North Korea tests another Nuke

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Notsomuch:
No oil? Check.
No Value? Check.
Not muslim? Check.
Israel doesn't care? Check.
Nuclear testing? Checkerooni.

Conclusion? Invasion Unlikely.

That is a very very shallow understanding of the issues at hand and it does a disservice to the complexities of modern geopolitics to just chalk all US foreign interests up to oil. (BTW I have yet to see convincing evidence that Iraq was motivated by oil, that oil revenues have increased from the region in the wake of the war or that it was anything other than a war motivated by the need for the administration to be seen 'avenging' the September 11th attacks.)

Consider, it is in the US interests to maintain as much influence in the Asia-Pacific region as a counterweight to the PRC. One key lynchpin of US influence in the region is the ROK. It is key to US interests in the region that the ROK remain pro-US and in addition, there is the increasing likelyhood of a threat to the territorial US from the DPRK. The idea is the same as the last time the yanks and us went to war in Korea.

I also have yet to see any notion that Islam is being used as a cassus belli by the US, I mean, if that were the case, the US would not have ended the arms embargo on Indonesia, and would not be considering selling them apaches.

In addition to that, your assumption that Israel holds any more weight than the standard regional partner veers dangerously close to the widely held myth that it somehow 'runs' the US. Consider, what is more to Israel's interests, a stable and secular but mostly repressive regime in Iraq, or the increasingly radical sectarian groups? And what would Israel's interest in Afghanistan be?

The Gentleman:

Hardcore_gamer:

Not G. Ivingname:

It looks like any hope of Kim Jung Un being any better than his father just went up in nuclear flame.

It is actually possible that he is even worse.

There have been rumors that he enjoyed torturing animals before he became the leader of NK.

Yeah... we didn't even have a second picture of the guy before he was placed as Supreme Leader, so I'm going to assume that unsubstantiated rumors are just that, rumors.

These aren't just rumors, US intelligence analysts said this.

Blablahb:

thaluikhain:
NK having teh odd small nuclear device isn't that worrying. All it'd achieve is the horrific death of many hundreds of thousands of North Koreans, and a much smaller amount of people wherever it was initiated. The USSR and China have mighty nuclear arsenals, but don't dare do anything with them.

While you're mostly right, Nort Korea is by far the most unpredictable of nuclear powers as far as the course its government takes is concerned.

They get all this crazy propaganda about destroying the US and the west and worship their leaders, they're like Palestinians on crack as far as indoctrination is concerned. And if they grow up with that in their head, who's to say none of them will ever be crazy enough to start reaching for big red buttons?

Maybe, they've had the capacity to make a mess out of SK with conventional munitions for decades now, though. It would be horrific, of course, but the horror would be mostly confined to NK.

Chromatic Aberration:
Second is that while the nuke itself was not very powerful the North Korean authorities seem to emphasize that the bomb was "smaller and light" in contrast to previous explosive devices - a requirement to make the warheads fit onto ICBMs. And if NK develops that kind of capability, any US intervention will get much more improbable. Any US administration will think twice before engaging in any military intervention with the danger in mind that one of the first acts in a possible war could be the obliteration of downtown LA by a nuclear device.

Very true, though the US wouldn't want Seoul to lose suburbs due to conventional artillery as it is. Ability to hit LA is more than necessary.

Am I the only one seeing this as one massive ad campaign made by the North Korea arms industry? The country is in financial hell, and it could use whatever buyer it can get. What's better than small nuclear bombs?

I don't think we should worry about North Korea and their nuclear bombs. I think we should worry about who they will sell them or the tech behind them to...

Hardcore_gamer:
These aren't just rumors, US intelligence analysts said this.

I need a source on that one, especially considering how little they had on him when he started...

the clockmaker:

That is a very very shallow understanding of the issues at hand and it does a disservice to the complexities of modern geopolitics to just chalk all US foreign interests up to oil. (BTW I have yet to see convincing evidence that Iraq was motivated by oil, that oil revenues have increased from the region in the wake of the war or that it was anything other than a war motivated by the need for the administration to be seen 'avenging' the September 11th attacks.)

Consider, it is in the US interests to maintain as much influence in the Asia-Pacific region as a counterweight to the PRC. One key lynchpin of US influence in the region is the ROK. It is key to US interests in the region that the ROK remain pro-US and in addition, there is the increasing likelyhood of a threat to the territorial US from the DPRK. The idea is the same as the last time the yanks and us went to war in Korea.

I also have yet to see any notion that Islam is being used as a cassus belli by the US, I mean, if that were the case, the US would not have ended the arms embargo on Indonesia, and would not be considering selling them apaches.

In addition to that, your assumption that Israel holds any more weight than the standard regional partner veers dangerously close to the widely held myth that it somehow 'runs' the US. Consider, what is more to Israel's interests, a stable and secular but mostly repressive regime in Iraq, or the increasingly radical sectarian groups? And what would Israel's interest in Afghanistan be?

That's a long post that doesn't really address my original point. Well, my point wasn't clear because made a few vague tongue in cheek lines to point out the absurdity of politics. Something I learned early on, on the internet was that writing a long post responding to a few lines that are only barely coherent is an efficient way to waste time.

Anyway, here are a few lines: Iraq was invaded over the possibility That there were weapons of mass destruction. This is at the time when NK was actually developing working weapons. An invasion of Iran is on the table, the reasoning is weapons of mass destruction and in a happy coincidentally, the lead up to this conflict is again at a time where north Korea is testing their arsenal of WMD's.

Notsomuch:
Anyway, here are a few lines: Iraq was invaded over the possibility That there were weapons of mass destruction. This is at the time when NK was actually developing working weapons. An invasion of Iran is on the table, the reasoning is weapons of mass destruction and in a happy coincidentally, the lead up to this conflict is again at a time where north Korea is testing their arsenal of WMD's.

Well yes, on the other hand Korea is still backed by giant China (and was by the USSR until their end) and practically holds Seoul hostage. Iran on the other hand is allied with an unsteady Iraq and Venezuela and rather one-sided with the Lebanon. Their closest ally since the Iran-Iraq war is Syria, who would probably join the Iran against the US but has already bound lots of troops in its ongoing civil war.
And as far as I'm aware the DPRK had a chemical arsenal since long before the 2003 Iraq invasion.

wombat_of_war:
your 7KT nuke going off would have a blast and initial radiation zone of around 1.5 km/0.95 mi

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ is intersting to look at and realise exactly how destructive these things are.

*disclaimer* this poster is not responsible for your simulating nuclear weapon explosions in the above simulator which results in being put on government watchlists and having people in black suits abducting you to cuba in the middle of the night

Huh, interesting. I find it particularly interesting that the radiation zone is so small. I'm no expert on nuclear explosions, mind, but I thought a big problem was the fallout spreading and killing more people. Or is that just the initial radiation radius and any further irradiation is too dependent on, say, meteorological situation to give any good simulation?

I guess a 7 kilo ton bomb could kill a whole lot of people if detonated in the right place, but it couldn't make a city as easily unlivable as I thought it would. Except, again, if the aftereffects are much more widespread than this looks like.

Glasgow:
Am I the only one seeing this as one massive ad campaign made by the North Korea arms industry? The country is in financial hell, and it could use whatever buyer it can get. What's better than small nuclear bombs?

I don't think we should worry about North Korea and their nuclear bombs. I think we should worry about who they will sell them or the tech behind them to...

Not really, I am sure the point has been made that if they sell them to a group and they use them on us, they'd provoke a response from us. Likely in the form of turning their entire nation into a radioactive hell-scape. We in the U.S. dont exactly react well when attacked on our land.

Skeleon:
Huh, interesting. I find it particularly interesting that the radiation zone is so small. I'm no expert on nuclear explosions, mind, but I thought a big problem was the fallout spreading and killing more people. Or is that just the initial radiation radius and any further irradiation is too dependent on, say, meteorological situation to give any good simulation?

I guess a 7 kilo ton bomb could kill a whole lot of people if detonated in the right place, but it couldn't make a city as easily unlivable as I thought it would. Except, again, if the aftereffects are much more widespread than this looks like.

Fallout is caused by stuff in the fireball (which wants to expand spherically) getting irradiated and spat out. If you initiate the device on the ground, the part of the sphere that would have gone downwards except for the ground in the way digs a big hole (useful for destroying underground bunkers and other solid things), and get lots of stuff to make into fallout. The part of the sphere that wants to go upwards can do so, and is wasted. A thin slice going more or less horizontally damages things on the ground.

If you initiate it up in the air so the fireball doesn't touch the ground, there's not much to turn into fallout beyond dust, water vapour, and the device itself. The part of the sphere that goes downwards damages things on the ground over a large area, which is useful for destroying big bits of cities.

You can therefore argue that it's more humane to target cities rather than hardened military installations. Sorta.

...

You'll also note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today, rather more impressive than the US cities which built the weapons to attack Japan.

Notsomuch:

the clockmaker:

That is a very very shallow understanding of the issues at hand and it does a disservice to the complexities of modern geopolitics to just chalk all US foreign interests up to oil. (BTW I have yet to see convincing evidence that Iraq was motivated by oil, that oil revenues have increased from the region in the wake of the war or that it was anything other than a war motivated by the need for the administration to be seen 'avenging' the September 11th attacks.)

Consider, it is in the US interests to maintain as much influence in the Asia-Pacific region as a counterweight to the PRC. One key lynchpin of US influence in the region is the ROK. It is key to US interests in the region that the ROK remain pro-US and in addition, there is the increasing likelyhood of a threat to the territorial US from the DPRK. The idea is the same as the last time the yanks and us went to war in Korea.

I also have yet to see any notion that Islam is being used as a cassus belli by the US, I mean, if that were the case, the US would not have ended the arms embargo on Indonesia, and would not be considering selling them apaches.

In addition to that, your assumption that Israel holds any more weight than the standard regional partner veers dangerously close to the widely held myth that it somehow 'runs' the US. Consider, what is more to Israel's interests, a stable and secular but mostly repressive regime in Iraq, or the increasingly radical sectarian groups? And what would Israel's interest in Afghanistan be?

That's a long post that doesn't really address my original point. Well, my point wasn't clear because made a few vague tongue in cheek lines to point out the absurdity of politics. Something I learned early on, on the internet was that writing a long post responding to a few lines that are only barely coherent is an efficient way to waste time.

Anyway, here are a few lines: Iraq was invaded over the possibility That there were weapons of mass destruction. This is at the time when NK was actually developing working weapons. An invasion of Iran is on the table, the reasoning is weapons of mass destruction and in a happy coincidentally, the lead up to this conflict is again at a time where north Korea is testing their arsenal of WMD's.

Iraq was invaded because two reasons. 1- installing a friendly puppet in place. 2. Internal politics. Leaders need to keep their jobs, and that's all that matters. Forget the meat grinder that is war.

Iran is also a regime some western world powers are itching to get rid of (USA, UK, France, Germany). The happening of some nuclear research doesn't conflate with the need to re-establish 'democracy' in the region and to topple the over-reaching influence of Iran. It's coming all the way from China to Afghanistan to Syria&Lebanon&Gaza and to darn Sudan. Nobody likes a local strong power in the middle east to threaten the oil puppets there. Before you ask, Israel is a glorified US satellite with some identity issues at the moment.

North Korea can't be treated with war. World Leaders are kicking the can along the road. It cannot be dealt with. War on that front will devastate South Korea immensely and will put Communist China in an identity crisis. Further risks are Japan and Taiwan. The country is so tight I believe they can't ferment a revolution from the inside. It's like a child with a handgun. You just pray to god he doesn't pull the trigger accidentally because the infant will aim straight to the head.

Glasgow:
I can imagine living the life as a South Korean. The stress would have killed me.

Living in Korea now, and I can categorically tell you that zero-point-two pucks (not a spelling error) were given by your average Korean. During the DPRK rocket launch, the news dedicated about thirty seconds to covering it, and the nuke test garnered about the same. You need to keep in mind that these people have been living in a state of armistice since the end of the Korean conflict. Generation after generation has been desensitized to any potential conflict/threat from the North to the point at which they are almost condescending in their reactions. Suffice it to say, the only people that really worry about the DPRK are those that live in the west...

mokes310:

Glasgow:
I can imagine living the life as a South Korean. The stress would have killed me.

Living in Korea now, and I can categorically tell you that zero-point-two pucks (not a spelling error) were given by your average Korean. During the DPRK rocket launch, the news dedicated about thirty seconds to covering it, and the nuke test garnered about the same. You need to keep in mind that these people have been living in a state of armistice since the end of the Korean conflict. Generation after generation has been desensitized to any potential conflict/threat from the North to the point at which they are almost condescending in their reactions. Suffice it to say, the only people that really worry about the DPRK are those that live in the west...

It's really sad that anyone overhear is losing sleep over the actions of "The People Democratic Republic of Korea." The only people who are realistically in range of any attacks by the North is the South, China, and (maybe) Japan. The military is so behind on every single front but in numbers (and numbers don't mean anything if only half the troops have guns and next to none of them have bullets).

I wonder if they could even get the Nuke over the DMZ with such outdated equipment.

Not G. Ivingname:

mokes310:

Glasgow:
I can imagine living the life as a South Korean. The stress would have killed me.

Living in Korea now, and I can categorically tell you that zero-point-two pucks (not a spelling error) were given by your average Korean. During the DPRK rocket launch, the news dedicated about thirty seconds to covering it, and the nuke test garnered about the same. You need to keep in mind that these people have been living in a state of armistice since the end of the Korean conflict. Generation after generation has been desensitized to any potential conflict/threat from the North to the point at which they are almost condescending in their reactions. Suffice it to say, the only people that really worry about the DPRK are those that live in the west...

It's really sad that anyone overhear is losing sleep over the actions of "The People Democratic Republic of Korea." The only people who are realistically in range of any attacks by the North is the South, China, and (maybe) Japan. The military is so behind on every single front but in numbers (and numbers don't mean anything if only half the troops have guns and next to none of them have bullets).

I wonder if they could even get the Nuke over the DMZ with such outdated equipment.

Well, that's not entirely true about their military. The DPRK has something on the order of a million men in their active military service. While they posses antiquated hardware, they make up for it with sheer numbers. It is widely believed that if they were to take such action against the South, Seoul would be leveled in a matter of minutes, with scores of crazed infantrymen (not unlike zombies, or as my students would say, 'jombies'), and perhaps a couple dozen scuds. In speaking with the conscripts in my city, I've been informed that those stationed along the DMZ have standing orders to hold position for exactly seven minutes. Why seven minutes you ask? Well, that's because it takes our fighter/bombers just under seven minutes to reach any point on the DMZ and obliterate any and all who occupy that given space. In essence, it would be a disgusting, bloody, and extremely damaging conflict if it were to occur.

BUT, it is extremely unlikely that it ever will. The North often does things like this when there is a change in political power both there and here. The South has recently elected a new President (dictators daughter), and Kim Jung-un is struggling to be seen as a competent and capable ruler.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked