Talk:North Korea and weapons of mass destruction

2017 bomb test

The article currently says: "In September 2017 the country announced a further "perfect" hydrogen bomb test. The same uncertainty as to the type of weapon tested applies, as it did to the 2016 test." There is no citation for this, and no more information in the body of the lead nor the article on the test. It doesn't really make sense because the 2017 test was estimated as having a 250 kiloton yield and the 2016 test only 6-10. This states that the 2017 test leaves "less room for doubt". I will remove the second sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Flower of Reunification

I've removed this from "Nuclear weapons: Overview":

During the 13th World Festival of Youth and Students, which was held in North Korea in 1989, South Korean activist and "Flower of Reunification" Lim Su-kyung implied that North Korea should not seek nuclear weapons, saying: "The slogan 'Let us build a new world free from nuclear weapons!' will not be materialized by words alone. I'd like you to resolutely struggle against the anti-reunification forces, and give us support and encouragement. I, too, want to live in a country free from nuclear weapons; in my own land, and not infested with foreign forces and foreign army troops."

This has been tagged for the reliability of the source since April last year. I don't know about that, but Lim is a South Korean, and her comments were directed against the American forces in the South. I don't think this is very relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

References

North Korean nuclear capabilities, 2018

Latest updates for 2018 at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2017.1413062?src=recsys for use in updating this wiki as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.246.254.12 (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

correcting an editor's blunder ...

" There is little of strategic value in Alaska that a North Korean missile could hit ... BlackMarlin (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC) " - hmmm, two airbases with 6,000 personnel at each base, three major army bases, SEAFAC ... 50.111.48.95 (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Alaska has some obvious strategic value. No source was presented for this claim and it never made it into the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)