North Korea detonates a Nuclear bomb

[piper17 1]

People are concerned because North Korea's leadership is just crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on their neighbors on a first-strike basis.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[Butters 0]

Quote

I cannot understand why the world, and America in particular, is freaking out about this ... It makes no sense whatsoever for us toget all worked up about NK or any other country developing these weapons.

All I have to say is ... Korean War.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[beqa 0]

My first instinct was to say nuc'em'all! But, I like this idea better. Let China fight the war, and take them over. :)

[shropshire 0]

He's not evil he's just 'ronery'......

Clicky

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

People are concerned because North Korea's leadership is just crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on their neighbors on a first-strike basis.

Is there any hard evidence that NK is planning a nuclear attack on anyone? Again, the only country that has every attacked another country with nuclear weapons is the USA.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Quote

I cannot understand why the world, and America in particular, is freaking out about this ... It makes no sense whatsoever for us toget all worked up about NK or any other country developing these weapons.

All I have to say is ... Korean War.

The USA has started 2 wars recently, and we have lots of nuclear weapons. What's your point?

[ryoder 1,390]

Quote

He's not evil he's just 'ronery'......

Clicky

I was just going to bring that up in association with this:

Quote

"Now that the South Korean puppets were so ridiculous as to join in the said racket and dare declare a war against compatriots," North Korea is "compelled to take a decisive measure," the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea said in a statement carried by state media.

Ref: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090527/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear;_ylt=AuRQJ4.b9Xj_IbhP_M.tEVas0NUE

I would have thought they would have avoided reminding everyone of that movie.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The USA has started 2 wars recently, and we have lots of nuclear weapons. What's your point?

There is a vast difference between the US, the largest economy in the world, and North Korea, a country that cannot sustain even a meager existence without ex-pats sending in hard currency.

and the other answer - the US can't invade a country with nukes. Saddam was like Kim (minus the insanity and god complex), but we could take him out.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Quote

The USA has started 2 wars recently, and we have lots of nuclear weapons. What's your point?

There is a vast difference between the US, the largest economy in the world, and North Korea, a country that cannot sustain even a meager existence without ex-pats sending in hard currency.

and the other answer - the US can't invade a country with nukes. Saddam was like Kim (minus the insanity and god complex), but we could take him out.

Neither one of these claims helps to explain why it is that it's OK for the USA to have nukes, but not NK.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Neither one of these claims helps to explain why it is that it's OK for the USA to have nukes, but not NK.

Well, the question is stupid, you see.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Quote

Neither one of these claims helps to explain why it is that it's OK for the USA to have nukes, but not NK.

Well, the question is stupid, you see.

If you can't answer the question intelligently, attack the person who asked the question. That's a great way to respond. Why don't you try again.

[kelpdiver 2]

if you stop changing the question each time, it would help. But it's still a stupid question.

Since you probably need help understanding this:
you first asked why everyone is freaking out about it. then you asked, why is it not ok (in some silly moral viewpoint that has no business in the real world). Not remotely the same question.

[LongWayToFall 0]

The reason the USA has so many nukes is because Russia and us wanted MAD. (Mutually assured destruction). That is why we have nukes.
North Korea does not need nukes to keep safe like we did.
My Marine friend has been to the DMZ between north and south Korea, and told me quite a bit about it. First, the Korean war never stopped, it is just under a cease fire. Second, the North has an extensive tunnel network, that extends all over south Korea. They could pop up in a moments notice and take over all of the south. Second, they are continually at the ready. My friend looked north with a pair of binoculars and they were already looking right back at him. These guys are ready to go at ANY TIME.
Their ability to stay underground for long periods of time, recently acquired long range missiles with nuclear warheads, and a leader who is fucking crazy, have many people concerned, as you should now see. Not quite the same as the USA.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

The reason the USA has so many nukes is because Russia and us wanted MAD. (Mutually assured destruction). That is why we have nukes.
North Korea does not need nukes to keep safe like we did.
My Marine friend has been to the DMZ between north and south Korea, and told me quite a bit about it. First, the Korean war never stopped, it is just under a cease fire. Second, the North has an extensive tunnel network, that extends all over south Korea. They could pop up in a moments notice and take over all of the south. Second, they are continually at the ready. My friend looked north with a pair of binoculars and they were already looking right back at him. These guys are ready to go at ANY TIME.
Their ability to stay underground for long periods of time, recently acquired long range missiles with nuclear warheads, and a leader who is fucking crazy, have many people concerned, as you should now see. Not quite the same as the USA.

Wow, a thoughtful answer without insults. Jason, are you paying attention?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Wow, a thoughtful answer without insults. Jason, are you paying attention?

I prefer the other way. SC is not for coddling.

BTW, North Korea certainly has motivation to get nukes, for the reason already provided.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Quote

Wow, a thoughtful answer without insults. Jason, are you paying attention?

I prefer the other way. SC is not for coddling.

BTW, North Korea certainly has motivation to get nukes, for the reason already provided.

OK, I can play it that way, too. No more coddling. I sure as hell don't need your help understanding anything. What I do understand is a particularly American arrogance that says we can have as many of these weapons as we want, start wars whenever we feel like it, and when a country we don't like tries to defend itself, we run crying like babies to the UN and anyone else that will listen that so and so is not playing fair. You seem to represent the height of that sort of arrogance, and it's a crappy attitude. There is nothing so special about the USA that we should get to dictate to other countries how they can defend themselves. Oh, and yeah, moral principles do matter, whether you are smart enough to realize it or not.

[billvon 2,406]

>Saddam was like Kim (minus the insanity and god complex), but we could
>take him out.

So if Saddam had nukes, we would not have made that particular mistake, and thousands of US servicemen (and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis) would be alive today?

Seems like you're arguing against your thesis there!

[The_Don 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Wow, a thoughtful answer without insults. Jason, are you paying attention?

I prefer the other way. SC is not for coddling.

BTW, North Korea certainly has motivation to get nukes, for the reason already provided.

OK, I can play it that way, too. No more coddling. I sure as hell don't need your help understanding anything. What I do understand is a particularly American arrogance that says we can have as many of these weapons as we want, start wars whenever we feel like it, and when a country we don't like tries to defend itself, we run crying like babies to the UN and anyone else that will listen that so and so is not playing fair. You seem to represent the height of that sort of arrogance, and it's a crappy attitude. There is nothing so special about the USA that we should get to dictate to other countries how they can defend themselves. Oh, and yeah, moral principles do matter, whether you are smart enough to realize it or not.

If you hate the USA that much. You are free to leave any time you wish.
Do the people of N.K. have that freedom?

I am NOT being loud.
I'm being enthusiastic!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Saddam was like Kim (minus the insanity and god complex), but we could
>take him out.

So if Saddam had nukes, we would not have made that particular mistake, and thousands of US servicemen (and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis) would be alive today?

Seems like you're arguing against your thesis there!

What's my thesis, exactly?

Iraq had pretty of motivation to get nukes. The US had plenty of motivation to prevent him from doing so. And once NK did (though I suppose we should debate if they have a credible nuke yet), the rules of engagement changed.

BTW, thousand of US soldiers would be alive today if we had only taken out Saddam, and not engaged in nation building. That was the choice that cost us so dearly.

[Butters 0]

Quote

What I do understand is a particularly American arrogance that says we can have as many of these weapons as we want, start wars whenever we feel like it, and when a country we don't like tries to defend itself, we run crying like babies to the UN and anyone else that will listen that so and so is not playing fair.

The problem is that their rhetoric suggests they aren't developing nukes to defend themselves but to attack others. Yes, I understand we are attacking others. Yes, I understand we attacked others with nukes. However, the reasons we do and did it are different than the reasons they would do it ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[nerdgirl 0]

I’m marginally surprised that it took *this* long for them to do another “test.”

They told us they were going to do it after the early April TD-2 rocket failure.
The DPRK excels at brinkmanship.

Setting up an underground nuclear test isn’t an instantaneous endeavor … but the fact that it took this long is a lot more interesting to me speculatively.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Nuke em from orbit.

Aaah yes, the ‘make Mearsheimer look like a wimp approach.’

*Really* offensive realism.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

…recently acquired long range missiles with nuclear warheads,

Do you have a link for that? Specifically for long range ballistic missiles with nuclear warhead capability?


I think you may have aggregated two different things that isn't the case. I also suspect you’re not the only one.

And if it was purely academic, it might not matter … but since the consequences do matter and the implications for USG policy matter, it does matter.


Missiles: The DPRK has not demonstrated LRBM capabilities. Do they want them? Yes. Want does not equal have.

As always, don’t trust me.

VCJS GEN Cartwright’s (USMC) comments w/r/t DPRK’s most recent failed rocket test:

“they failed.”

W/r/t proliferation (selling around the world)

“Would you buy from some body who failed three times in a row and never been successful.”

(~43min in CSPAN video on 2010 Defense budget.)

DRPK has had the Nodong (short-range) and TD-2 idea for years. It’s not recent.



Nuclear test: An underground nuclear test does not equal device does not equal device capable of being carried by a missile and detonated remotely.

The first US device looked like a something from a Hollywood caricature of something from a 1950s Hollywood sci-fi flic: the gadget. The 2nd and 3rd nuclear devices were delivered by airplane. Developing a nuclear device capable of being delivered by LRBM is not as simple as a gravity bomb dropped from the bomb bay of a B29.



All of that is not to say that *concern* -- really, really serious concern -- is not appropriate. Hyperbole or incorrect information doesn’t serve useful purpose, imo (unless one’s arguing for intentional political propaganda, at which the DPRK excels.)

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

Marg, is there a conclusive estimate for yield on the second test? Can there be, or is it extrapolated from inprecise information? Reports range from fissle #2 to Hiroshima class, which is still a big range. One end would seem to negate the deterrent value, and make the large number of soldiers at the DMZ the primary concern still.

[nerdgirl 0]

Most seismic estimates seem to be putting the yield at 2-8kT. The Russian estimates (10-20kt) are way whacked … & they stubbornly seem to be sticking to them. Using the Nevada Test Site “underground explosions of announced yield” data for correlation, Monday’s yield corresponds to ~1.6 kT.

AFAIK, the DPRK has chosen a plutonium-based design.

Last June, the Yongbyon water cooling tower was blown up. Without the cooling tower, the DPRK can’t produce more Pu. (They can rebuild the tower, but they haven’t.)

Estimates of DPRK plutonium produced range from 7kg (low-end) to 40kg (high-end). US estimates are ~30kgs. Sig Hecker (formely LANL now Stanford), who’s been to the DPRK’s nuclear facilities, estimated 35 kg.

A Pu-based nuclear device requires 4 to 8 kg.

The October 2009 test fizzled. The yield of this one appears to be small. By comparison, the first test of a US Pu-based nuclear device, Trinity, had a yield of 20kt. Why can’t the North Koreans get at least 10kT? What’s so screwed up there? … (okay, maybe that latter question is more rhetorical.)

Most folks estimate the DPRK to have enough Pu for 4 to 8 tests/devices.



Play out one scenario: they’re using up their deterrent capability.

Given the more recent down-estimates of the yield of this recent test, a couple technical security folks have tossed around the idea that this was large conventional explosive. Conventional explosives can create 1-8 kt yields, albeit that’s a lot. I don’t think so … but it plays to the regime’s brinkmanship behavior, and it does push the metaphorical buttons of some.

The Xenon & Krypton cloud (two long-lived atomic tracers) should be reaching monitoring stations outside of DPRK soon, if not already.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying