Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
XCess

North Korean Nuclear Tests

Recommended Posts

There is a report by a German geological institut that also thinks that the test was faked, because the explosion was too small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While any shakes to the status quo I profit form are unwelcome, I think this is a bright step forward for the people of Korea.

I predict a forseable end to sanctions and Starbucks in Pyongyang within 10 years.

The cold war is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i doubt anyone expected little less than a decloration of there nuclear capability from north korea , it just there way of saying they dont agree with this

.i am sure in another 10 -15 years when someone from israel becomes the head of u.n (lol). iraq will test one too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first of all, I'm 100% sure they haven't done anything. and remember that the US and Russia both have hundreds of nukes but who's judging them?

and even if N. Korea did the test two words sum it up: Big deal. I refuse to give a crap about it.

and btw who judged france when they did their tests. all issues were environmental.

So if your wife cheats on you it is ok for you to cheat on her? It has been already agreed that NK indeed had testing done, and the artificial tremor has been detected. NK even said that it did have the test.

I'd kick her out of the house and get a divorce... but I fail to see the relation here huh.gif

anyway, WHO exactly "agreed" they did the test? it's like the majority picking some guy they don't know off the street and say "we just decided that you suck", and everyone else buys it.

and of course NK admits they did it. ever heard of those mid east terrorist groups competing of who actually did the latest bombing? they all claim they did it. it's just provocation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]

anyway, WHO exactly "agreed" they did the test? it's like the majority picking some guy they don't know off the street and say "we just decided that you suck", and everyone else buys it.

More like the neighborhood psycho getting a truck full of petrol and threatening to set the whole neighborhood in fire if they dont do as he wishes. :banana:

Quote[/b] ]

and of course NK admits they did it. ever heard of those mid east terrorist groups competing of who actually did the latest bombing? they all claim they did it. it's just provocation.

Claiming to have the bomb and not have it would seem extremely counterintuitive to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never understand why people always have this weird idea that nukes contribute to world peace. The more counties have nukes,the higher is the chance that one is used at some point.

I guess people seem to forget that if you have a nuclear arsenal all it takes is a group of crazy people and some loyal subordinates and millions of people die.

The other thing that quite confuses me on ye Internet is those people that thanks to the incompetence of the Bush administration and various internet propaganda seriously seem to believe the US of A are the only ones able to have "evil thoughts" to put it that way.

In any case,wether it is a real nuke test or not,NK got some attention and I guess thats why they do this stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In any case,wether it is a real nuke test or not,NK got some attention and I guess thats why they do this stuff

exactly, a stunt for publicity if you ask me.

*EDIT* And of course to get SK on their toes and try to invade NK so they wouldn't get the blame for starting a war. after SK starting the conflict NK would conquer the whole Korean peninsula

The other thing that quite confuses me on ye Internet is those people that thanks to the incompetence of the Bush administration and various internet propaganda seriously seem to believe the US of A are the only ones able to have "evil thoughts" to put it that way.

actually they are the ones who think the others have evil thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Ummm Israel springs to mind. And pretty much most arab countries has/had a go at one point or another.

That was before Israel had any nuclear weapons

And lets face it here, the US attacked Iraq because they had "WMD's" and were part of "axis of evil". NK has every right to fear an invation no matter how stupid it sounds. An invasion of Iraq would have sounded stupid 20 years ago. And with all the US provocations, why shouldn't they fear an invasion?

Quote[/b] ]I will never understand why people always have this weird idea that nukes contribute to world peace. The more counties have nukes,the higher is the chance that one is used at some point.

I guess people seem to forget that if you have a nuclear arsenal all it takes is a group of crazy people and some loyal subordinates and millions of people die.

The other thing that quite confuses me on ye Internet is those people that thanks to the incompetence of the Bush administration and various internet propaganda seriously seem to believe the US of A are the only ones able to have "evil thoughts" to put it that way.

In any case,wether it is a real nuke test or not,NK got some attention and I guess thats why

Nukes do contribute to peace because it makes the offender think twice before attacking anyone. And everything you said can be done with conventional weapons also. And I really don't get your logic, of the more nukes the most likely somebody will use it.

It actually works the other way in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first of all, I'm 100% sure they haven't done anything. and remember that the US and Russia both have hundreds of nukes but who's judging them?

and even if N. Korea did the test two words sum it up: Big deal. I refuse to give a crap about it.

and btw who judged france when they did their tests. all issues were environmental.

So if your wife cheats on you it is ok for you to cheat on her?

You're asking the totally wrong question. The question you have to ask is: If your wife cheats on you, is it ok for your wife to start whining and judging you if you cheat on her?

It might not be ok for North Korea to get nukes, but it's just hypocritical of countries sitting on their piles of nukes while waving their finger in the face of North Korea saying nono.

Quote[/b] ]I guess it is permissible for NK to have nuclear weapons and threaten SK, but not for US to other nations. icon_rolleyes.gif

Problem is it goes the other way around. People cares much less about USA threatening someone with their nukes than they care about North Korea even mentioning the word.

Quote[/b] ]I will never understand why people always have this weird idea that nukes contribute to world peace. The more counties have nukes,the higher is the chance that one is used at some point.

And if only one side had them, they could be sure they wouldn't be nuked back if they used their nukes on the opposite side. If both sides have nukes you might be "safer" than if only one side had nukes. Many historians means that the cold war would have turned into WWIII without nukes, but then again, WWIII with nukes was pretty close several times only because of the nukes and both sides wanting to launch all their nukes at the other side at any sign of the other side fireing on them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not many cards to play. Iraq was/is a complete bullsup and I fear NK know that, perhaps apart from some F16 sorties, the west not got many options up sleeve (conventional sleeve). Its a very serious situation, too many embargos and going harsh etc may push them over the edge. The of late very rare action diplomacy is needed. I doubt we will hear the words. "We invaded on the premise that they have weapons of mass destruction". Because this time they do!!

I beleive in keeping your cards close to your chest and that you don't go out on a turkey shoot when there are tigers in the kitchen.

However the alternative is we give them 5 years and end up selling them things. That normally makes everyone happy smile_o.gifsmile_o.gif

Militarily, the United States has the capability to strike nearly any target it'd like, within reason. There's a reason we bought all of those B-2's, outfitted our submarines with cruise missiles, and still fund carrier battle groups.

Just because an invasion is basically out of the question, we can still strike targets inside of North Korea. Primarily, we could strike all of the known IRBM sites, the military airfields, SIGNIT sites, and military command centers in the country.

The problem is simply moderation and escalation. We can't strike targets in North Korea without the conflict escalating farther than we can contain. We can hit all the high priority targets we'd like, but the fact remains that we've got a large North Korean army not far from the South Korean border.

That isn't to mention the fact that China isn't far away. Even if they are okay with being tough on North Korea, I see them being very against strategic military strikes on the country itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Militarily, the United States has the capability to strike nearly any target it'd like, within reason. There's a reason we bought all of those B-2's, outfitted our submarines with cruise missiles, and still fund carrier battle groups.

but IMO the US lacks convincing infantry, they've had only one REAL test after WWII and failed it. invading NK would most probably result in a clean sweep by the Koreans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will never understand why people always have this weird idea that nukes contribute to world peace. The more counties have nukes,the higher is the chance that one is used at some point.

I guess people seem to forget that if you have a nuclear arsenal all it takes is a group of crazy people and some loyal subordinates and millions of people die.

Lwlooz, I have to disagree. While what you say is correct in theory, the practice contradicts it. We have six decades of states armed with nukes behind us. If anything prevented (a conventional) WWIII, it was the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. Symmetry causes stability, even if it is paradoxically achieved by arming states with weapons capable of destroying the world.

You say that all it takes for millions of people to die is a group of crazy people. I don't think I'm too wildly off the mark when I say that both the USA and the USSR have had their fair share of nutjobs. Still, the Cold War managed to remain Cold. Why? Because decision-making in states is (de facto) not entrusted to individuals.

What should be stressed however, is that we have consistently been talking about states possessing nuclear weapons. Not individuals, or groups of individuals. Unfortunately, we have no way of saying whether 'rogue' countries won't be inclined to supply such 'individuals' with nuclear weapons. I fear that is the whole problem.

Let's take a step back. We have no way of saying whether NK actually tested a real nuke, given all the contradictory reports. Nevertheless, one only has to read a few international papers or some discussion forums to realise that the dubious report released by NK has had tremendous effect. Hundreds, if not thousands of people are howling for North-Korean blood. I haven't devoted much time to reading other forums, but I'm dead certain that right now, someone is comparing NK to Germany in 1936. Pregnant words like 'appeasement' are being used, just as they were in 2003 by the Bush administration.

And over what? A dubious report released by the suspect himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,my thinking goes like this.Mutual assured destruction sounds fine and all,but where is the mutual if more and more parties get the bomb. Not to think about that there is no balance of power since I don't believe every country will be able to arm itself up to the point it can destroy the rest of the world. And certainly,unlike most people I wouldn't quite feel safer in a world where the number of nukes is 2000% more than what we have now.

So,NK having a nuke might be "good" for them or for the US not invading them,but I for once dislike how everyone shrugs at nuclear proliferation,which I consider a far larger danger than some nutjobs blowing up a bus or a plane from time to time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Militarily, the United States has the capability to strike nearly any target it'd like, within reason.  There's a reason we bought all of those B-2's, outfitted our submarines with cruise missiles, and still fund carrier battle groups.

but IMO the US lacks convincing infantry, they've had only one REAL test after WWII and failed it. invading NK would most probably result in a clean sweep by the Koreans

I'd say the performed reasonably well in Korean war. wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Militarily, the United States has the capability to strike nearly any target it'd like, within reason. There's a reason we bought all of those B-2's, outfitted our submarines with cruise missiles, and still fund carrier battle groups.

but IMO the US lacks convincing infantry, they've had only one REAL test after WWII and failed it. invading NK would most probably result in a clean sweep by the Koreans

Yes, that's why I said an invasion was out of the question... and that striking militarily will lead to further military action which we cannot control. All we can do with our present assests is to prevent nuclear weapon launch by long range missile, along with destroying critical infastructure for command and control elements.

They can still level Seoul, and invade... we couldn't do a whole lot to stop them there.

EDIT: And the United States, presently, does fine as far as combat operations are concerned. It's more a matter of peacekeeping giving us trouble. But now we're commited elsewhere, so ground operations would probably be out of the picture anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Militarily, the United States has the capability to strike nearly any target it'd like, within reason. There's a reason we bought all of those B-2's, outfitted our submarines with cruise missiles, and still fund carrier battle groups.

but IMO the US lacks convincing infantry, they've had only one REAL test after WWII and failed it. invading NK would most probably result in a clean sweep by the Koreans

I'd say the performed reasonably well in Korean war. wink_o.gif

but I meant 'Nam wink_o.gif or do you mean that things haven't developed after the Korean war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does everyone get the idea that the US is going to invade every country that opposes it in the world? There's over 300 years of history in the US and there has been a grand total of...

let me get my calculator out.....

crunches numbers.....

ah here it is.

1.

Watch out everyone, its the US, invading the entire world. For every military action its been involved in in some shape or form, has been ASKED or FORCED into the conflict (with the notable recent exception).

So no, the US won't be invading NK. At least not unless China, Japan, or SK feels overly threatened and they ask for our assistance.

my (not so) humble opinion.

Flame away - keep taking any opportunity to turn any situation into "the USA is destroying the world and every feasible problem of the world has been caused by the USA" thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Militarily, the United States has the capability to strike nearly any target it'd like, within reason.  There's a reason we bought all of those B-2's, outfitted our submarines with cruise missiles, and still fund carrier battle groups.

but IMO the US lacks convincing infantry, they've had only one REAL test after WWII and failed it. invading NK would most probably result in a clean sweep by the Koreans

I'd say the performed reasonably well in Korean war. wink_o.gif

but I meant 'Nam wink_o.gif or do you mean that things haven't developed after the Korean war?

Thankfully enough they did not have any "real" wars after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first of all, I'm 100% sure they haven't done anything. and remember that the US and Russia both have hundreds of nukes but who's judging them?

and even if N. Korea did the test two words sum it up: Big deal. I refuse to give a crap about it.

and btw who judged france when they did their tests. all issues were environmental.

So if your wife cheats on you it is ok for you to cheat on her? It has been already agreed that NK indeed had testing done, and the artificial tremor has been detected. NK even said that it did have the test.

I'd kick her out of the house and get a divorce... but I fail to see the relation here huh.gif

anyway, WHO exactly "agreed" they did the test? it's like the majority picking some guy they don't know off the street and say "we just decided that you suck", and everyone else buys it.

and of course NK admits they did it. ever heard of those mid east terrorist groups competing of who actually did the latest bombing? they all claim they did it. it's just provocation.

you are claminig that NK should not be judged for having nukes since US and Russia has them. And I asked you metaphorically what would you do if you do something that is questionable, and you reply you would kick her to the curb. But I see no criticism of NK. So it's a contradiction.

NK says they did the test, and there was other confirmation. How can you doubt that there was a test? When nuclear test happens a distinctive wave is created, which was observed by other nations.

With the possibility of nuclear strike from US I don't think NK is stupid enough to say something that they can't afford.

It might not be ok for North Korea to get nukes, but it's just hypocritical of countries sitting on their piles of nukes while waving their finger in the face of North Korea saying nono.

So how about we give nukes to AQ and let them blow up Europe and US? That's not wrong since US has nukes. Or better give some to Chechens and bomb Moscow. That's ok, right? Although it may be hypocritical, the problem is that NK has a HISTORY of commiting acts against SK. But I guess it's ok to criticize US but not NK. whistle.gif

Quote[/b] ]Problem is it goes the other way around. People cares much less about USA threatening someone with their nukes than they care about North Korea even mentioning the word.

Because last time US used a nuclear weapon was against an enemy they declared war upon. While the people decry use of nuclear weapons, the same people are not criticizing NK for having one.

Quote[/b] ]And if only one side had them, they could be sure they wouldn't be nuked back if they used their nukes on the opposite side. If both sides have nukes you might be "safer" than if only one side had nukes. Many historians means that the cold war would have turned into WWIII without nukes, but then again, WWIII with nukes was pretty close several times only because of the nukes and both sides wanting to launch all their nukes at the other side at any sign of the other side fireing on them...

I gues that's why Baghdad got nuked during OIF? The world knows that nuclear weapons are necessary evil, and thus there are works to reduce it. Both sides having nuke, especially a closed regime with history of continuous acts against one country is not an equal treatment.

Also, how about SK getting nuclear weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both sides having nuke, especially a closed regime with history of continuous acts against one country is not an equal treatment.

Also, how about SK getting nuclear weapons?

Pakistan comes to mind here, when you say a closed regime with history of continuous acts against one country. Oh, but I forgot, the U.S. managed to undermine that by threatening to throw Pakistan back into the stone age... Apparently, nobody minds Pakistan having nukes, although it's history of conflict versus India over Kashmir (spelling?) is long - and hey, India has nukes, too! And both test them, and nobody gives a crap. Oh, and Mr. Musharraf wasn't elected when he got to power the first time, if I'm not mistaken...

As for South Korea getting nukes... well, if it makes them happy... But then you'd also have to give nukes to Taiwan... I'd like to see China react to that! But, for the sake of multi-laterality ( tounge2.gif ), I'd give Cuba nukes, too. Yeah, because they have a closed regime with a history of continuous act against Cuba... the country in question being the good old U.S. of A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It might not be ok for North Korea to get nukes, but it's just hypocritical of countries sitting on their piles of nukes while waving their finger in the face of North Korea saying nono.

So how about we give nukes to AQ and let them blow up Europe and US? That's not wrong since US has nukes. Or better give some to Chechens and bomb Moscow. That's ok, right? Although it may be hypocritical, the problem is that NK has a HISTORY of commiting acts against SK. But I guess it's ok to criticize US but not NK. whistle.gif

It's ok to criticize both USA and North Korea. I've never said it's ok to criticize USA and I've never said it's wrong to criticize North Korea. What I find stupid and hypocritical is to criticize North Korea for getting nukes while not criticizing USA (or even defend USAs right to have nukes).

Quote[/b] ]Because last time US used a nuclear weapon was against an enemy they declared war upon. While the people decry use of nuclear weapons, the same people are not criticizing NK for having one.

And then you got people, as said above, that defend USAs right to have nclear weapons, but at the same time whine every time a nation they find threatening mention the word "nuclear".

Quote[/b] ]I gues that's why Baghdad got nuked during OIF? The world knows that nuclear weapons are necessary evil, and thus there are works to reduce it. Both sides having nuke, especially a closed regime with history of continuous acts against one country is not an equal treatment.

Also, how about SK getting nuclear weapons?

I never said that only one side having leads that side to actually using the nukes when they go to war. I said that in certain situations under certain circumstances only one side having nukes can be worse than if both sides had nukes.

And if South Korea got nukes, who would care? Nobody. As long as they are part of the people who's labeled as the "good guys" by the western world, there's no problem. And now we're back to being hypocritical. You got countries labeled as bad, and countires labeled as good. Good ones can do whatever they like without anyone giving a flying fart about it, bad ones get condemned if they just mention it so the good guys can hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's an interesting irony that a country whose people are starving to death still have enough time and money to spare to make nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just think it's an interesting irony that a country whose people are starving to death still have enough time and money to spare to make nukes.

Ever heard of 'Africa'? (not going to list all the countries here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just think it's an interesting irony that a country whose people are starving to death still have enough time and money to spare to make nukes.

Cut off the aid that feeds them because it's the international community that feeds NK's poorest, sanctions will work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just think it's an interesting irony that a country whose people are starving to death still have enough time and money to spare to make nukes.

Cut off the aid that feeds them because it's the international community that feeds NK's poorest, sanctions will work.

While that is true, what right does the international community have to sacrifice the poor of North Korea to make a point to the North Korean leadership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×