Is there any reason to believe they actually tested an H Bomb? Wouldn't that be a pretty big leap from low-yield atom bombs? It seems like the only evidence it was thermonuclear is that the North Korean government said so, and they're not exactly reliable.
Meanwhile, CNN is proclaiming "N. KOREA TESTS H-BOMB" on their front page, which is a pretty far cry from them claiming to have tested one.
If Jeffrey Lewis says it's "definitely not a successful staged device" (meaning a fission primary and thermonuclear secondary) you can take that to the bank.
Depends, there is a tritium booster, essentially a little bit of tritium in the bomb improves the neutron economy. That could be called an H-Bomb, if we are not too pedantic.
If we were being pedantic we'd never use the term h-bomb - we'd be calling them thermonuclear weapons or Teller-Ulam devices if we're being really pedantic. Half the fusion fuel in a thermonuclear weapon starts out as lithium and half the energy comes from fast fusion neutrons fissioning the depleted uranium shell.
For comparison, here is the link to the recent quake off the BC coast. You don't need to be an expert to realize the differences between a bomb and a natural quake.
I had to pull out my AP stylebook since I couldn't find a copy online, but the colon does mean that in headlines -- along with a few other things. Best link I could find below.
Meanwhile, CNN is proclaiming "N. KOREA TESTS H-BOMB" on their front page, which is a pretty far cry from them claiming to have tested one.