North Korea Nuke Test

(Never thought I'd say this but...) mess with the bull and you'll get the horns.

NK disarming is impossible, tactical nuclear strikes against them is favourable.
 
I doubt China, South Korea, Japan or anyone else in the region, would be too happy about nuclear strikes on North Korea. Especially if this test turns out to be a fake.

Would conventional ones not do?!

Think of the children!! :P
 
An deliberate fake is almost unthinkable. The only reason to have a nuke is to show it off - it's the equivalent of military bling. Kim may be insane, but even he must realize that any sort of actual use of a nuke would result in us paving his nation and calling it Texas 2. Therefore it has no value other than as a deterrent, and that value has been fatally undermined. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that anyone as colossally narcissistic as Kim would intentionally cast the DPRK in anything but the most favorable light possible.

As such, I go to the "good try, but failed to actually go critical" school of thought. Once some radiation readings show up in the public, we'll know more - it would appear that, rather than the big boomer, they have just made a really expensive dirty bomb, which, while it's bad news for Tokyo or Seoul, doesn't really threaten the US so far (insomuch as the capabilities of their launch platforms appear to be minimal at best).

Unless "throw stuff at you that falls menacingly into the Pacific" is a valid tactic, in which case we're boned.
 
Actually I retract all my previous statements. I hadn't realised we had all been fooled by a biased and immoral media. Having found an unbiased souce (KCNA) its all so clear...

DPRK Foreign Ministry Press Release:
The DPRK has exerted every possible effort to settle the nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations, prompted by its sincere desire to realize the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
Click to expand...

See, the North Korean government has been trying to settle this all along, they don't want nuclear weapons at all. But if thats true, why are they testing them?

DPRK Foreign Ministry Press Release:
The Bush administration, however, responded to our patient and sincere efforts and magnanimity with the policy of sanctions and blockade.
    The DPRK was compelled to substantially prove its possession of nukes to protect its sovereignty and right to existence from the daily increasing danger of war from the U.S.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, it makes sense. North Korea are only building them for protection! They've said it, and a reputable news agency has reported it, so it must be true.

Indeed North Korea is so anti-nuclear weapons, that it is only building them, in order to speed up the process of de-nuclearisation.

DPRK Foreign Ministry Press Release:
The denuclearization of the entire peninsula was President Kim Il Sung's last instruction and an ultimate goal of the DPRK.
    The DPRK's nuclear test does not contradict the September 19 joint statement under which it committed itself to dismantle nuclear weapons and abandon the existing nuclear program. On the contrary, it constitutes a positive measure for its implementation.
    The DPRK clarified more than once that it would feel no need to possess even a single nuke when it is no longer exposed to the U.S. threat after it has dropped its hostile policy toward the DPRK and confidence has been built between the two countries.
Click to expand...

So, Kim Jong Il, who I believe is known to even his most vehement detractors as The Glorious Leader, has tried every anvenue of peaceful talk to achieve a common understanding with the rest of the world, is only building nukes in order to protect his people from the evil forces of the USA, and is so blessed of foresight that when expressing desires to denuclearised the Korean penninsula and finding that he had none, thought he better build them sharpish to allow his glorious plans to decommission them. You call him a lunatic?! I call him a man ahead of his time!

You gotta love propaganda... ;)
 
Oh please all Russia and China can do is raise a big stink, but they wont ever go to war with the US over it. It'll just be like Kosovo.

As for actual threat to the US, do you think it's really about keeping NK marines from landing in San Francisco? Hell no, it's just to keep American consumers happy by allowing safe access to Nintendo, Hyundai, and Trident subs in the Pacific.

The issue is the threat of human existence being snuffed out by one madman, Bush is enough for one world.
 
george-w-bush-president.jpg


Bush_-_President-evil.jpg



Go figure
 
America is like the corupt cop, they inforce the rules on others but come hell or high water they will never follow them.
 
Well, when Kim jong-Il decides to fire a missile, I hope the people who seem to be happy he has the technology are on the receiving end of it!! Shame you will be dead as I wouldn't be able to say "told you so"!!
 
Ahhh, Polts, you grumble boots you. I know you love us really! :tb2:

Shock horror today as North Korea launches attack on internet forum gathering. Australian intelligence suspected of being behind the attack.
Click to expand...

:P

As to China and Russia not going to war, I agree. However America is already distrusted in most of the Middle East, it doesn't want piss off the Far East as well. Especially as its going to be in the developing economies of the likes of China that much of Americas future prosperity depends. China might be happy enough to let the US bomb North Korea with conventional weapons, especially if its on hand to make sure that any regime change goes its way. What it doesn't want is a nuclear strike, millions of irradiated refugees pouring over the border, and a psychotic on its doorstep with nothing more to lose.

edit - piss poor spelling
 
Namyeknom:
Ahhh, Polts, you grumble boots you. I know you love us really!  :tb2:

Shock horror today as North Korea launches attack on internet forum gathering. Australian intelligence suspected of being behind the attack.
Click to expand...

:P
Click to expand...
:lol:

But seriously, people need to get past their hatred of Amerikkka because anyone who thinks NK having nukes is a good thing for the world is, as I said earlier, stupid, naive or both!!
 
To be honest, I can see China arriving at a military solution faster than I can see the US being able to effectively neutralize the situation, between the current world political climate and the fact that the majority of the US ground forces are tied up on the other two Axis of Evil nations. It's awful hard to make targeted long-range infrastructure attacks effective against a nation that is already resorting to cannibalism for its dietary needs.
 
nish81:
How come it's okay that the USA has nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...
Who is saying that?

I've never been an advocate for more nuclear weapons, I think nukes are a crime against humanity and I'm a strong advocate for strong nuclear disarmament but we can't just snap our fingers and make them disappear (as much as I want them to.) A nuclear armed NK is more dangerous than anything Bush can do.
 
To the peopel who say "If the US has nuclear weapons, its only fair we let others have them"!! I guess we should start giving drivers' licences to blind people now, afterall, the people with good eyesight can have a licence, it is only fair we let blind people have them too!!
 
Let's amend that to permitting violent felons to buy firearms, and it's a pretty solid analogy.


EDIT - Let's also learn how to put all the words in a sentence that need to be there.
 
Its not that North Korea has the bomb which is the problem, as NK has not successfully developed the technology to deliver such a weapon (ICBM), nor have they been able to reduce its size, the fear of the international community is the fact that NK may 'pass on' its recent advances to countries (or more likley) organisations, which are willing to pay the right price. Go figure!

Also, resorting to sheer violence is foolish. In reference to an earlier comment about 'who cares about the civillians', we should. That simple statement has proven that the individual allowing their fingers to move before their brain processes what is actually being said has no concept of modern war stratergy.

It is all well and good to win a war, but there are 3 important factors (especially if such a policy was used) that need to be considered;
1) Modern combat doctrine (and training) is about reducing civillian casualties, we are not murders, we are soldiers, and there is (believe it or not you hippies) a diference. A soldier shoots so that he may live another day, not for the simple pleasure of killing.
2) Does the world (more specifically) the U.N have the money and resources to support a country which needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Already the U.N is in debt by simply having peace-keepers in the congo ($3 billion US a year) they still have around another 30 peacekeeping missions after that. Also, can the international community commit such a large force of skilled workers to reconstruct the country. Also, as demonstrated in Iraq, a country which has been destablised (thus, no law and order) allows for the easier execution of international crime and use by terrorists. Forcing ourselves into another stalemate will create more problems then it would solve them.
3) 3 very special words, HEARTS AND MINDS! This is another keystone of modern combat philosphy. As seen in Iraq and as seen in Vietnam, if you go and bomb the Sh!t out of a village, they really wont warm to you, actually, normally the opposite happens, they work against you. A UN force destroying infastructure would not help the cause, as an international community, we must tread lightly, as these people have had no contact with the outside world, and if we roll in there flags high and guns blazing, we will not make a good impression. First Impressions count, especially when we do not know what the state media is pumping out in NK.

Now though, it would appear that there is no solution. Or is there? Bush bashing aside, we must look at the core problems. If we are to impose severe international sanctions, in which we monitor what is going in and out, we achieve 2 important things;
1) Economically, the country will suffer more, and yes, there will be increased suffering, but soon, this will spread higher up the ladder, and it will only be a matter of time until the people, or generals ask, what is the F!@king point? This will hopefully lead to a coup, disposing of our good old 'wooney' friend kim,
2) Secondly, the international community has effectivly made 4 walls around NK, this then can encourage (even though it sounds bad) a controlled desent into lawlessness. Internally the country may be in turmoil, but the blockades provide a medium in which all material coming out (i.e.: Nukes) will be discovered and seized (believe it or not, AWACS, JSTARS and Satelites can map and monitor nearly the entire countries coastline and borders), this then prevents (to an extent) the use of this country as terrorist operating grounds and a base for international crime.

When a country goes to war, or in this case, initiates conflict (the US hasn't been in a war since WWII - another topic) there is alot more to think about then 'frying the little gooks'. War is business people, and War only makes a profit when we break even. Any unseen costs result in bankruptcy. That costs lives.

Just my 2 cents...

Mesian

(P.S: Yes, there is also alot of crap going on in Africa, but right now, NK poses more of a threat internationally. Even though there are problems in Africa, i.e.: Dafur, there has been a homegrown approach to fighting this. AU soldiers have been posted there and are progressivly making gains. There is more to the world then the US - sorry guys!)
 
A unanimous vote for sanctions.

# Demands North Korea eliminate all its nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.

# Requires all countries to prevent the sale or transfer of materials related to Pyongyang's unconventional weapons programmes, as well as large-sized military items such as tanks, missiles and helicopters.

# Demands nations freeze funds overseas of people or businesses connected with North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

# Allows nations to inspect cargo moving in and out of North Korea in pursuit of non-conventional weapons.

# Is not backed up by the threat of military force.

# Calls on Pyongyang to return "without precondition" to stalled six-nation talks on its nuclear programme.
Click to expand...

And it'll end up being ignored.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
A unanimous vote for sanctions.

# Demands North Korea eliminate all its nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.

# Requires all countries to prevent the sale or transfer of materials related to Pyongyang's unconventional weapons programmes, as well as large-sized military items such as tanks, missiles and helicopters.

# Demands nations freeze funds overseas of people or businesses connected with North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

# Allows nations to inspect cargo moving in and out of North Korea in pursuit of non-conventional weapons.

# Is not backed up by the threat of military force.

# Calls on Pyongyang to return "without precondition" to stalled six-nation talks on its nuclear programme.
Click to expand...

And it'll end up being ignored.
Click to expand...
It is the UN way!! :duh:
 
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the eminent position that China plays in this issue. China supplies most of DPRK's fuel and food, mainly because it's afraid of what would happen to itself and the region should Kim Jong Il's government collapse. The North Korean army, around one million troops, could wreak utter havoc if the government collapsed and they came into the poverty that the rest of the population is subjected to (this is slightly more pointed than the second BBC article before being concerned about refugees).

For the test specifically, I don't think it amounts to much more than empty posturing on the part of DPRK. A few low-yield nuclear weapons won't do as much damage as the incredible amounts of (conventional) artillery that is positioned along the Green Line border w/ South Korea. This isn't a matter of Mutually Assured Destruction, it's more a matter of people's irrational fear of nuclear weapons taking hold.

The US moved toward a policy of MAD because it was much cheaper than supporting ground forces of the same size as the Soviets during the cold war, and had less of an impact on US culture than 40 years of drafts and spending 20-30% of GDP on military spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top