It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Korea may test hydrogen bomb in Pacific Ocean

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: hiddenNZ
I guess the same right the French, American, Russian etc etc had? None at all but they did.


the French,and American,test were conducted on islands owned by the French,and Americans

The norks own no islands in the Pacific Ocean,
This means they would be testing in international waters and the UN controls the treaties over international waters.
The norks would also have to warn anyone in the test area under international laws and would be responsible for anyone killed or injured.
And they would also be responsible for the fallout from a nuke.




posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikell

originally posted by: face23785
The way I understand it, I don't see this happening.

There's 3 ways you could do this:

1. Fly the bomb out with a bomber and drop it at the test site you've chosen.
2. Haul it out there with your navy, set it up, move your navy out of the blast zone and detonate.
3. Launch it to the test site you've chosen on a missile.

The problem is, they lack the capability to do any of these.

1. The only plane they have that they could drop a nuclear bomb with is the Il-28, which has a maximum range of about 2200 km, and that's probably unloaded. So realistically it could only fly about 1000 km before it had to turn around and head home. If you look at a map, there's really no route this bomber could fly without violating someone else's airspace and make it out to the Pacific before they had to turn around.

2. What Navy? They've only got a handful of active vessels, logistically it just wouldn't be feasible to send them out that far to do a test.

3. Their missile technology isn't advanced enough to do this yet. They would have to launch on a ballistic trajectory, and they haven't demonstrated the ability to have the warhead survive re-entry yet.

So, unless I'm missing something here, he's just blowing smoke.



Bingo
Line 2

They have 1 bomb at a time that's it. They can't start anything without a backup plan. Unless he wants everyone there to DIE!!


If you're specifically referring to their hydrogen bombs, it's possible they only have 1 or 2 of them yes. But by now they likely have a few dozen atomic bombs. Pretty much every analysis by any set of experts says they have at least 10, some think they have as many as 30 or more.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Yes, I think the consensus is between 20-30 currently, with the Defense Intelligence Agency estimating 60 or so, although most civilian experts believe that's way too high.

One of many many articles, this one from Time Magazine


edit on 23-9-2017 by Sagacity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Sagacity

The most important stat to me is that right now 0 are deployable. We need to fix this before they finish developing their delivery systems. That's when we're truly out of time.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

...and they are moving quite quickly toward that ability.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Looks like a calibration shot to me...www.bbc.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
If they knock out power to Guam, Hawaii, or any US Naval vessel in the vicinity with an EMP, it would be an act of war.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The North Korean spokesman is at the UN right now saying as much.

In a nutshell they're going to plop a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific.

This (now) is starting to get scary.

Edit to Add:

Now he's saying NK will definitely use a nuke preemptively if any sign of 'decapitation' efforts are made against NK by the USA.


edit on 4942Saturday201713 by silo13 because: see above



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13

For now that's an empty threat, they have nuclear weapons but no way to deliver them just yet.

I would like to point out, however, that this statement from North Korea today is a direct threat:


Due to his lacking of basic common knowledge and proper sentiment, he tried to insult the supreme dignity ofmy country by referring it to a rocket. By doing so, however, he committed an irreversible mistake of making our rockets' visit to the entire U.S. mainland inevitable all the more.


Now you might say well the US says it will strike NK. No, the US has said we will strike NK if certain conditions were met. It's always qualified. We never say "we're definitely going to do this". On the other hand, this clown just said because of what Trump said in his speech, a NK attack on the US is "inevitable". I dunno if this idiot knows what that word means but it's basically a guarantee, a threat of a pre-emptive strike on us.

That's all the more justification to hit them now.
edit on 23 9 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: silo13

For now that's an empty threat, they have nuclear weapons but no way to deliver them just yet.

I would like to point out, however, that this statement from North Korea today is a direct threat:


Due to his lacking of basic common knowledge and proper sentiment, he tried to insult the supreme dignity ofmy country by referring it to a rocket. By doing so, however, he committed an irreversible mistake of making our rockets' visit to the entire U.S. mainland inevitable all the more.


Now you might say well the US says it will strike NK. No, the US has said we will strike NK if certain conditions were met. It's always qualified. We never say "we're definitely going to do this". On the other hand, this clown just said because of what Trump said in his speech, a NK attack on the US is "inevitable". I dunno if this idiot knows what that word means but it's basically a guarantee, a threat of a pre-emptive strike on us.

That's all the more justification to hit them now.


What exactly makes you think they do not have the means to deliver a nuclear warhead??



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: silo13
The North Korean spokesman is at the UN right now saying as much.

In a nutshell they're going to plop a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific.

This (now) is starting to get scary.

Edit to Add:

Now he's saying NK will definitely use a nuke preemptively if any sign of 'decapitation' efforts are made against NK by the USA.



Thanks for posting that link, silo!




posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: cnoland

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: silo13

For now that's an empty threat, they have nuclear weapons but no way to deliver them just yet.

I would like to point out, however, that this statement from North Korea today is a direct threat:


Due to his lacking of basic common knowledge and proper sentiment, he tried to insult the supreme dignity ofmy country by referring it to a rocket. By doing so, however, he committed an irreversible mistake of making our rockets' visit to the entire U.S. mainland inevitable all the more.


Now you might say well the US says it will strike NK. No, the US has said we will strike NK if certain conditions were met. It's always qualified. We never say "we're definitely going to do this". On the other hand, this clown just said because of what Trump said in his speech, a NK attack on the US is "inevitable". I dunno if this idiot knows what that word means but it's basically a guarantee, a threat of a pre-emptive strike on us.

That's all the more justification to hit them now.


What exactly makes you think they do not have the means to deliver a nuclear warhead??


Personally, I am taking the threats as seriously as Trump claims he is (not that I believe he actually gives a rat's a$$, I don't). Obviously, he will be well protected.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I think open testing in the Pacific may be crossing the line. Or am I just way off?



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sagacity
I think open testing in the Pacific may be crossing the line. Or am I just way off?


NK threatened to land missiles just off the coast of Guam last month. They backed down from that threat. Exploding a Nuke or Hydrogen bomb over the Pacific Ocean would be worse, I would think.

China said that if North Korea makes the first provocative move, they will not come to North Korea's aid when the US and allies strike in retaliation.

It's best to wait and see what North Korea does. Might be just another bluff, as Guam was.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I would agree that it seems an even more provocative action than landing a missile near Guam. I'm hoping that it's indeed hot air.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: cnoland

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: silo13

For now that's an empty threat, they have nuclear weapons but no way to deliver them just yet.

I would like to point out, however, that this statement from North Korea today is a direct threat:


Due to his lacking of basic common knowledge and proper sentiment, he tried to insult the supreme dignity ofmy country by referring it to a rocket. By doing so, however, he committed an irreversible mistake of making our rockets' visit to the entire U.S. mainland inevitable all the more.


Now you might say well the US says it will strike NK. No, the US has said we will strike NK if certain conditions were met. It's always qualified. We never say "we're definitely going to do this". On the other hand, this clown just said because of what Trump said in his speech, a NK attack on the US is "inevitable". I dunno if this idiot knows what that word means but it's basically a guarantee, a threat of a pre-emptive strike on us.

That's all the more justification to hit them now.


What exactly makes you think they do not have the means to deliver a nuclear warhead??


They haven't demonstrated the capability to do it yet. Their missile tech is getting there, but still not finished. They haven't figured out how to get the warhead to survive re-entry yet. That leaves delivering it by bomber. Their Il-28s would never make it to South Korea or Japan without getting shot down.

So they have the weapon, but until they get some better bombers or finish their missile development, they can't use it on anyone else yet.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

They likely have good enough reentry per the CIA. [1] The 28 July test had a high lofted trajectory which is probably why it failed. A normal course would likely succeed.

References: [1]http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/us-intelligence-north-koreas-icbm-reentry-vehicles-are-likely-good-enough-to-hit-the-continental-us/



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: NuclearDamocles

Thank you for posting that, I had not read that before.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

No problem. We've had a firehose of intel about the North Koreans this year, it has been hard to keep up.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: NuclearDamocles

The other thing people bring up is their guidance system, but ya know what they say, almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear weapons.

One of the bombs we dropped on Japan was off target by like a half-mile as I recall, still decimated the city. And NK's bombs are more powerful.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join