Sure - but the content and intent of the article is clearly about understanding the geographic conditions that lead to sustained seismic activity, when that's not what our models currently predict.

And it's hardly like we're "super concerned about the tests because of the test itself" here... given we've triggered nearly 1000 underground nuclear blasts in the US alone, across several states (at least 6).

So... yeah - a relatively unstable state gaining nuclear capabilities sucks, but the interesting part of the discussion in the article is why we're seeing activity years after the testing.