North Korea says nuclear test successful

Originally posted by Odium
So, you think he wants to destroy South Korea. [...]So, now he wants to unite both South Korea and North Korea under his rule

Why do you think that these two things are somehow mutually exclusive? Hitler wanted to create a super-european pan-germanic state, his plan was to destroy everything around him and replace it with the new super-german state. Not a good plan, but hardly one that is immpossible for a person to attempt. There is absolutely nothing that is contradictory about Kim wanting to nuke S. Korea, destroy its government, and then invade and occupy it, just like he occupies North Korea.

The War on Terror is not the only event on going at the moment in the World and in relation to the United State’s of America.

Its the only relevant one.

However, compare Russia 20 years ago to how it is now. Compare China 20 years to how it is now and so on and so fourth. To deny they’ve changed, is to bury ones head in the sand.

Russia changed because the US opposed soviet expansion at a high cost everywhere it could, and this ripped the russian elite from within. It lead gorbachev to soften his stance on capitalism, which lead to the coup and counter coup that relegated the Soviet Union to the history books. Russia didn't change on its own, or out of altruism. It was pushed and proded and fought into that position. N. Korea similarly isn't going to change out of its own will.

topsecretombomb
I have a strong feeling japan or china or south korea will invade before our coalition does.

Neither has the ability to do so, especially with a nuke armed N. Korea to face. Japan has no real offensive ability, and the S. Korean army will be wiped out on the DMZ the moment the war starts. If they've had enough time, then the S. Korean government and command and control centers would be destroyed by nukes moments afterwards.

In any new Korean war, the troops on the southern side of the border, both the US and S. Korean troops, get wiped out extremely quickly. They are, in a sense, a 'strategic sacrifice', they are there to deter the N. K from attacking, but can't actually defeat them, they might be able to hold off long enough to work with the actual counter-invasion force which will have to be assembled and deployed from the US.

princeofpeace
Its not like the North Koreans were holding back from detonating a large one...they actually bypassed it and showed they have miniturized the yield[/'quote]
Interesting. And miniaturization is the 'critical' factor in going from a test explosion to mounting it on a missile no?

Its almost laughable how bad they are doing except that A: theyb have the desire and B. a few tweaks here and there and they are golden.

Regardless, they were able to test a nuke and a long range missile while the world organizations that exist for the explicit purpose of preventing the worst ravages of war, stood by. Even more so, they were still able to get food and other supplies from the international community, allowing them to focus their few resources on their military.

N. Korea is a country that should be 5th or 6th world or something like that, and yet, they've been able to test a nuke and test a missile that could carry it to the US. Thats insane.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
What amazes me is the attention given to Iran when they claim to want nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. North Korea specifically says they want a nuclear bomb, they announce they're going to test one, and then they actually do test one. And tommorow's papers will probably only give them a sideline article compared to Amadinijad doing something like taking a dump.

Its probably because North Korea doesnet have any Oil, like Iran does.

Originally posted by Odium
The War on Terror is not the only event on going at the moment in the World and in relation to the United State’s of America. However, Pakistan did help the United State’s with the invasion of Afghanistan. Furthermore, they have attacked several terrorist leaders.

Though I do not wish to enter into this personal duel in progress, I have to point out that Pakistan's role in the war on terror is debatable.
1)Pakistan did NOT 'help' the US invade Afghanistan. All it did was not OPPOSE the invasion. The US is not allowed miltiary access within Pakistani territory.
2)Catching bearded men who hate the US isn't too difficult in Pakistan. True, Musharraf(at certain amount of risk to himself) has done quite a bit to reduce the terror training grounds in his country, but he has obviously not done all he can. Ground US/NATO/UK commanders in Afghanistan are claiming that the Pakistani intelligence agencies are infact traning militants beofer they cross over into Afghanistan.

Yes there are more things that the US is concerned with other tha nthe War on Terror and I'm sure you're reffering to the NK crisis, but here's something else for you to ponder upon:
The link between North Korean Nuclear Technology and Pakistani assistance to the same(centrifuges,scientists,blueprints,cold testing simulators) in undeniable.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
.............
Maybe the material was mined at home but the tech has come from ..cough..cough..

*cough.. Russia...cough *...... although other countries such as Germany also helped... possibly even China has been involved in procurement of nuclear technology to NK for nuclear weapons.


www.kimsoft.com...

BTW DYepes...in which planet do you live?.... NK is not "stable" one bit...

[edit on 9-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Depends on what you call stable.

I would personal desrcibe a unstable country as one that blantantly defies world opinion.. maybe goes against world laws... maybe attacks countries.... creates lies about countries.. maybe one whom is so addicted to a substance that it has to get from FOREIGN countries knowing full well its getting harder and harder to get....
Maybe a country that threatens, refuses to publically achnowledge things...
maybe a country who's leaders cant say that actually WON a election.

to me, thats a pretty unstable country...
and it could get a whole lot more UNSTABLE very quickly..

Now North Korea, granted arent saints..

But.. all they did was defy the world and test a nuclear weapon.. in there OWN backyard.. deep under ground.. and a small one at that.. they warned the world in advanced.. and have stated its for defense... they have attacked anyone in over 4 decades...

which one is the most unstable country?

Originally posted by kindred
N.Korea has nuclear weapons. Funny how everyone blantantly leaves out the most important question. Who was it who gave them the ability to build a nuke in the first place ? Well done Rummy... Great move....

The U.S. gave North Korea two light-water nuclear reactors in 1994.

The only people we should be concerned about are those criminals in the Whitehouse. They are the greatest threat to the security and well being of every human on Planet Earth.

LOl and what did Rumsfeld have to do with it in 1994. Clinton was in power you ignoramus Gawd some people don't hvae 2 braincells to put together.

IT WAS A DUD
asia.news.yahoo.com...

Likely just the conventional explosives inside the nuke which went off (the ones meant to start the chain reaction...but did'nt)

Aww poor liddle kim...



[edit on 10-10-2006 by dickcheney]

The PDRK has sent numerous infiltrators and sabotuers into the ROK over the last 50 years. In 1987, they blew up a Korean Airlines aircraft with 115 people on board. In the '70's, they brutally murdered some unarmed American soldiers who were trimming a tree on the South side of the demarcation line. You think that because they haven't sent an army across the DMZ that they are some peaceful paradise of the workers. They are every bit as aggressive as the US when it comes to kidnapping not only ROK citizens but Japanese and other nations citizens as well. If you think that them having any WMDs and a viable delivery system makes the world a more stable place, you're very mistaken.

Originally posted by dickcheney
IT WAS A DUD

asia.news.yahoo.com...

Likely just the conventional explosives inside the nuke which went off (the ones meant to start the chain reaction...but did'nt)

Aww poor liddle kim...



[edit on 10-10-2006 by dickcheney]

Please show me where in that report it says it was a dud?

Originally posted by Muaddib

*cough.. Russia...cough *...... although other countries such as Germany also helped... possibly even China has been involved in procurement of nuclear technology to NK for nuclear weapons.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by Muaddib]

I fail to see any connection with Russia providing nuclear weapons tech to N Korea in the article you linked.
Same with China..
Germany??!
I thikn you're confusing nuclear energy with nuclear weapons..

Originally posted by dickcheney
IT WAS A DUD

asia.news.yahoo.com...

Likely just the conventional explosives inside the nuke which went off (the ones meant to start the chain reaction...but did'nt)

Aww poor liddle kim...

Conventional explosives alone in teh nuclear weapon wouldn't have even registered a peep oin the Richter scale, it would only use a few hundred kg's at most. More likely the weapon culdhvae been a fizzle or partial yield, which would be coinsidered a dud.

Originally posted by dickcheney
IT WAS A DUD

I'm hearing the same thing. If it was nuclear then it fizzled. Either that, or it was a fake.

The Korea Earthquake Research Centre in South Korea says there was a 3.58-magnitude tremor from North Korea's North Hamgyong province that translated into the equivalent of 800 tonnes of TNT.

But Russian defence minister Sergei Ivanov, quoted by the ITAR-TASS news agency, says the strength was 5-15 kilotonnes.

By comparison, the US atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima during World War II released the equivalent of about 12,500 tonnes of TNT.

"I've heard from three different sources that [the North Korean blast] was less than one kilotonne," says Acton, a nuclear physicist by training.

"This [Russian figure] is not a difference of 10-20% [in the yield]. It's huge. We should wait to see if that Russian statement is confirmed," he says.

Acton says that going for a 15 kilotonne yield was "the natural size" for a country trying to test a nuclear weapon.

Paradoxically, it is easier to make and test a Hiroshima-sized weapon of this size rather than to make a smaller one, which requires mastery of miniaturisation techniques.

"If it turns out to be less than a kilotonne, it could look very much like a fizzle," a bomb that failed to detonate properly and achieve a full chain reaction, Acton says.

abc.net.au...

Originally posted by Hal9000

"If it turns out to be less than a kilotonne, it could look very much like a fizzle," a bomb that failed to detonate properly and achieve a full chain reaction, Acton says.

abc.net.au...

Gee how surprising, exactly what I'v been saying all along. I'm surrised it took this long for someon to pick up on it, I guess not too many ATSers are nuclear weapons savvy.

Sorry, if this is old news. I didn't have time to read 100 replys.

If you have more info, can you tell me what page your post is on?

Remember back in 2001 (I believe) when one of our military planes was downed in China with 11 servicemen aboard and held for like 2 weeks, while China tore through the plane to get all of the technology it had aboard it. China said we were spying on them, and there was a big stand-off.
Why do people think China is our friend, They are in fact the enemy and are helping North Korea, in my view.

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133
Why do people think China is our friend, They are in fact the enemy and are helping North Korea, in my view.

Agreed I still say that NK is a client state of China. But is seems that NK is about to collapse from within and China knows it so they will soon backoff like Russia let eastern Europe go into the arms of western Europe before collapse.

China is a major game player in the world right now there is no doubt about it.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Actually, I'm not missing any point whatsoever...especially reading the bollocks you've wrote as a reply.
The point of my post was about the mastery of the technology (by the Koreans),

That is exactly what my post was about, the doubt of "their mastery of the technology", just like the doubt of their missile technology.

Here is some more info on successful test or fizzle.

ATSNN

[edit on 10/10/06 by Keyhole]

That P3 and its gear aren't anywhere near cutting edge technology. What it did give the Chinese was a rough idea of the listening capability of that particular bird. I'm sure they had software on board that thoroughly scrambled any hard drives. I can't tell you the particulars of the security and encryption systems I've never worked but from what I worked with in my line of work in the military, if its being fielded by US personnel the technology is at least 3-5 years behind what's available to civilians. Any secure communications system used in the military has to be torture tested under very rigorous conditions and by the time it reaches the hands of the soldier, sailor and airman, it's usually several years old in the civilian world.

Hi everyone,

I have three honest questions that I'm some more knowledgable ATSers here could chime in on..

1) How are the 2 light-water nuclear reactors that the US gave NK in 1994 tied to possible nuclear weapons? In other words, when the reactors were given to them, what were the intentions? To create energy for public use? To create weapons? Can they do both?

2) What does the recent test say about NK's available (nuclear) weaponry? How much of a leap is it to go from an underground test to a fully deliverable weapons system?

3) Suppose a nuclear weapon was tested (it was not conventional explosives). Is it possible that this could never be confirmed by outside sources (such as the "sniffing" planes flying over the area to detect nuclear material)?

Thanks.

dreck

Originally posted by soupydreck
1) How are the 2 light-water nuclear reactors that the US gave NK in 1994 tied to possible nuclear weapons? In other words, when the reactors were given to them, what were the intentions? To create energy for public use? To create weapons? Can they do both?

The two light-water reactors promised to North Korea under the Agreed Framework were never delivered. The funding was scuppered by Congress and the accord was official declared moribund by President Bush on October 20th 2002.

Originally posted by subz
Relations had now soured so much that the Agreed Framework was unraveling and it was clear that the Light Water reactors were never going to be built. On Oct 20th President Bush formally announced the withdrawal from the Agreed Framework and urged all nations to cut off economic relations with North Korea. In November, the U.S. Japan, and South Korea cut off all fuel oil shipments to North Korea.

OP/ED: The North Korean Nuclear Confrontation: A History Of Efforts

Originally posted by soupydreck
2) What does the recent test say about NK's available (nuclear) weaponry? How much of a leap is it to go from an underground test to a fully deliverable weapons system?

The test says very little about North Korea's nuclear capabilities. But what it speaks volumes about is North Korea's willingness to buck the influence of it's major ally, China. This should make the United States pay more attention to allaying North Korea's valid security concerns. i.e. the removal of a US army which has sat on North Korea's border for 50 years.

Originally posted by soupydreck
3) Suppose a nuclear weapon was tested (it was not conventional explosives). Is it possible that this could never be confirmed by outside sources (such as the "sniffing" planes flying over the area to detect nuclear material)?

Im no explosives expert but I would assume that North Korea would not have 300 tonnes of TNT (or equivalent in conventional explosives) sat lying around so that it could fake an abysmal nuclear fizzle. That leads me to conclude that, depending on which countries seismic reading is accurate, it was either a nuclear fizzle or a full blown nuclear explosion.

Both Russia and Japan gave seismic readings which indicate a full blown nuclear explosion. I'd view South Korean and United States seismic readings with a healthy dose of skepticism since the political factors (fallout) from any sucessful North Korean nuclear test would have very adverse political effects in those two nations.

[edit on 11/10/06 by subz]