This is topic Headline on CNN.com right now: "North Korea appears to have conducted a nuclear test" in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
[ October 08, 2006, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
At least we've got Iraq under control, so we can deal with this possible threat.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
rofl
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Holy crap. I just realized that Sadam was hiding the WMDs IN North Korea.
The madman!
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
They now have one less nuke. Makes me feel safer, knowing they're depleting their destructive capability doing Quality Control.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
you'ld think even 1 nuke going off somewhere and doing ANY kind of damage would be 1 too much.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
It's like the area code rule but with nuke tests. If it didn't happen on an adjacent continent, it didn't happen.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Progress Report on the Axis of Evil...
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...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Quiet down Blayne.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Hmm, and now MSNBC says USGS saw no geological anomalies. Maybe it was a little quake after all.
--j_k
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Convenient.....
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
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. Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
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.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
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.
[ October 09, 2006, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, put this test together with their "missile test" of earlier this year (which I think they aborted on purpose) and it is a scary scenario.
I'm glad that the Chinese are upset about this - they are the best ones to have a position to make N. Korea knock it off..
FG
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Wow.. I expected a serious thread on this.. instead it's full of partisan snickering...
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
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)
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
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.
Pix
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
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).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Arg. I hate the word "nuke" It's such a stupid word and it drives me insane.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Pixie, yes.
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Pixie, yes.
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:How hard is it to say "nuclear"?
Oh no, not that debate again. Nu-cley-er, nu-cue-lar, lets call the whole thing off.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
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.)
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
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?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
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.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
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.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Hmm. Nuclefy?
--j_k, who has not so fond memories of seeing nations get "carpetnuked" on NationStates
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
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.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
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.
-pH
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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?"
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote: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.
I don't think they are stupid. Consider the message that the Bush administration has sent the North Korean government in the past 6 years through our words and actions:
"Dear North Korea, we think you are evil, and we are going to preemptively invade all evildoers - unless they already have nuclear bombs, in which case we won't invade them and instead will consider them to be a global power. But if you develop a nuclear bomb, we will consider you evil. Of course, we will consider you evil anyway."
Given this policy by the U.S., I think it is pretty rational for North Korea to do what they have done with their nuclear program, at least in the short run.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Throwing food and technology at them was working (unsurprising; they desperately needed both). We weren't throwing any significant sums of money their way except in those forms. Only a good deal after we stopped doing so did they take the seals off their reactors and retake possession of the existing nuclear material. They first made several efforts to restart negotiation.
NK doesn't behave like we do, but that doesn't make them irrational in the sense of not responding to incentives. The deal we had with NK was a giant carrot that they knew they needed to bring their population out of the dark ages (literally; much of NK is without power). Without that carrot, the only option they had for providing sufficient power was their illegal nuclear plants, and if they're reopening those they might as well go whole hog and have a bomb program.
No doubt they love the opportunity to have a bomb, but they've had that opportunity for many years (as long as that nuclear material has been sitting under seal) and did not take it until we removed the carrot. Any explanation supposing they were going to create a bomb anyways needs to explain that behavior.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote: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.
...actually, Iraq never even posed a threat on a terrorist front. Hussein was brutal, but he was at least an enemy of Wahabbists.
Bush screwed up in more ways than are obvious even now. I'll be really interested in seeing the scope of Iran's influence in 2015.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
You people are ridiculous. You don't commit to conventional warfare when dealing with a country that deals in unconventional weapons. It would begin almost as badly as it would end.
Blaming one man for the unfortunate postures and scientific advancements of historically unfriendly nations doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You could repace Bush's name with hundereds of others more responsible for this than him going back at least 60 years. I won't do it here and now but trust you can come up with some yourselves.
Edited: That up there was mainly directed at vwiggin and Lyrhawn
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: [QB] You people are ridiculous. You don't commit to conventional warfare when dealing with a country that deals in unconventional weapons. It would begin almost as badly as it would end.
Kind of like invading Iraq to deal with 9/11?
I didn't say an invasion is necessarily the best answer, but it certainly would be nice to have that option if we wanted to do it.
quote:Blaming one man for the unfortunate postures and scientific advancements of historically unfriendly nations doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
To borrow from Dags, good thing that wasn't what I was saying.
I said: "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."
quote:You could repace Bush's name with hundereds of others more responsible for this than him going back at least 60 years. I won't do it here and now but trust you can come up with some yourselves.
Again, I'm not blaming Bush for NK getting the bomb. However, Bush is responsible for the way the war is being conducted in Afghanistan and Iraq, which has greatly reduced our ability to effectively deal with Iran and NK.
quote:Edited: That up there was mainly directed at vwiggin and Lyrhawn
Why? It doesn't seem like you even read my post.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: You people are ridiculous. You don't commit to conventional warfare when dealing with a country that deals in unconventional weapons. It would begin almost as badly as it would end.
Blaming one man for the unfortunate postures and scientific advancements of historically unfriendly nations doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You could repace Bush's name with hundereds of others more responsible for this than him going back at least 60 years. I won't do it here and now but trust you can come up with some yourselves.
Edited: That up there was mainly directed at vwiggin and Lyrhawn
I'm not blaming him for the situation in North Korea, I already said that. I do however think he was grossly negligent in other ways. It isn't just that our military isn't able to respond. Besides, how many missiles does N. Korea have? Do they even have bombs SMALL enough to fit on an ICBM? I know they don't have a bomber with the range or size to carry one.
So what, at the moment, are they going to do to us? They can't exactly pinpoint a US army in North Korea with a nuke if we were to attack with one. They'd have to threaten Tokyo or Seoul.
Either way, it's not JUST our military he rendered unable to respond to grave threats, he also made it politically very difficult to respond to looming threats, not just domestically, but internationally. We don't have the credibility we had five years ago, we can't rush off to war and grab a coalition along the way, it won't work. China doesn't want us in their back yard, and half the EU just plain doesn't trust us anymore. And who else is out there to offer us any substantial help? Especially in East Asia?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think they are stupid. Consider the message that the Bush administration has sent the North Korean government in the past 6 years through our words and actions:
"Dear North Korea, we think you are evil, and we are going to preemptively invade all evildoers - unless they already have nuclear bombs, in which case we won't invade them and instead will consider them to be a global power. But if you develop a nuclear bomb, we will consider you evil. Of course, we will consider you evil anyway."
Given this policy by the U.S., I think it is pretty rational for North Korea to do what they have done with their nuclear program, at least in the short run.
This is a very good point.
Expanding on it, given that they've (Jong) already demonstrated that the regime is more important than the people, in any scenario where the N. Korean regime is about to fall to an invasion, the N. Korean leader could even set the nuke off on the ground as invading forces approached. They could even hide it in a city and wait for an army to walk in. Or they could target a carrier task force that was supporting the invasion. Yes, we have some anti-missile weapons and *maybe* our intellegence could destroy all the nukes before an actual invasion, but those weapons have not really been tested in combat and intel can always fail (Iraq being a good example) That possiblity of success (whether small or not) is enough to make a foreign leader think twice about an invasion, and quite tempting for a leader that probably worries about N. Korea being invaded just as Iraq was.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
One additional note:
I would not trust China's statements regarding N. Korea.
It is entirely possible that in the past China supported N. Korea's nuclear ambitions in the hope that world attention would then be divided between them and N. Korea. It is even possible that they support N. Korea now on the theory that in the case of a show-down with the States, they could go "Hey, we feel rationally about this and we totally agree with you. However, N. Korea is a bit nutty and if they aren't appeased/feel unthreatened ....well, they might just do something crazy and it wouldn't have anything to do with us." It is even possible that they wanted to setup N. Korea as a bad-boy so they could get the credit when they slap it down.
We do not know China's motivations/strategy in this situation and it might be unwise to assume that this situation is or is not what they want, and that the situation has or has not backfired.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Apropos of the discussion, here's a funny political ad from David Zucker, producer of the Scary movie franchise:
I think the test was a fake. 1000-ton yeild? Please do we even make them that small? That is one tenth Nagasaki, there are many reasons to fake the test, to create the stir without wasting the nuke comes to mind. I will be interested to see if the we can prove it one way or another.
[ October 10, 2006, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: General Sax ]
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
That would be 1 megaton, unless I'm mistaken. NO WAY they tested something that big. Someone's math is off.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
General Sax, how do you "fake" a magnitude 4 earthquake without detonating a bomb?
Some website I glanced at the night it went off said that a rule of thumb was 1 kiloton=mag. 4 earthquake.
I agree with Kirk or his link, there's a good chance the bomb did not fully explode. But even a partial failure could provide the NKs with valuable data.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
You use a thousand tons of TNT. We did it before Trinity and I seem to recall a rather suspiciously large blast in North Korea a couple years back, it was so large we thought it might be nuclear.
quote: That would be 1 megaton, unless I'm mistaken. NO WAY they tested something that big. Someone's math is off.
Sorry, it was one kilo ton, my math was faulty. I am used to thinking in kilo tons not just tons when it comes to blast force from atomic bombs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes they do make them that small. We made tactical nukes the size of cannon shells that we could fire from a howitzer.
They won't level a city, but they'll take out a small base or enemy position in a hurry.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
It looks like the yeild on the artillery type is in the 15 kilo ton range.
Read the entire article you just linked.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
General Sax, I'm unconvinced that it was a conventional explosion. Do you have any evidence or is just a theory? For one thing, the seismic signature would be different. Secondly, detectable Gamma-rays would be emitted by a nuke. If it was a conventional bomb, I suppose countries that have Gamma-ray detectors could supress the fact that they did not detect a Gamma-ray pulse, but why?
I saw "Atomic Annie", the only gun to fire an nuclear artillery shell, during a field trip to Ft. Sill, OK when I was a kid.
I didn't realize the US had developed tactical nukes in the 10-100 ton range. I've also never heard of the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle which fired a tactical nuke in the 10-20 ton range. According to wikipedia, 10 tons is the practical limit for a fission bomb.
This would be alarming to a rookie Davy Crockett crew:
quote: A common myth is that with no shielding or protection from either blast or radiation, a Davy Crockett crew would have been unlikely to survive any engagement, also claiming that the blast area of the warhead was greater than the range of the weapon. In fact, though the device could be fired to a dangerously short range by an inept crew, the maximum range of both versions is far longer than the [dangerous] distance. . .
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Weapons based on the W-54 warhead had a yield ranging between 10to1000tons / 0.01to1kiloton of TNT.
According to the Richter Magnitude Scale, SouthKorea's report of 3.6 would be an energy equivalent to ~0.25kilotons of TNT while the US's report of 4.2 would correspond to ~2kilotons of TNT.
Not that the above says much about whether or not NorthKorea actually detonated a nuke.
According to GlobalSecurity's article on DivineStrake, a non-nuclear explosion of 0.7kilotons of AmmoniumNitrateFuelOil would be equivalent to ~0.6kilotons of TNT. And coal mining companies routinely set off ANFO explosions equivalent to several kilotons of TNT. ANF0's specific weight is approximately the same as water, one metric ton per cubic metre. So the NorthKoreans coulda just pumped a slurry of ANFO -- enough to fill a ~6.6metre/~22foot cube for a magnitude 3.6 explosion up to a ~13.3metre/~44foot cube for a magnitude 4.2 explosion -- down into an old mine shaft, collapsed the entrance tunnel or sealed it off with dirt and concrete, then set the ANFO off to mimic a nuclear explosion.
[ October 11, 2006, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
And also used, what, Asian voodoo to mimic a Gamma-ray pulse?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Great. Now I'm more afraid of Asian voodoo than of the bomb.
One more thing to worry about.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
James Baker has stated on the Daily Show that NK had a rudimentary nuclear weapon back when he was Secretary of State.
So North Korea has had the material to make a bomb, and the know-how to make a bomb, and even briefly a bomb, before the Clinton agreement. Based on how Baker states it, the bomb was probably dismantled during his term. However, the material and know-how were still around.
During the Clinton agreement, NK's bomb making material was under seal, and their plants capable of making substantially more bomb material were inoperative, despite already being capable of making a bomb with what was on hand.
Only after Bush made it clear the US would not proceed any further under the Clinton agreement framework did NK break the seals on its material and plants and proceed with construction of a bomb. Even then they didn't break the seals for months, after repeated requests to reopen diplomatic channels.
This effectively demonstrates that NK would not have done the same thing no matter what the President did. NK was doing something completely different, despite ample opportunity, until the Clinton agreement was completely scrapped by Bush.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I thought it became apparent that NK broke the Clinton agreement some time back -- but we didn't notice for several years -- into the Bush Administration time.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Haven't read of any gamma ray pulse originating from NorthKorean being detected, nor of an EMP. As far as I am aware, there have still been no traces of radioactive air contaminants detected by any of NorthKorea's neighbors or by US spy planes.
[ October 11, 2006, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
"And also used, what, Asian voodoo to mimic a Gamma-ray pulse?"
Has anyone verified that a gamma-ray pulse was recorded or even evident?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Both sides broke parts of the Clinton agreement repeatedly -- we routinely delayed shipments of food and construction materials, and they routinely obstructed diplomatic progress. They probably broke their side first, but none of the breaks on either side were particularly egregious -- delays, not reversals. Not to mention that the consequences of calling them on those breaks seems to have been rather greater than whatever benefits (if any, I don't see them) there may have been in doing so.
The big part of the agreement remained unbroken, though. Their nuclear material and plants were under seal. We know that because under seal means cameras and all sorts of other detection devices. When NK decided to break that part of the agreement, they did so very openly. They even told us in advance and said they were going to unless negotiations were reopened.
On our side, we had been continuing to slowly progress towards supplying the LWRs (Light Water Reactors, for nuclear power) we promised. Shortly after the Axis of Evil speech, Bush cut that progress off completely. A few months later, NK came out with the threat to break the seals.
This is hardly surprising. NK cannot come anywhere near meeting its power needs without either substantial outside power, its old nuclear power plants, or new LWRs. Under the agreement they had been getting power while the LWRs were constructured. Without any possibility of LWR construction and the possibility of power being cut off, the only way to power the country would be to break the seals on the plants.
Once that's done, they really didn't have any reason not to go whole hog and restart their nuclear weapons program.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Luxembourg is next to go And, who knows, maybe Monaco We'll try to stay serene and calm When North Korea gets the bomb Who's next, who's next, who's next; who's next?!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Teshi, I have been suppressing post that song (and humming it to myself) for days! Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
News that I have heard, but cannot back up with links since work won't let me go to news sites.
1) Now gamma radiaton or other physical proof of a nuclear explosion have been detected, but that is not surprising considering that this was an underground test. How far underground would determine what may or may not have escaped, and how the earth would have couchioned the blast. Any exact readings are still being calculated so determining the size and compostion of this explosion is still mostly guesswork as of now.
2) A train load of explosives driven down a deep coal tunnel could produce similiar sized readings. Why would NK do that? Because Jong is nuts and nobody knows what he'll do.
3) If I remember correctly, a few years into President Bush's first term the Sec of State visiting NK dropped a bombshell--proof positive that NK was breaking the most important parts of the safegaurds--still working on their bomb program. That is when the treaties were broken and NK went ahead and started building bombs in public.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:A train load of explosives driven down a deep coal tunnel could produce similiar sized readings. Why would NK do that? Because Jong is nuts and nobody knows what he'll do.
As I understand it, a large conventional explosion can be distinguished from a nuclear explosion based on the shape of the detonation wave. Essentially, the detonation wave from nuclear explosion has a much sharper leading edge than the detonation wave from conventional explosives.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Looking like my theory is gaining ground. It is not surprising that NK would want to seem armed and dangerous, Saddam felt the same way, making every effort to appear to be a big league player with WMD's. It is a play that can backfire, as Saddam found out.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I liked Colbert's commentary on it.
"Its OK! The North Koreans dont have nuclear weapons they have an earthquake machine!"
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Great. Now I'm more afraid of Asian voodoo than of the bomb.
Oddly enough, Asian Voodoo is the name of the new scent for Axe deoderant.
It smells like kim-chee and sake.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
This is only related to this thread in a tangental, "land war in Asia" way, but...
Is anyone worried about China in ten to fifteen years? It's estimated that of the generation currently in its teens, 1 out of every 6 men won't be able to find a wife. Haven't wars started from things like this, as a way to get rid of the excess men? Crusades? It's not like these guys are going to be able to go to other Asian countries either, to get girls, since the sex ratios in the whole region are typically at least slightly in favor of boys.
If I were India (also with an unbalanced ratio, but not as bad) or any of the Asian countries to China's south, I'd be worried.
Of course, it could also lead to just social unrest, and possibly a revolution. Or polyandry. Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
It is also the hidden secret behind Islamic unrest, the ability to take three wives leaves two men with nothing worth living for. Yet the possibility of multiple wives holds an enticement nobody wants to relinquish. If we really want to get to the 'root' of the problem in the middle east, the place to start is by making polygamy illegal where we hold sway.
Of course that is the end of our balance of power in the region, step hard on that toe and the whole place goes up in flames. I think our gift of monogamy may be the greatest moral gift we have enshrined in our legal system. We have such luck to live inside a system that insures a somewhat equitable distribution of the opposite sex.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Looks like N Korea tried to mask its symptoms of impotence with some of its knock off viagra. I think things look to be getting bad for Kim Jong Il, he cannot rule and be a laughingstock at the same time.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm not ready to point and laugh at him yet, but yeah, it's looking like it was a hoax.
Kim Jong Il must be very lonely....
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
IM SO RONRRYY... SO RONRRY...
IM THE BRAVEST MOST HANDOME MOST PHYSICARRY FIT..
BUT NOBODY SEEMS TO BE AWARE OF IT...
IM SO RONRRYY... SO RONRRY...
My favorite bit in 'Team America World Police' Spoof.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Should be noted that a lack of radiation is not conclusive as it depends on how deep the detonation was.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: That's why I'm not ready to point and laugh yet.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: That's why I'm not ready to point and laugh yet.
Ill laugh with you if it turns out to be a bunch of hooey. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
aspectre: could you sum up your point? =)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Looks like there is some preliminary evidence of radiation.
Maybe the NK's detonated a huge dirty bomb.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
We got sanctions. Meh. There was a time when Europe would have sent in the gunboats in response to a provocation like this, and installed a Governor-General. None of this messing about with friendly dictators and sanctions.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
It is never too soon to start making fun of Mon- Chee-Chee Kim Jong Il. It makes him crazy and as crazy as he is already, his mistakes will be magnified until he falls flat on his face.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
A friend of mine sent me this inquiry. I myself initially chuckled at Russian scientific incompetence, thinking that they must have used some of their cold war Olympic judges to measure the blast. However another saw a more sinister line of speculation...
quote:The discrepancy between the Russian estimate of the North Korean claimed nuke test was about 20 to 30 times larger than those of the United States, Japan and South Korea - all based on seismographic measurements. It was instantly suspicious. With that in mind, consider a technical assessment of the North Korean blast by the Federation of American Scientists published at the Strategic Security Blog. There is no question that the political and security implications of the test are huge and almost entirely negative. The technical implications are more mixed; the technical significance of the test is somewhat less than meets the eye. There was early confusion about how large the explosion actually was, with U.S., French, and South Korean seismologists reporting a yield equivalent to about 500 tons of high explosive, that is half a kiloton, while the Russians reported that the yield was in the range of 10 to 15 kilotons, or twenty to thirty times larger. From the beginning, the source of this huge discrepancy was difficult to understand. Soon, the Russian seismic data were released and it became clear that even their own data did not support the Russian claim. Most reports as of yesterday had settled on the lower yield figure of about half a kiloton. [Emphasis added.] Now the question is, why would Russia knowingly overestimate the success of the North Korean test? Did they know something we did not? Did they have confidence of the size of what was to be tested and based their ‘estimates’ on that knowledge? Is this potentially proof that it was indeed a dud and not a dupe by the North Koreans? To be sure, this adds curious context to Russia’s relative silence following the provocative NoKor test, a silence which was followed by effectively dropping a boat anchor in the American sanctions proposal. Remember that China opposed the proposal only after Russia was first to balk. Perhaps it is time for President Bush to once more ‘see the heart and soul’ of Russian President Vladimir Putin. It was five years ago, shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks in a November 2001 meeting between the two leaders in Crawford, Texas, when President Bush said, “And the more I get to know President Putin, the more I get to see his heart and soul, and the more I know we can work together in a positive way.” One would be naturally curious as to what the President may find in the former KGB operative this time around. It appears possible that the Russians are running interference for the North Korean nuclear program just as they have been for the Iranian nuclear program.
It has been confirmed, I believe by seismic analysis that the dinky whittle bwast was nuclear so at least some of the hundreds of millions of American dollars coming off the presses were wasted making a blast any major mining concern could duplicate.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)