N' korea to test nuclear weapon

Well things seem to be hotting up, with this and my last thread about China.
Is it me or is America and its Allies being pushed in to a corner here, its almost like they are testing the waters, trying to see how far they can go before they get a response.

news.aol.co.uk...

What are your opinions on this new news?? After there recent missile tests, do you think they have a decent delivery system that will work??



[edit on 3-10-2006 by Kurokage]

I think its probably in our best interests to let the DPRK keep believing that nukes are the best weapons anybody has. We have things that are way more scary than nukes, so its actually good news if they feel like this is the best they can come up with and that theyre finally playing with the 'big boys', which theyre not.

my opinion and countermeasure in here. also hope your analysis

seeing as the only way a soverign nation can keep the united states and co out their backyard dictating to them what they can and what they cant do is by having a weapon capible of such mass distruction as a deturrent.

unless of course they want to be liberated by the yanks sorry ment americans
and become a country run by a puppet or a poodle

bravo another nuclear armed nation run by a moron (like we need more)

Originally posted by bodrul
seeing as the only way a soverign nation can keep the united states and co out their backyard dictating to them what they can and what they cant do is by having a weapon capible of such mass distruction as a deturrent.

I am not sure I believe that. I don't think the US is deterred by a nuclear weapon threat.

If a country, say North Korea, has a nuclear weapon and goes to war with the United States for some reason, does having a nuclear weapon really help them?

If they use it, they will be totally destroyed by nuclear weapons, so having a nuclear weapon doesn't really gain a country anything at the negotiating table.

That is also accurate historically. Nuclear countries, whether it is France, Britian, Russia, China, or the United States... have all been involved in wars since WWII, so it isn't like there is any evidence that simply having nuclear weapons is a prelude to peace.

Originally posted by darksided

I am not sure I believe that. I don't think the US is deterred by a nuclear weapon threat.

If a country, say North Korea, has a nuclear weapon and goes to war with the United States for some reason, does having a nuclear weapon really help them?

If they use it, they will be totally destroyed by nuclear weapons, so having a nuclear weapon doesn't really gain a country anything at the negotiating table.

That is also accurate historically. Nuclear countries, whether it is France, Britian, Russia, China, or the United States... have all been involved in wars since WWII, so it isn't like there is any evidence that simply having nuclear weapons is a prelude to peace.

Exactly...Iran and NK are acting like nuclear weapons will scare us away...well guess what, you use one first....and we will use 10....

So I guarantee you they will not use them exaclty for this reason.

-Laughs-
'You want to test a nuke?'
'Fine, if you test a nuke, we test a nuke.' :]
XD

And, don't worry about that above poster. While I could forgive his terrible grammar, as he sounds foreign, anyone who represents themselves by a large, near-fully-body picture of a scantily clad women has the IQ of spit.

I think people are getting it drastically wrong here..

A nuclear weapon in the hands of North Korea is no joke.
"ou nuke us once, and we'll nuke you 10 times" is ok for all those of you who haven't crawled out of your play sand pits.
Are you seriously telling me that in an all out nuclear exchange, the North Koreans will play by the rules and only put nuclear devices on missiles?
Some of those missiles may never even reach the continental US, and those that reach may never detonate.
The most efficient way would be to smuggle nuclear devices into the states and detonate them all over the place.
Obviously it is almost impossible to stop that unless one implements draconian measures, martial law etc. etc..
Any power with nuclear weapons right now is a major problem for the US.
How do you prevent these devices from coming in?
What if they hook up with the Al-Qaeda et all?
Who do you profile? people who have an Arabian look? Or is it the one with oriental features? But he could be travelling on a Chinese passport or a South Korean passport or a Indonesian passport!
It will be a nightmare for homeland security, esp if they don't have any solid intel intercepts to go on.

Trust me; its not so simple.. It may not even be a pyrrhic victory for the US.

The main thing one needs to look at is how much weapons grade fuel they can produce annually and then extrapolate the number of bombs produceable.

Nuclear weapons is a great equaliser unfortunately; irrespective of conventional might. I know.. I live in a region(South Asia) which has the greatest susceptibility to N-detonation; even more than say the US,Russia,China, Europe etc..

Despite their promises, proliferation is the largest threat.
True, a shot to Japan, China, Thaiwan would be enormously costly, as would a shot in the upper-atmosphere. But if they were to release a double-digit kiloton weapon, triple-digit even, if the Koreans could somehow come up with enough size-reduction, and set the item up in a major European town, or worse yet, America-- [Simply because we have rather important areas clustered together.] -- the impact, economically, politically, socially would be unheard of. And we couldn't pin it on anyone. Either we'd have to retreat into a new era of isolationism, which is a bit too late considering super-power status, or clamp down on all un-known super-powers, not to mention increase protection over existing facilities exponentially.

So, what we can hope is that the practical limitation of a nuclear weapon- Size, radiation-signatures, transport to continental U.S., are too much of an obstacle for a .. I'd like to say, fractured, Al-Qaida. [And I say Al-Qaida specifically, given their the ones with any sort of success-rating as to infiltrating, and performing on U.S. soil.]

Well things seem to be hotting up, with this and my last thread about China.

What does this have to do with China? I think you mean N. Korea...

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
Despite their promises, proliferation is the largest threat.
True, a shot to Japan, China, Thaiwan would be enormously costly, as would a shot in the upper-atmosphere. But if they were to release a double-digit kiloton weapon, triple-digit even, if the Koreans could somehow come up with enough size-reduction, and set the item up in a major European town, or worse yet, America-- [Simply because we have rather important areas clustered together.] -- the impact, economically, politically, socially would be unheard of. And we couldn't pin it on anyone. Either we'd have to retreat into a new era of isolationism, which is a bit too late considering super-power status, or clamp down on all un-known super-powers, not to mention increase protection over existing facilities exponentially.

So, what we can hope is that the practical limitation of a nuclear weapon- Size, radiation-signatures, transport to continental U.S., are too much of an obstacle for a .. I'd like to say, fractured, Al-Qaida. [And I say Al-Qaida specifically, given their the ones with any sort of success-rating as to infiltrating, and performing on U.S. soil.]

I doubt any of these budding nuclear states (Iran, North Korea etc.) will be able to produce weapons of yields greater than single digit kiloton figures.
Mainly because their source of N-tech is Pakistan(yes Pakistan and NOT China), which itself hasn't been able to go beyond that single digit figure.

Another thing which I just thought about after writing the above post is the fact that these states will not be able to make N-devices compact enough(less than 10-20kg) for easy smugggling.. A possible plus point but not much to gloat about.

EDIT: double post


[edit on 3-10-2006 by Daedalus3]

They have every right to make nuclear weapons, as they see it, its an agressive america attacking countires WITHOUT UN approval. Added to fact that America refuses to sign a treaty with North Korea which gurantees the US wont attack it like iraq, makes the north koreans feel quite edgy

So? Testing Nuclear weapons is still a dumb idea and is prohibited by international law. Remeber the furor when France tested their Nukes in the 90s? My parents still won't by French products because of that(and it's not because they are French either).

Originally posted by sardion2000
prohibited by international law.

Which law?

If you trace their nuclear program back to the begining, you will find that 1994 is a important year. They signed the Agreed Framework between the USA and the DPRK which had the following points

- The international community would build two LWR to replace North Koreas GM power plants
- 500,000 tons of oil to be delivered each year until 2003 to compensate for the lost the GM power plant
- Normalized relations
- Lift Economic sanctions
- A formal treaty of sorts to the DPRK that america wont attack them conventionally or with nuclear weapons
- Remain part of the NPT
- IAEA inspections and full compliance with the IAEA


Thus far, the only thing the US did was ship mediocre amount of fuel to the North Koreans while North korea furfilled its part, step by step. Its not north korea to blame, its the Americans

I don't much much about history, so these answers are without any basis.
But.

- IAEA inspections and full compliance with the IAEA.

From what I recall, they didn't really comply with that..

en.wikipedia.org...

--The pact is neither a treaty subject to Senate approval nor a contract, but more of a memorandum of understanding between the two countries noted by the United Nations Security Council [2]. It was signed in the wake of North Korea's abandonment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a U.S. military buildup near the country, and U.S. plans to bomb the active Yongbyon nuclear reactor [3].

--In exchange two light water reactors would be constructed in North Korea by 2003 at a cost of $4 billion, primarily supplied by Japan and South Korea.
[Neither of those names are the U.S.A]

--It is reported that US President Bill Clinton's officials agreed to the plan only because they thought that the North Korean government would collapse before the nuclear power project was completed [4]. North Korean officials at the time also suspected the U.S. anticipated an early collapse of the DPRK [5]. North Korea's leader Kim Il-sung had recently died.
[I concede. U.S. mistakes.]

--Soon after the agreement was signed, U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement.

--There was increasing disagreement between North Korea and U.S. on the scope and implementation of the treaty. When by 1999 economic sanctions had not been lifted and full diplomatic relations between U.S. and North Korea had not been established, North Korea warned that they would resume nuclear research unless the U.S. kept up its end of the bargain. U.S. has repeatedly stated that further implementation would be stalled as long as suspicions remained that the North Korean nuclear weapons research program continued covertly.

[So, yes, they failed to comply to, perhaps the most vital part of the agreement.]


usgovinfo.about.com...

--Background: On Oct. 16, 2002 North Korean government officials admitted their country had secretly continued development of nuclear weapons in violation of a 1994 non-proliferation agreement with the United States.

Originally posted by bodrul
seeing as the only way a soverign nation can keep the united states and co out their backyard dictating to them what they can and what they cant do is by having a weapon capible of such mass distruction as a deturrent.

unless of course they want to be liberated by the yanks sorry ment americans
and become a country run by a puppet or a poodle

bravo another nuclear armed nation run by a moron (like we need more)

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
[So, yes, they failed to comply to, perhaps the most vital part of the agreement.]

Read the WHOLE agreement.

The US didn't do ANYTHING the excuse provided were "still suspicious" and the main motive is outlined in your article

''"It is reported that US President Bill Clinton's officials agreed to the plan only because they thought that the North Korean government would collapse before the nuclear power project was completed ""

Background: On Oct. 16, 2002 North Korean government officials admitted their country had secretly continued development of nuclear weapons in violation of a 1994 non-proliferation agreement with the United States.

From your own wikipedia source

In October 2002, a U.S. delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly visted North Korea to confront the North Koreans with the U.S. assessment that they had a uranium enrichment program [12]. Both parties' reports of the meeting differ. The U.S. delegation believed the North Koreans had admitted the existence of a highly enriched uranium program [13]. The North Koreans stated Kelly made his assertions in an arrogant manner, but failed to produce any evidence such as satellite photos, and they responded denying North Korea planned to produce nuclear weapons using enriched uranium.

And how its protrayed to the american public, I wonder if they gave the North Korean POV

From what I recall, they didn't really comply with that..

That was in '02-'03, during the period of 94'-99(and 00) North Korea did comply, and was not enriching any uranium. Only after 8 years, did they realise they were getting the short end of the stick and begun to demand what was agreed on in '94. What the americans did not factorise was the North Korean goverment not collasping and in good American fashion just tried to lie their way out of it

U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement.

And that matters because?

The agreement was on an COUNTY TO COUNTY basis, not a government to governmnt one. Which means that a change in government does not null out the agreement

[Neither of those names are the U.S.A]

......Thats funding,

what held the project up was the american companies which were blocked to begin construction because of the american government
www.avantnews.com...

Which was Late by a few years to begin construction

[edit on 4-10-2006 by chinawhite]

Originally posted by sardion2000
So? Testing Nuclear weapons is still a dumb idea and is prohibited by international law. Remeber the furor when France tested their Nukes in the 90s? My parents still won't by French products because of that(and it's not because they are French either).

Prohibited by international law??!!
When did that happen?
Do you have any sources for this?
Nobody wants/is ok with North Korea to have nukes except for the North Koreans themselves.
The US is not the only objective. This will totally screw up the area with cascading reactionary measures(who knows what) by Japan, South Korea and maybe even Taiwan. Not good at all..
Hope its just a cry for more aid..