That's weird. The only way I see this "If North Korea . . ." post is when I'm looking at your immediately preceding post. It does not show up at all on this, or any other thread, when I'm looking at the main page. Anybody else experience that?

Anyhoo, I'm pretty sure that the U.S. is much more likely to receive the first seismological evidence of a Korean underground nuclear test than is Japan. Or at least, to determine it to be such. Simply because the U.S. invested very heavily in seismic networks designed specifically to detect and locate underground tests during the Cold War, and developed the methodology and expertise for interpreting the seismic evidence. Japanese, and, particularly, South Korean, instruments would register anything other than a very small yield test, but the resulting data, I think, would be instantly available to seismologists everywhere. Also, as regards your second question, I would be amazed if the U.S. had not installed non-civilian instruments, on the seabed or in Japan or South Korea, for the purpose of monitoring N. Korean testing. Some instrumentation may still be in place from efforts to monitor Chinese testing. Russian testing all took place well away from Russia's east coast, and I don't think instruments designed for monitoring those would be of much use.

One interesting subject, to be pursued at another time perhaps, is that the science of seismology has been assisted enormously by two non-pure science applications. Oil exploration and nuclear test monitoring.

Michael F. Williams
Arroyo Grande, CA USA