North Korean nuclear test sets off years of earthquakes
A report that North Korea’s 2017 nuclear test appears to have triggered years of small earthquakes near the site prompts debate over whether such human-induced seismicity can safely “relieve pressure” or instead destabilizes faults in unpredictable ways. Commenters connect this to other forms of induced quakes from fracking and mining, the history and ethics of nuclear weapons use from Hiroshima to modern deterrence, and the geopolitical incentives that drive smaller states to seek nuclear arsenals despite environmental and safety risks.
Accessing the article / archive issues
- Some readers hit endless CAPTCHAs on the article and common mirrors (archive.ph / archive.is).
- Others report success when blocking JavaScript on archive.* domains.
- One commenter links Wikipedia criticism of archive.today’s practices.
Nuclear geoengineering and fault “management”
- Several comments riff on using nukes to trigger or relieve faults, referencing historic nuclear engineering schemes and alleged “tectonic weapons.”
- Main practical objections:
- Faults span huge areas; hard to target effectively.
- Enormous legal, political, and insurance liability if a man‑made quake causes damage.
- Public authorities are more willing to “do nothing and blame nature” than defend intentional risk.
Earthquake physics, energy, and risk
- Debate on whether many small quakes are “good” because they release energy that might otherwise fuel a large one.
- Some argue small events could be beneficial if they genuinely lower stored strain.
- Others note magnitude is logarithmic; thousands of M2–3 events barely equal a single strong quake, and most natural systems release energy mainly in large events anyway.
- Multiple commenters stress that crustal systems are complex; artificial triggering could just transfer stress and increase risk elsewhere.
- One points out most cataloged post‑test events are tiny (<M2), comparable to small explosions.
Safety of the Korean Peninsula
- Commenters note Korea has always had earthquakes, though typically weaker than Japan’s.
- The region is part of a volcanically and tectonically active Pacific zone, so not “geologically safe” in an absolute sense.
Comparisons to other human-induced quakes
- Several draw parallels to fracking, oil and gas extraction, deep mining, and groundwater withdrawal causing seismicity in places like Oklahoma, California, South Africa, and the Netherlands.
- Some lament that similar concern is not directed at fossil‑fuel‑related seismicity.
Nuclear weapons ethics and proliferation
- Long subthread debates the morality and necessity of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
- One side: bombs shortened the war, averted a catastrophic invasion and blockade, and were consistent with ongoing firebombing.
- Other side: Japan was exploring diplomatic options; nuclear attacks on cities were not the only way to end the war.
- Separate debate on whether nuclear proliferation (e.g., North Korea, Iran, more small states) enhances deterrence and safety or increases the risk of catastrophic decisions by “crazy” leaders.
Critiques of the article and framing
- Some criticize the headline as sensational, claiming the study does not prove strong causation and that most quakes are tiny and unfelt.
- Others are more interested in the unusual long delay between the test and the extended seismicity, and how researchers distinguish it from background activity.