<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"><title>HotAir</title><link>https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/02/13/why-its-so-hard-to-tell-if-north-korea-used-a-plutonium-or-much-scarier-uraniam-bomb/feed/</link><description>HotAir is the leading conservative blog for breaking news and commentary covering the Biden administration, politics, media, culture, and current elections.</description><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 06:16:21 -0400</lastBuildDate><item><title>Why it's so hard to tell if North Korea used a plutonium or (much scarier) uraniam bomb</title><description>&lt;![CDATA[There are a couple of possible clues, but at this point that’s all they are. North Korean state media bragged that Pyongyang’s nuclear deterrence is now “diversified,” which might hint that it started using uranium. On the other hand, state media also claimed that North Korea had “miniaturized” its warhead, which would make it more suitable for use in a bomb or even a missile; Reuters reported that plutonium is the better-suited material for this purpose. Although when I asked Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear proliferation expert who specializes in East Asia, whether or not this was accurate, he responded, “No, that seems to be speculation. Good news is the author has a 50/50 chance of being right.”]]&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:20:41 -0500</pubDate><creator xmlns="dc">&lt;![CDATA[Erika Johnsen]]&gt;</creator><enclosure url="" type="image/jpeg" length="123" /><link>https://hotair.com/headlines/2013/02/13/why-its-so-hard-to-tell-if-north-korea-used-a-plutonium-or-much-scarier-uraniam-bomb-n100105</link></item></channel></rss>