I am cetainly not an expert on the subject, which is why I researched it and found this:
have had readers point out some counter arguments.
"Such an explosion he said, in an article for the London-based think tank, the Verification, Training and Information Center, would have been easily detectable by international or by regional monitoring in Iran, Israel or Jordan, which keep records of earthquakes.
None of them reported any seismic events of the magnitude necessary for a nuclear test in the region around Lake Rezazza, Wallace said."
Sounds case closed doesn't it? Until I found this:
"Wallace and his colleagues examined the global earthquake catalogues produced by the International Seismic Center and the US Geological Survey and say they reveal no seismic disturbances at all in Iraq that day. Moreover, they say there has been no seismicity within 50 km of the reported test site for the years 1980 to 1999. One problem with the assertion that no weapons testing took place, they point out, is that the detection threshold for these global catalogues was just magnitude 4.0 in 1989 so a smaller magnitude event may have not been picked up by the sensors."
Leone said it was 2.7 on the surface.
So people who are experts say that a less than 4.0 would not have been detected, and this is after Leone made the claim of a 2.7. What do you think about that, honestly, no sarc meant.
Even a big underground test like the 5MT Cannikin does not produce a huge earthquake (I believe that was a very localized reading of 6.5), it is the signature of the device that is very recognizable. An earthquake is sort of like shaking something, whereas a detonation shows up on seismographs more like a very sharp blow from a hammer. No lead up, a sharp peak that "rings" down to normal very fast.
I know some seismic guys that pinpointed the Russian sub Kursk's explosion underwater, which was non-nuclear, shortly after it happened.
For an extremely small device, it would almost be easier to hide a test above ground than under it.