How to Spot Clandestine Nuclear Bomb Tests

Illicit detonations are anything but secret

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

In September 2017 North Korea tested its largest nuclear bomb yet. It was 10 times the blast strength of any of the five previous underground detonations (map). How do we know? A global network of more than 300 earthquake-monitoring stations stands sentry. After an explosion, seismometers pick up two types of shock waves within minutes and alert intelligence officers. Scientists learn even more afterward. Since the last blast, they have combined the seismic signals with satellite images and other data to pinpoint more details, recently published, such as the precise location and bomb size (chart). Should North Korea—or any other nation—try another bomb, the world will know.

Credit: Katie Peek; Sources:“The Coupled Location/Depth/Yield Problem for North Korea’s Declared Nuclear Tests,” by Michael E. Pasyanos and Stephen C. Myers, in *Seismological Research Letters*. Published online August 8, 2018 (*bomb sizes and blast depths*); “Absolute Locations of the North Korean Nuclear Tests Based on Differential Seismic Arrival Times and Insar,” by Stephen C. Myers et al., in *Seismological Research Letters*. Published online August 15, 2018 (*test locations*); www.Norsar.No (seismograms); “The Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site: A Test Tunnel Tutorial,” 38 North, May 23, 2018 www.38north.Org/2018/05/Punggyetunnel052318 (*tunnel locations*); U.S. Geological Survey (*earthquake magnitudes*)

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American