PDA

View Full Version : N. Korea Nuke Test.


GV00
10-08-2006, 11:33 PM
Just saw on the news, looks like North Korea has finally gotten around to testing a nuke. IMO, we slipped up by letting them get this far, and slipped up big. Let's hope that we don't let Iran get to this stage. Admittedly, we were between a rock and a hard place here, since North Korea has enough conventional weaponry pointed at South Korea to flatten the entire place in a matter of minutes.

I feel bad for Japan and South Korea, but since I live in the Pacific NW, I'm also very concerned about myself. I suppose that's not a huge issue, since I imagine anything we see from N. Korea will probably come by way of the middle east, and likely be delivered in a small, inconspicuous package to a large US city, but that doesn't make me feel any better.

MDH65
10-09-2006, 04:16 AM
We may be testing a nuke or two in N. Korea before too long. It has been awhile since the US has done this.

Gotta make sure they work ya know :)

Medula Oblongata
10-09-2006, 05:28 AM
Initial reports, from my confidential sources, place the yield of the weapon at 500 tonnes. This is quite low. The size of the weapon thought to be built was in the 20 - 25 thousand tonne range, and if that is the case, the weapon will be known as a "fizzle." The smallest weapon in our inventory is 5 thousand tonnes.

It is also possible that the detonation was not atomic in nature, but of conventional high explosive. If this is the case, the actual amount of explosive used would be nearly 1000 tonnes, in order to simulate the same effects as an atomic detonation, this is due to attenuation and the speed of the explosion which is MUCH slower than an atomic detonation. Hundredths of a second versus a millionth of a second.

Futher details as I learn them... But all in all this "test" sounds like a bust, and good for that.

black campbell
10-09-2006, 01:10 PM
Maybe the UN will come save us!

groan...

f3rr37
10-09-2006, 01:15 PM
come save me little blue men! /puke

North Korea is probably working in conjuntion with Iran, conducted a fake nuke test to grab the attention of the world while giving Iran more time to begin constructing a real nuke.

Just my .02

Medula Oblongata
10-09-2006, 02:30 PM
Update

A second blast has been detected and anilized by seizemologists. They are estimating a 1k tonne detonation at zero kilometers depth (meaning very close to surface) within an area close to the one from earlier.

Still a possibility that it is conventional explosive, but were that the case, more than 3k tonnes (6 million pounds) of explosive would have to be used, and thats just a lot for any country to move anywhere undetected. In fact I don't think we have 6M pounds of HE in the US right now....

Looks like NK has atomic weapons after all. Hopefully they were designed as much larger devices (small ones in the 500 - 1k ton range are innefecient and use nearly as much matterial as a 30kt, so there is no point in making them small) and the design or manufacturing process was poor...

Nevertheless, NK is now a bonafied atomic threat. They don't have nuclear weapons (H bombs) as that is years beyond their current state and technology, but atomic, in some ways, are worse because they are very dirty and leave much more radioactive debris than a three stage nuclear device.. I digress.

This is a black day for the world...

GV00
10-09-2006, 02:35 PM
Wow. MO, I didn't even know that nukes were capable of sub-kilotonne yeilds. Thanks for the update, I hadn't heard anything since the initial report shortly before I turned in last night. I found it odd that there weren't any confirmations from seismic stations. Hopefully they did try to fake it.

Of course, even if it was faked, I fail to see what we can do about it without getting South Korea wiped off the map. Still stuck between a rock and a hard place.

btown02
10-09-2006, 02:39 PM
I found it odd that there weren't any confirmations from seismic stations.
There was.

Medula Oblongata
10-09-2006, 03:00 PM
I get good intel... ;)

Bomber_Man
10-09-2006, 03:19 PM
I was just reading this article on MSNBC.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15190745/

I found the last paragraphs on page 2 interesting:

"Zhang Liangui, an expert on North Korea at the Central Party School, a top think-tank in Beijing, said other nations might be encouraged to proliferate.

'It will be like America, where everybody thinks he has the right to own a gun,' he said. 'The first country to be encouraged by this will be Iran, and then other countries in the Middle East.' "


Nice choice of words there... we "think" we have the right to own a gun. psh. Sounds like he is comparing nukes in the hands of Iran, N. Korea, and other Middle Eastern countries to guns in the hands of Americans.

Megatron
10-09-2006, 10:15 PM
"You're bweaking my baws!" famous quote by Kim Jong-Il

Medula Oblongata
10-09-2006, 10:32 PM
"Sooo ronery.. sooo ronery..." - Kim Jong Ill

"Respect my authoritay!" - Eric Cartman

Sorry, but I take Cartman as the bigger threat.. :MM

jmz5
10-09-2006, 10:34 PM
yes, i still get a laugh out of mr and mrs tennerman chili

Medula Oblongata
10-09-2006, 10:56 PM
Not sure which is more deadly...

The effects of eating Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili, or Kim Jong Ill's atomic weapons...

bjjbrawler
10-09-2006, 11:37 PM
I was just reading this article on MSNBC.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15190745/

I found the last paragraphs on page 2 interesting:

"Zhang Liangui, an expert on North Korea at the Central Party School, a top think-tank in Beijing, said other nations might be encouraged to proliferate.

'It will be like America, where everybody thinks he has the right to own a gun,' he said. 'The first country to be encouraged by this will be Iran, and then other countries in the Middle East.' "


Nice choice of words there... we "think" we have the right to own a gun. psh. Sounds like he is comparing nukes in the hands of Iran, N. Korea, and other Middle Eastern countries to guns in the hands of Americans.


Yeah, but too bad your commie/socialist countries will never allow personal firearm ownership! Too much of a threat against government control. Hell, you can't even criticize the Chinese or North Korean gov't.... let alone keep small arms.

Wehrwulf
10-11-2006, 05:27 PM
The Koreans have either a very small nuclear device... or they had a failed attempt at detonation of a more powerful and larger "Nuke". They can have thier nuclear bombs. We have them and they can have thiers. We have more than 10,000 ,megaton warheads.
Just as you have neighbors that own guns. Gun control=Nuke control... Problem comes when the neighbor starts shooting at you. Well you know the solution to that problem. When or if they hit us or give some terrorist a bomb. We will have to nuke them. Bad thing is that I belive half or better of US citizens do not have the resolve or will to use the bomb anymore... seems many are on a guilt trip about WWII and the first two we used. Personaly. I don't care what others do around my country. I care what they do to it. If say Iran gets a bomb to the shores... We make them glow for the next 20 years. Never understood why any country thinks it can tell any other what they can and can't have. Give the retards more rope. The UN wants world gun control. They belive thier charter supercedes our Constitution. Only governments will have guns... seems government armies kill more than civilians. Who needs the gun control? Seems one day men in little sky blue helmets may pay all of us gun owners a visit. Bill Clinton in his admin... was all for this radical policy. New admin coming up, better hope this is not on the menu for the next President.

panzermk2
10-11-2006, 10:27 PM
Just saw on the news, looks like North Korea has finally gotten around to testing a nuke. IMO, we slipped up by letting them get this far, and slipped up big. Let's hope that we don't let Iran get to this stage. Admittedly, we were between a rock and a hard place here, since North Korea has enough conventional weaponry pointed at South Korea to flatten the entire place in a matter of minutes.

I feel bad for Japan and South Korea, but since I live in the Pacific NW, I'm also very concerned about myself. I suppose that's not a huge issue, since I imagine anything we see from N. Korea will probably come by way of the middle east, and likely be delivered in a small, inconspicuous package to a large US city, but that doesn't make me feel any better.

WE DIDNOT SLIP UP Clinton knew damn well what he was doing, heres a little flashback



U.S. Aid Helps N. Korea Build Nukes, Congress Told
By Lawrence Morahan
CNS Staff Writer
17 April, 2000

(CNSNews.com) - North Korea's nuclear production capacity will increase from a dozen nuclear bombs a year to 65 a year by 2010, thanks in large part to American taxpayer money, two renowned U.S. nuclear scientists told congressional leaders last week.

North Korea observers have long suspected the communist dictatorship is using Western humanitarian aid to starving North Koreans to feed Kim Jong Il's million-man army.

But an aid policy initiated by the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s to finance two light water nuclear reactors in North Korea puts the isolated communist country on the fast track in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, William R. Graham and Victor Gilinsky told members of the House Policy Committee.

North Korea's missile proliferation has accelerated dramatically since the Clinton-Gore administration began giving aid to the regime in 1994.

"There were no known No-dong missile sales abroad until after the United States signed the so-called Agreed Framework with North Korea," House Speaker Dennis Hastert's North Korea advisory group reported.

But since U.S. aid began, the communist state has sold crucial technology to Iran for the Shahab missile that now threatens U.S. forces and their allies in the Middle East, and for a Pakistani missile in 1998 that disrupted the fragile stability of South Asia.

In 1994 the Clinton administration signed an agreement with North Korea that was designed to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons development program. North Korea sought light water reactors to provide for their energy needs and the U.S. agreed to provide them in exchange for North Korea giving up its nuclear program.

Western aid also earned donor countries the right to inspect the North Korean nuclear facilities.

The U.S. believed the plutonium produced would have to be refined before it could be used for weapons grade plutonium, said Chuck Downs, a leading North Korea expert and author of "Over the Line: North Korea's Negotiating Strategy," in an interview with CNSNews.com. But even though the plutonium wasn't the same yield as that used by the U.S. and some NATO countries, it could still be used to make nuclear weapons, he said.

For the past six years the United States has been trying to put in place two 1,000-megawatt light water reactors in North Korea.

The Clinton administration gambled that construction would take so long that North Korea would collapse politically and economically before the reactors were put in place, Downs said.

"As things have turned out, North Korea has received $380 million in aid from various countries last year, $210 million of it from the U.S., and that is enough to satisfy the needs of their regime. So the regime is roaring drunk and not at all collapsing," Downs said.

When they are in place in 2010, the light water reactors will give the North Koreans 490 kilograms of plutonium every year, allowing them to build 60 to 100 nuclear weapons a year.

"The kinds of facilities that existed in 1994 could only have produced two bombs a year and the kind they conceived [before U.S. aid] a dozen a year," Downs said.

Nuclear critics say it is impossible to decouple the risks from the benefits of nuclear power, or the ability of countries that have nuclear power to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Ted Taylor, a nuclear scientist and critic of U.S. nuclear policy, told CNSNews.com that all of the world's 450-odd nuclear power plants automatically make plutonium as a side product. "So there's a huge amount of plutonium, which is the stuff from which nuclear weapons are made or can be made, spreading worldwide without adequate safeguards against criminals, terrorists, or governments that are disobeying rules."

Taylor, an architect for decades of the U.S. nuclear program, including the program at Los Alamos, was a member of a presidential commission to investigate the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. "Nuclear energy is a major activity for destructive forces," he said.

North Korea Seeks Relations with South Korea

Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who has written extensively on North Korea, told CNSNews.com that North Korea seemed to be headed in a more moderate direction politically and has indicated this by agreeing to meet with South Korea for the first time in 50 years.

"I think everyone accepts the fact that the North Korean nuclear program is in deep freeze at the moment, but the question is if we didn't essentially buy them off, what would be the alternative," Bandow said. "They haven't offered any ... There's reason to be critical but if you're going to be critical you have to come up with an alternative and I haven't seen one yet."

But Downs insisted the U.S. should stand firm when dealing with North Korea, especially in view of its known policies of nuclear proliferation to the United States' enemies around the world.

"If you're in the mode of giving gifts, then you give them gifts that don't kill you. You don't hand children the gun. We could have gone in and said we'll give them $20 billion worth of hydroelectric dams and solar energy, wind power, whatever they wanted. We could have thrown in a $5 billion distribution system so that this energy could actually be used. Right now they have two light water reactors that will produce 490 kilograms of plutonium but no distribution system, and they have no idea how they're going to distribute that electricity - if indeed that was their intention at all."

panzermk2
10-11-2006, 10:41 PM
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e169/panzermk2/1.jpg


http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e169/panzermk2/pelosi.jpg

GV00
10-12-2006, 03:51 PM
Wehrwulf, I respectfully disagree. They shouldn't have nukes, and nor should most of the other countries that do. We shouldn't even have as many as we have.

Why is this my opinion? Because nukes aren't like guns. If some group of nutjobs scores a bunch of RPK's from N. Korea, about the worst they're going to do is kill a few hundred people before they get offed. On the other hand, if they manage to procure a nuclear weapon, that same small group can effectively destroy an entire city. I disagree with nuclear proliferation in any form simply because if more people have them, there's that much greater chance that one will eventually slip through the cracks and end up in the wrong hands.

Medula Oblongata
10-12-2006, 05:10 PM
Yeah, Wolf, I gotta disagree too.

Nuclear weapons pose a danger to everyone on the planet even if they never reach our shores. The Soviets tested the Tsar Bomba in 1961 in Novaya Zemyla, a little island Way Up North. The origional weapon was a 100 MT, but was diealed down at the last moment to 64 MT upon fears that a bomb that large may actually ignite the atmosphere and kill hundreds of millions in that hemisphere.

While it didn't ignite the atmosphere it did contribute to more than 50% of the radioactivity still in the air which has circulated around the globe. Homes as fat as 1600 kilometers were blasted flat through a phenomenon known as "atmospheric channeling" or atmospheric defraction. Windows in Finland were reported broken.

The Chernobyl reactor disaster contributes to another 10% of radioactivity in the atmosphere that effects everyone on the planet.

Not to mention the economic disaster that NK could cause by using it on their neighbors.

Were suffecient infastructure damaged or destroyed in largely populated areas, plagues would be only weeks away. Millions would die from diseases that are rare today because of modern sanitation. Take away the clean water and running toilets and you suddenly have a toxic miasma that nobody can escape from.

We cannot survive as a people, when the rest of the world wants to destroy us, by building "Fortress America" as we all have seen what happens to people who wall themselves off from the rest of the world, and I'm NOT referring to the "mountain people" of West Virginia who's mother is also their sister is also their daughter is also their wife...

No, I'm referring to the people who have utterly disappeared from the face of the earth becuase they were unable to fend off the dastards that came to take their lives and property.

We will not survive as a race, the American race, if we refuse to battle evil wherever we find it. It is better that we fight it there than here. Let their women and children suffer and die for their sins, rather than ours. The only way we can defend our way of life is to do as they do. Kill them or convert them to the cause of, in our case liberty, in their case religion.

When its the bottom of the 9th round and both fighters are tired.. Well, you gotta keep your hands up and keep boxing. Cause' if we loose this fight its not money nor fame, is our existence. And I want my grandchildren to be free of the yoke of tyrany.

No, we can't bury our heads in the sand and let the rest of the world do waht they want. Because when it comes down to it, after they slaughter their own dissidents they will still need someone to blame for their own problems, and America, fat and sassy sitting all alone without allies is awful tempting. To steal the words of George Orwell "And they looked across the great distance with greedy eyes and greedy hearts... and desired to have when they had... "

BTW that was, from my best recollection, from the narration at the beginning of "War of the Worlds."

Wehrwulf
10-12-2006, 07:07 PM
If I use history as an indicator. We defeated the soviets. MAD Only can say that they were mostly an atheist government. One life to live... I understand that what we face now are fanatics and belive they are going to heaven... They seem to be as Klingons. How they die matters. We on the otherhand we measure life in how we live it. Not a good situation... then in the south we have a silent invasion happening... Right now the battle for America is happening. No resistance to it ,we continue to allow more people into our house. I define a Nation as having three things... borders, language, and culture. Borders are not being respected, losing our language... well Espanglish , and welcome to multiculturism... Much like Rome we find barbarians at the gate... They thought they would never dare to invade Rome. They were wrong... I think America is spread too thin. We fix ourselves first ,then the rest of the world . I respect all opinions. Free world as long as we are vigilant. Good to here others views. Thanks for reading my soap box rants ;)

Doc LC
10-12-2006, 07:39 PM
MO, I absolutely agree. Having witnessed social disentegration right here at home in the face of a natural disaster, one can only imagine the chaos caused by a nuclear detonation in a major population center. Another problem is, in the event of a terrorist strike, who do we retaliate against? Do we obliterate a city or a country, as well as spreading toxic residue far and wide that well may blow back to our shores? The problem with nuclear weapons in general is that they are like using a RPG for home defense. You may get the bad guy in your living room, but you and yours are equally screwed. Like it or not, war and politics are forever intertwined (remember your von Clausewitz?), so as MO says, we cannot simply shut the gates and give the rest of the world the finger, although at times we all would love to. We tried that approach in the 1930s, and it got us Pearl Harbor. We already have a large fifth column within our own borders (and I do believe in our own Congress) who would love to see our nation dismantled and our families enslaved, so locking the doors would only increase the internal threat by providing us with a false sense of security. Besides, the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world didn't prevent 9-11.

While "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" makes for good barroom braggadocio, the only ones to ever put the policy into practice were such shining examples of liberty as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. We must be vigilant, but we must also be intelligent. Whenever we dismiss our enemies as "gooks" or "ragheads," we only do so at our own peril. By blinding ourselves with our own bulls**t in this regard, we create more problems for ourselves as a nation. We must deal with each crisis on an individual basis rather than attempt to apply a "one size fits all" solution to our problems. That being said, I believe we should be proactive, both diplomatically and militarily, in international affairs. We should defend our way of life with all the fanaticism of our enemies, but with one difference: while we may have to "play dirty" sometimes, we must always keep in mind those values of justice and liberty that make our nation the greatest in human history. It makes things more difficult sometimes, but it is the only way to survive with dignity. While I don't like the idea of America as a global policeman, I don't like the idea of our nation as a global executioner, either. Btw, MO, that's H.G. Wells. Orwell wrote "1984." :soap:

Medula Oblongata
10-12-2006, 10:32 PM
Wells, Orwell, sounds that same when your'e sleep deprived!

Thanks for pointing that out though, it made me laugh :D

Doc LC
10-12-2006, 10:50 PM
I know what you mean. I'm feeling pretty run-down myself, today. I made some coffee, earlier, then noticed that the cat's water bowl was running low ... yup, for some unexplained reason I poured the coffee in the cat's bowl. Time to get some sleep! :D

Megatron
10-15-2006, 05:25 PM
North Korea has already rejected the UN resolutions for sanctions imposed against them for conducting that nuclear test. That was no surprise there. According to the angry little pygmy with the bouffant hairdo and elevator shoes, that would be considered a declaration of war.

They're now threatening to do another nuclear test.

Macdaddy
10-15-2006, 08:39 PM
Seems to me it's not in the interests of any country already in the nuke club to have any more members join. Once we decide we can't sit idly by and watch it happen with North Korea (or Iran), then the question is what do we do about it? In the case of North Korea, they don't seem to care if all of their people starve so economic sanctions aren't likely to do much. US unilateral military strikes will really stir up a mess, and we all know the UN isn't gonna agree to any joint military action. The more time that ticks by, the closer they get to a nuke that really works or, perhaps just as bad, they find a way to sell off a few that don't work so well - but well enough to make a major metro area uninhabitable for decades. So what are the options for viable, effective action here?

How about we call China and say 1) Any mysterious nuke blast anywhere in the world will be assumed to be a military strike by North Korea. 2) ANY military strike anywhere in the world by North Korea will be considered a military strike by China (ala Cuba and Russia in the missile crisis). 3) Any such military strike will evoke an immediate response in kind (and then some) by the US. 4) Any action by China to deal with the North Korean situation will elicit no response from the US as long as it is contained within North Korea's borders. 5) In the event of any regime change in North Korea that results in its demilitarization the US is prepared to provide immediate humanitarian aid and work with China and other nations to provide longer term economic development programs to the people of North Korea.

Wehrwulf
10-15-2006, 11:16 PM
Part of the problem with threatening China is that we have far too many american dollars there . We are in debt far too heavily with them. Don't want to make the almighty dollar unstable. Might just have a little more than a recession.

Medula Oblongata
10-16-2006, 05:57 AM
Part of the problem with threatening China is that we have far too many american dollars there . We are in debt far too heavily with them. Don't want to make the almighty dollar unstable. Might just have a little more than a recession.


Nah, not worth my time.