posted
They now have one less nuke. Makes me feel safer, knowing they're depleting their destructive capability doing Quality Control.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
you'ld think even 1 nuke going off somewhere and doing ANY kind of damage would be 1 too much.
IP: Logged |
posted
It's like the area code rule but with nuke tests. If it didn't happen on an adjacent continent, it didn't happen.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They probably don't enough U-235 for multiple warheads. How many do they have, 4, 5, certainly not enough to trigger Armegeddon, but enough to ensure there will be a new sea where North Korea used to be.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Iraq: Handed over to terrorists, more or less. North Korea: Nuclear Power, more or less. Iran: Successfully pursuing nuclear power, more or less.
So much for the theory that the Bush Doctrine makes us safer...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
It is not the point of the Bush Doctrine to make you safer but to make the American public more fearful of the outside world to put more and more executive power in their hands and allow the military industrial complex to profit off it and to allow an enitre slew of conglogmorates to profit off of peoples fear.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: It is not the point of the Bush Doctrine to make you safer but to make the American public more fearful of the outside world to put more and more executive power in their hands and allow the military industrial complex to profit off it and to allow an enitre slew of conglogmorates to profit off of peoples fear.
As long as it keeps working, I think they should keep doing it. People are only going to realize how wrong and stupid his method of leadership is when it touches on something sacrosanct to them.
Apparently, for many/most Republicans, that hasn't happened yet, so I think he needs to keep doing it until they realize the error of their ways, and as a nation we can return to rational sanity. The rest of the world will have to bear with us.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt it was a quake. According to Reuters, the North Koreans warned the Chinese about 20 minutes beforehand that a test would occur within minutes. The Chinese told the US, and the US told the South Koreans and Japanese.
Also, the Australians have verified the seismic data. I wonder if US satellites picked up X-ray or Gamma ray blast signatures? That might remain classified. This surprises and scares me, from globalsecurity.org :
quote: Although Mr. Hodson says sensors [on satellites] rarely record signals from nuclear explosions in space, they provide a deterrent, by making it difficult for countries that are testing nuclear weapons above the Earth to deny it.
Rarely? It implies that countries are or have in the past tested nuclear weapons in space, something that's alarming news to me. I've expected the militarization of space for a long time, but I've never heard of a nuclear test in space before. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it just means satellites orbiting earth detect blasts on earth, not blasts that occur in space. Although the wording is a bit confusing there.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty happy if they want to limit their testing to space. Really, apart from satellites, what's up there that we care about? Are they going to irradiate the moon?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The White House and the USGS have now confirmed there was a "seismic event" of magnitude 4.2 in North Korea on 2006 October 9 01:35:27 UTC (9:35 EST).
No offical confirmation from non-North Korean sources that it was a nuclear explosion.
posted
That seems to be about all Americans are capable of doing these days, pixie. (I get disgusted and turn off the TV for the same reason)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: globalsecurity.org :
quote: Although Mr. Hodson says sensors [on satellites] rarely record signals from nuclear explosions in space, they provide a deterrent, by making it difficult for countries that are testing nuclear weapons above the Earth to deny it.
Rarely? It implies that countries are or have in the past tested nuclear weapons in space, something that's alarming news to me. I've expected the militarization of space for a long time, but I've never heard of a nuclear test in space before.
It's a very poorly written sentence. The testing of bombs is only of Earth and the satelites detect the testing. I believe that there is an International Treaty against the use of nuclear weapons in space. Not that would disuade NK. I don't know how safe a space test would be, but my gut tells me that it would be more dangerous. Also would be too expensive. Why send a nuclear payload into space whem you can dig a whole and better measure the force of the explosion. Plus, I don't think that NK has the capability to launch into space.
As a side note, I read some time back that countries are considering moving away from physical tests and towards testing the bombs in the computer. Apparently, with nuclear weapons most of the hard work is in the math.
This is a long term failure of the UN and the international community, especially China. As scary as this is, the bigger nightmare will occur when Iran tests its weapon. Maybe China and Russia will now wake up to the threat of proliferation and begin to take snctions seriously.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
NK is plenty scarey to those of us living on the west coast. I'm sure it's even scarier for the Japanese. Maybe the rest of the world can get China's blessing to do something about it now...
FG: I don't watch TV news anymore. And the comedy shows are even more nauseating. Seems they all savour bad news for America and the world simply because it looks bad on Bush.
posted
Mig, It's really not a matter of Russia "waking up to the threat" the official Russian government I'm sure takes it quite seriously, but in a set of nation-states wrought with economic troubles and with nuclear warheads a dime a dozen corruption is the issue.
Corruption, and the lack of complete understanding of the destructive capability of nukes to the common man. Much as nukes scare the heck out of me, I'm sure I don't fully appreciate their power, yet think about a poorly educated peasant in Kazakstan... they're not going to know much other than some Iranian is willing to pay him a few years wages for this big metal thing that his cousin smuggled out of one of the military bases.
As for China, I think the same largely applies, that most nuclear weapons trading is primarily through the black market and corrupt officials. (though I admit I could be rather wrong).
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the bright side for us, and Japan, this gives Bush all the leverage he needs to pepper Japan with Anti ICBM missiles and radar screens. Which really only hurts China in the end, it gives us one more line of defense should the crazy day ever come where China is looking to nuke us, even worse so for them, because the best place to shoot them down is the boost phase, which we certainly can't hit from California.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Half of me supports a strong push to modernize Japan's military, as they have shown themselves to be a very rational player in the international scene and they are the 2nd largest economy in the world. But the other half makes me wonder if that won't make North Korea more ansey and therefore more active in what its doing.
But then again, I do think creating a strong defense for Japan does not mean giving them tons of weapons with offensive capabilities.
I am not very aware of the specifics in China nuclear proliferation. There might be corrupt officials leaking technology there might not be. Its certainly a possibility, and the Chinese are not famouse for thinking of the long term ramifications of their actions. But then again, neither is the US.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Wow.. I expected a serious thread on this.. instead it's full of partisan snickering...
Your partisan snickering is my ironic political commentary. I would say that the past and current actions of the American government have a fair amount of predictive power.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Except peppering Japan with offencive/defencive capabilities pisses of the 2 Koreas, the Philipines, Indonesiea, Vietnam, etc etc. You really haven't been paying attention to the news media have you? South Korea being the loudest and most active in its condemnation.
IP: Logged |
posted
The US is under a legal duty to protect Japan, and if that means placing a blistering array of anti ICMB batteries all over the Home Islands, then so be it. I'd think you'd fully support their defensive arming Blayne. They have the right, especially with hostile nuclear neighbors.
As for the partisan snickering, I call it partisan bitterness. Everything we've been promised over the last six years about confronting looming threats and making us safer has been wrong, and large numbers of the party NOT in power tried to warn everyone about it, and were ignored and flatly called traitors and unpatriotic, so we're bitter, and we counsel ourselves by making snarky jokes, rather than be furiously pissed off.
What's wrong with nuke? Isn't it a common usage word that means either A. to heat up (as in a Microwave) or B. The verb form of nuclear, to nuke, to use a nuclear device?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Except peppering Japan with offencive/defencive capabilities pisses of the 2 Koreas, the Philipines, Indonesiea, Vietnam, etc etc. You really haven't been paying attention to the news media have you? South Korea being the loudest and most active in its condemnation.
Blayne Blayne Blayne....I am VERY well aware of the ill feelings carried for the Japanese in both Koreas, China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, etc.
I was simply MORE worried (at the time of posting) about NK's reaction to Japan modernizing again. China is already modernizing its military for GOD KNOWS WHAT REASON, certainly not to stave off Japanese aggression.
Remember I did say, "Half of me..." That USUALLY indicates an uncertainty that an action is the right one.
Ill try not to think out loud in the future you seem to mistake it for stupidity.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MC: And you think NK wouldn't have worked on nukes if anyone else had been president?
Giving Kim Jong Il a hug would not stop him from building nukes. Nothing short of invasion would have done that.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: MC: And you think NK wouldn't have worked on nukes if anyone else had been president?
Giving Kim Jong Il a hug would not stop him from building nukes. Nothing short of invasion would have done that.
I wanted to say this but forgot to. I do not see why Iran, or North Korea would have done anything different then they already have had anybody been president. Well maybe if Chuck Norris had been elected but America becoming an Ultra Power under his administration goes without saying.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Oh, I don't think kowtowing to Jong would do anything constructive, but with the mess we are in in Iraq, and the problems we have with the rest of the world community, all we have left to threaten Jong with is a big hug.
And much of that was not due to our invasion of Iraq, but due to our total incompetance and lack of planning for the aftermath of said invasion--which I do place on President Bush's doorstep.
Further, he has been less than constructive in building a world community or our place with in it, meaning that allies and friends who would trust us, help us, or at least not hinder us, are fewer and fewer. (His early decision to back out of the Isreali/Palestinean peace process is just one of his almost isolationist mistakes)
Jong has a paranoia of the US. Right now he sees the US as weak, full of enemies, and an impotent giant. What better time to stretch your wings and fly.
Would Gore/Kerry or anyone have done better? I do not know. What I do believe is that President Bush has done not well.
Do I blame him for NK's nuclear tests? No. Compared to Jong, President Bush is a saint if not more.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Oh, I don't think kowtowing to Jong would do anything constructive, but with the mess we are in in Iraq, and the problems we have with the rest of the world community, all we have left to threaten Jong with is a big hug.
And much of that was not due to our invasion of Iraq, but due to our total incompetance and lack of planning for the aftermath of said invasion--which I do place on President Bush's doorstep.
Further, he has been less than constructive in building a world community or our place with in it, meaning that allies and friends who would trust us, help us, or at least not hinder us, are fewer and fewer. (His early decision to back out of the Isreali/Palestinean peace process is just one of his almost isolationist mistakes)
Jong has a paranoia of the US. Right now he sees the US as weak, full of enemies, and an impotent giant. What better time to stretch your wings and fly.
Would Gore/Kerry or anyone have done better? I do not know. What I do believe is that President Bush has done not well.
Do I blame him for NK's nuclear tests? No. Compared to Jong, President Bush is a saint if not more.
I think I agree with everything you just said Dan, even your speculations sound very plausible.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What's wrong with nuke? Isn't it a common usage word that means either A. to heat up (as in a Microwave) or B. The verb form of nuclear, to nuke, to use a nuclear device?
How hard is it to say "nuclear"? Saying "nuke" makes it sound cute, like "nuke 'em" which has got to be another one of the dumbest phrases ever, and it's just too casual and annoying to be used. Carb also annoys me as well.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: When clinton was in power all he did was throw money (and nuclear technology!!!) at them. If the dems had been in power NK would probably had nukes even sooner.
(They already have plenty of Carbs.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OMG, when will the flogging of Clinton for current problems cease?
Scott Galindez makes the point that every nuclear power is violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, at least Article VI:
quote: Article VI Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100906A.shtml Since the breakup of the USSR, has there been any reduction of nuclear arms by anybody that wasn't already agreed to in previous treaties? Have there even been serious arms control talks that accomplished anything in this period?
The whole point of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is that in exchange for non-members in the nukes club agreeing to not seek those weapons, the current nations that did have them would seriously pursue nuclear disarmament limiting the number of weapons and (eventually, somewhere over the rainbow) complete nuclear disarmament would occur.
I think as much as anyone that NK having atomic weapons is a tragedy. But can you really blame them, or Iran, or the next country that will seek nuclear weapons, for ignoring or dropping out of the treaty when nothing has been done on the other side?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: How hard is it to say "nuclear"? Saying "nuke" makes it sound cute, like "nuke 'em" which has got to be another one of the dumbest phrases ever, and it's just too casual and annoying to be used.
Pretty hard and silly. Just put your burrito in the microwave and nuclear it? During the Cold War, there was a constant fear that the Russians would nuclear us?
Next you'll want me to refer to Pearce as potenz hydrogen.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT makes the good point that there isn't a non-onerous verb replacement for "nuke" the closest equivalent would be something like "devastate through the use of a nuclear detonation" While I agree that the term has lost much of its potency, there's not really anything else to use in its place.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo: My point was, Clinton was soft on NK when he was in office so the dems have shown they don't have the backbone to deal with them. Regardless of what you think of the way Bush has (or has failed) to handle it.
And I'm sure once Bush is out of office (assuming a dem wins) we'll get to hear "It's Bush's fault" until the next republican gets into office.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont' see how it's Bush's fault. It's North Korea's fault for being stupid enough to build nuclear weapons when they've got the kind of poverty they've got. I don't even see the point in having nuclear weapons besides swaggering around saying, "We've got them." when using them would be so highly idiotic.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I dont' see how it's Bush's fault. It's North Korea's fault for being stupid enough to build nuclear weapons when they've got the kind of poverty they've got. I don't even see the point in having nuclear weapons besides swaggering around saying, "We've got them." when using them would be so highly idiotic.
It's leverage. A puny starving country looking for respect and food at the same time. They say "We'll stop if...." and the measure of our government's success is keeping the "...." as minimally helpful as we can so other nations don't go pulling this crap.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every time I look at this thread, I think of my band teacher in high school telling us stories about the crazy things they taught him in school during the Cuban missile crisis.
posted
What I think Bush could have done differently is treat NK with the same, if not more serious attention than he has Iraq.
What, if anything have we accomplished in Iraq? They never posed any threat except on a terrorist front, and I don't see how stirring up the hornet's nest in the region has done anything to keep terrorists at bay.
NK is a real, known threat. A crazy man leads a nuclear-equipped country, one that flaunts its capabilities rather than (correctly?) denying them, as Iraq did.
Part of the problem is the same old question, why are we in Iraq, what have we accomplished, and how can we get out without leaving the whole area worse than when we got there?
We've weakened our position from a military standpoint, and from the popular opinion of the leadership of the country, both at home and abroad, and NK seems happy to cause trouble while we're busy elsewhere.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't blame Bush for NK getting the bomb. I do however think he has vastly weakened our ability to do anything about it in the future.
Iran and North Korea are not at all afraid of an America that is politically and militarily bogged down in Iraq. North Korea basically called our bluff by testing that bomb. Kim Jong Il basically just sent Bush an email saying "Yeah? So what are you going to do about it?"
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't blame Bush for NK getting the bomb. I do however think he has vastly weakened our ability to do anything about it in the future.
This is the key point. NK is probably a non-rational actor so it really doesn't matter who is the president: NK is going to get the bomb no matter what.
The question is what kind of military resopnse are we capable of? The debacle in Iraq (and even Afghanistan) has greatly weakened our ability to conduct successful military operations against threats like NK or Iran.
And for that, I blame Bush.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
