 2015 

---

On January 6, 2016, two days short of Kim JongUn’s birthday, the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK) conducted its fourth nuclear test. The test took place at 10:30 AM Local Time (01:30:00 UTC). An analysis of the seismic data from the test, clearly points to the fact that the earthquake (with a magnitude of 4.85 on the Richter scale) was the result of a nuclear test and not due to a natural earthquake. North Korea released a statement following the test which claimed that it had conducted a nuclear test and had exploded its first H-bomb.

North Korea has conducted four nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 2013 and 2016. the first test in October 2006 with a yield of ~1kT was a fizzle. This was followed by the second test in May 2009. Though there are differences over the exact yield of the test with estimates ranging from 2.4 kT to 5 kT it is considered to be a success. The third test in February 2013 had a yield around 10 kT.

To read the complete report click here

To cite: Arun Vishwanathan, S. Chandrashekar, L.V. Krishnan and Lalitha Sundaresan. North Korea’s 2016 Nuclear Test: An Analysis. ISSSP Report No. 1-2016. Bangalore: International Strategic and Security Studies Programme, National Institute of Advanced Studies, January 10, 2016 available athttp://isssp.in/north-koreas-2016-nuclear-test-an-analysis/

Share:

Read more

IPCS Special Commentary: Carnegie 2013 Nuclear Policy Conference

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi has published my article on the important debates at the 2013 Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference, Washington DC, April 8-9, 2013 as a Special Commentary

Copyright: Carnegie Endowment Website

In the midst of the ‘proliferation’ of cherry blossoms in Washington DC, the 2013 Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference was held at the Ronald Reagan Building on April 8 and 9, 2013. The fifteenth annual international nuclear conference organised by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) witnessed attendance by over 800 government officials, experts and students from 46 countries.  

The following paragraphs are an attempt to flag the important issues (in no particular order) which were discussed at the Conference. In a welcome change, the conference, rather than focussing solely on much discussed issues like Iran and North Korea, chose to centre the sessions on four main themes: deterrence, non-proliferation, disarmament and nuclear power/industry.  This being said, Iran, North Korea and - to a lesser degree - South Asia did figure prominently in the sessions, primarily regarding the efficacy of sanctions, the implications of regime-change on non-proliferation and the discussions on the FMCT.  

Share:

Read more

The “Nuts and Bolts" of North Korean disablement

Kim Jong-un (First post.com)

Disablement is a word that has crept into the language of the Six-Party talks since it was used by Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary. In the absence of a more acceptable term, disablement became something of a convenience. There is a general agreement that the current phase is a difficult one. As Christopher Hill put it, the Six-Party talks have reached a point where “they have not been before, beyond just shutting down the facilities.” In such situations of advanced and complex diplomatic negotiations, terminologies become quite important. This is a fact which negotiators to the Six-Party talks have come to realise of late. Christopher Hill pointed this out when he talked about the need to come up with common definitions, “so that we are satisfied when they say they are disabling, we know what they're doing and we agree that it's disablement.”

However, gloating over terminologies is not going to get us anywhere on dismantling North Korean facilities. The task before the international community is to effectively dismantle the North Korean facilities in a manner which allows verification and forensic activities. In August 2007 some ideas were also throw up at the meeting of the denuclearisation group at Shengyang. This was followed up by a five-day inspection of the Yongbyon facility by a team of American, Chinese and Russian experts conducted a five-day inspection in September 2007. However, the five-day inspections and other such future visits will enable experts to adapt the ideas thrown up to suit the actual equipment present in North Korean facilities.

Share:

Read more