North Korea tests another nuclear bomb

[lostfan]

While I agree Iraq is better today, it doesn't change the fact that the whole thing has been a fiasco. I'm not sure what the best option would be to handle problematic countries/governments, but whatever it is, it hasn't been tried recently.

Agreed, all of the circumstances surrounding it make it one giant clusterf***. You could easily question whether the end justified the means.

[Texsox]

The lie here is exactly what I am talking about. If the UN is saying there is no nuclear program, while there is, they are doing a diservice to the billions of people within thousands of miles of NK that could be hit by their current missiles tipped with nukes.

 

You are correct that most of the time, in fact the overwhelming majority of the time, that honesty is the best policy. But, there are times when I find lying acceptable. Examples include "We are not planning an invasion", "We do not negotiate with terrorists". etc. I would guess we agree on that.

 

The best outcome of this is for NK to be disarmed. The disservice would be to do nothing. On that we all can agree. That is especially beneficial to the billions of people within range of their missiles. If in the process of achieving that agenda item, the disarming of a nuclear Korea, lies are told, I'm comfortable.

 

If, as you seem to be suggesting, and also sadly within the realm of possibility, the UN response is to lie and say there is no threat, *and* do nothing, then again, we will agree 100%. That is beyond wrong.

[southsider2k5]

You are correct that most of the time, in fact the overwhelming majority of the time, that honesty is the best policy. But, there are times when I find lying acceptable. Examples include "We are not planning an invasion", "We do not negotiate with terrorists". etc. I would guess we agree on that.

 

The best outcome of this is for NK to be disarmed. The disservice would be to do nothing. On that we all can agree. That is especially beneficial to the billions of people within range of their missiles. If in the process of achieving that agenda item, the disarming of a nuclear Korea, lies are told, I'm comfortable.

 

If, as you seem to be suggesting, and also sadly within the realm of possibility, the UN response is to lie and say there is no threat, *and* do nothing, then again, we will agree 100%. That is beyond wrong.

 

Actually you suggested the UN is lying at the very beginning of this about the NK nuclear program actually being shutdown. Personally I really doubt it, but if it were true, it would explain the culture of corruption that goes on there.

[Texsox]

Actually you suggested the UN is lying at the very beginning of this about the NK nuclear program actually being shutdown. Personally I really doubt it, but if it were true, it would explain the culture of corruption that goes on there.

 

Perhaps I gave the wrong impression with that. If they were lying, and doing nothing, as I posted, that is wrong. If they were lying, with some justification behind it, *and* doing something, I have no problem with that. I wish I had a better example, but if the US went to the UN and requested, make this statement because we expect NK to do X so we can discover Y, and stop Z, I'm cool with that. Overall, I agree with what your thoughts were, I'm just not expressing mine very well.

 

I disagree that groups like the UN or US have a culture of corruption because they disseminate some forms of misinformation. Again, along the lines of "we are not planning an attack". I would agree that there is some corruption in the UN, as there is in every human endeavor. My God only a fool would argue the UN does not suffer from some forms of corruption.

[Jenksismyhero]

What would you suggest is the proper response for the UN and how would they back it up?

 

Well since sanctions don't appear to be working, I would think that soon there needs to be a military option on the table. This isn't a US-NK thing, it's a world-NK thing. The only two parties in opposition are China and Russia (most likely), but I can't imagine they're excited about NK getting to the point of actually having a bomb. IMO there needs to be some serious coalition forces style intervention, lead by Asian countries.

[Texsox]

Well since sanctions don't appear to be working, I would think that soon there needs to be a military option on the table. This isn't a US-NK thing, it's a world-NK thing. The only two parties in opposition are China and Russia (most likely), but I can't imagine they're excited about NK getting to the point of actually having a bomb. IMO there needs to be some serious coalition forces style intervention, lead by Asian countries.

 

Scary if it comes to that. An invasion force on that peninsula will get ugly in a hurry. WW III level stuff.

[Soxbadger]

What army is going to be the first into NK?

 

The estimates are NK has a 1mil+ standing army.

 

They may not have the most sophisticated weaponry, but its still a lot of manpower.

[Jenksismyhero]

What's the alternative? Keep telling them no while we watch them build and test and then eventually obtain a nuke? We've tried economic sanctions, they agreed to stop, but they lied (same response twice now right?) I think strategic missile strikes and ousting Kim Krazy would be sufficient to send the message. I dont think it would be easy, or without a cost, but what's the purpose of obtaining a nuke? To use it right? So whose going to be the victim and is it in our best interest to protect them?

 

And who comes to their aid? I really dont think either China or Russia would stand in the way if Europe, Asia and the US give it the green light.

[lostfan]

Well you can pretty much kiss Seoul goodbye if you choose the military option. NK has a ridiculous amount of artillery aimed straight at it, ready to go at a moment's notice. The American forces there are just a tactical speed bump.

[Texsox]

What's the alternative? Keep telling them no while we watch them build and test and then eventually obtain a nuke? We've tried economic sanctions, they agreed to stop, but they lied (same response twice now right?) I think strategic missile strikes and ousting Kim Krazy would be sufficient to send the message. I dont think it would be easy, or without a cost, but what's the purpose of obtaining a nuke? To use it right? So whose going to be the victim and is it in our best interest to protect them?

 

And who comes to their aid? I really dont think either China or Russia would stand in the way if Europe, Asia and the US give it the green light.

 

How many years have we been at war with Iraq? Now sit back and think for a little while what war with North Korea will be like. If that doesn't scare the shipps out of you, think harder.

[lostfan]

How many years have we been at war with Iraq? Now sit back and think for a little while what war with North Korea will be like. If that doesn't scare the shipps out of you, think harder.

Different situation though. We were at war with the actual Iraqi army for, what, 3 weeks? Then there was a lull with some anarchy and random happenings, then the s*** hit the fan, then the s*** really hit the fan.

[southsider2k5]

What army is going to be the first into NK?

 

The estimates are NK has a 1mil+ standing army.

 

They may not have the most sophisticated weaponry, but its still a lot of manpower.

 

They said the same things about Iraq, and they folded like the Cubs in October, twice. I truely believe that if the NK army saw how SK lives, they would throw down their arms and surrender quickly. Right now the propaganda and the lack of outside world info really holds them in line. If their army got past that and really saw how bad they have it, things would change quickly and the government would collapse if the military wasn't on Il's side.

[Jenksismyhero]

How many years have we been at war with Iraq? Now sit back and think for a little while what war with North Korea will be like. If that doesn't scare the shipps out of you, think harder.

 

But 90% of the reason it took forever is that we rebuilt the country. The actual "war" lasted about 3 months.

 

Again though, what's the alternative? Basically play a big talking game until they have a nuke and THEN take it away from them? Or wait until they use it?

 

Keep saying use the diplomatic option, but we've been doing that for what, 5 years now, and not a damn thing has changed, except for the fact that they just succesfully detonated a nuke.

[Balta1701]

What's the alternative? Keep telling them no while we watch them build and test and then eventually obtain a nuke? We've tried economic sanctions, they agreed to stop, but they lied (same response twice now right?) I think strategic missile strikes and ousting Kim Krazy would be sufficient to send the message. I dont think it would be easy, or without a cost, but what's the purpose of obtaining a nuke? To use it right? So whose going to be the victim and is it in our best interest to protect them?

 

And who comes to their aid? I really dont think either China or Russia would stand in the way if Europe, Asia and the US give it the green light.

I'm pretty sure that successfully testing a nuclear bomb = them having a nuclear weapon. This one didn't fizzle. It worked. I don't know how much plutonium they reprocessed in 2003 while we were dealing with Iraq (yes, that's actually when they did it), but if they had more than what they've used in these first 2 devices, then it's logical to conclude that they have more. And Tokyo, Honolulu, and possibly Seattle and L.A. are already within range of their missiles; you don't have to be all that accurate with a 20 kiloton weapon.

 

If nothing else, please warn me before you try anything that could possibly be considered a "Military Option". I want to drive to Texas first.

[lostfan]

You know what would be awesome, sneaking a nuke into Pyongyang, setting it off, and then saying it went off by accident and blaming the North Koreans for not knowing what the f*** they were doing.

[lostfan]

I'm pretty sure that successfully testing a nuclear bomb = them having a nuclear weapon. This one didn't fizzle. It worked. I don't know how much plutonium they reprocessed in 2003 while we were dealing with Iraq (yes, that's actually when they did it), but if they had more than what they've used in these first 2 devices, then it's logical to conclude that they have more. And Tokyo, Honolulu, and possibly Seattle and L.A. are already within range of their missiles; you don't have to be all that accurate with a 20 kiloton weapon.

 

If nothing else, please warn me before you try anything that could possibly be considered a "Military Option". I want to drive to Texas first.

Well not necessarily, you still need the delivery system. Which we know they have because they flew it over Japan and they tried to call it a communications satellite. You're scared s***less of North Korea if you're Japan.

[Balta1701]

You know what would be awesome, sneaking a nuke into Pyongyang, setting it off, and then saying it went off by accident and blaming the North Koreans for not knowing what the f*** they were doing.

Unfortunately...the forensics on a nuclear detonation are actually pretty easy to do (if you have a western style isotope chemistry lab). If you gave me the records of the atmospheric signatures produced when the Soviets were detonating bombs, the Americans were detonating bombs, and the Koreans were reprocessing those fuel rods, I could probably go outside a couple days after the explosion, collect some dust, walk downstairs, and a few hours later tell you which country built it.

[Soxbadger]

What's the alternative? Keep telling them no while we watch them build and test and then eventually obtain a nuke?

 

Alternative is to not be hypocrites in the idea that the US and other Western Countries can have nuclear stockpiles that can destroy the world, but NK and other countries cant even have one.

 

Absent actually taking over a country, it will be impossible to prevent that country from obtaining nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are almost "old" technology at this point in that they were invented 50 years ago, to believe that other countries will not independently create nuclear weapons (or worse) is silly.

 

Pandora's box is open, you cant just stuff the nuclear weapons back in.

 

The best thing to do would be to tell countries, they can have nuclear weapons, but by choosing to have them they are going to suffer the following consequences (or reap the following incentives).

 

That way they can make the decision for themselves. Some countries will want the nukes, others will want to avoid the consequences or gain the incentives.

 

Either way it puts an end to the notion that some how the US can stop other countries from technologically advancing. It would have been like the German's trying to prevent other countries from creating rockets.

 

 

[lostfan]

Unfortunately...the forensics on a nuclear detonation are actually pretty easy to do (if you have a western style isotope chemistry lab). If you gave me the records of the atmospheric signatures produced when the Soviets were detonating bombs, the Americans were detonating bombs, and the Koreans were reprocessing those fuel rods, I could probably go outside a couple days after the explosion, collect some dust, walk downstairs, and a few hours later tell you which country built it.

Ok, stealing their plutonium, making a nuke out of it, sneaking it into Pyongyang and setting it off.

[Soxbadger]

SS2k,

 

Who in the world said the same thing about the Iraq army?

 

(I know not to trust Wikipedia, but Im lazy and I dont get paid for this)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...f_active_troops

 

North Korea is #5.

 

Iraq is #21 (although it says under Saddam they had 400k).

 

1.19mil is a lot larger than 400k

 

The US active army is only 1.4mil, Russia 1.2mil

 

US had approximately 3x the army of Iraq.

 

US would only have 200k more army than NK.

 

Not to mention the US army is around the world, the NK army is located in one area, which means that the US could actually be outnumbered in a fight against NK.

 

Unless you want to draft people, because NK most certainly would institute a draft possibly swelling the numbers of their army to close to 2mil+.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Soxbadger

[lostfan]

The US Army is only about 500k (rounding up), the 1.4 mil is all the services combined.

[southsider2k5]

SS2k,

 

Who in the world said the same thing about the Iraq army?

 

(I know not to trust Wikipedia, but Im lazy and I dont get paid for this)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...f_active_troops

 

North Korea is #5.

 

Iraq is #21 (although it says under Saddam they had 400k).

 

1.19mil is a lot larger than 400k

 

The US active army is only 1.4mil, Russia 1.2mil

 

US had approximately 3x the army of Iraq.

 

US would only have 200k more army than NK.

 

Not to mention the US army is around the world, the NK army is located in one area.

 

I really seem to recall that Iraq had something like the 6th or 7th biggest army in the world during the original Gulf War numbering something like a million people. I don't have time to look now, but I remember that for some reason.

[Jenksismyhero]

Alternative is to not be hypocrites in the idea that the US and other Western Countries can have nuclear stockpiles that can destroy the world, but NK and other countries cant even have one.

 

Absent actually taking over a country, it will be impossible to prevent that country from obtaining nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are almost "old" technology at this point in that they were invented 50 years ago, to believe that other countries will not independently create nuclear weapons (or worse) is silly.

 

Pandora's box is open, you cant just stuff the nuclear weapons back in.

 

The best thing to do would be to tell countries, they can have nuclear weapons, but by choosing to have them they are going to suffer the following consequences (or reap the following incentives).

 

That way they can make the decision for themselves. Some countries will want the nukes, others will want to avoid the consequences or gain the incentives.

 

Either way it puts an end to the notion that some how the US can stop other countries from technologically advancing. It would have been like the German's trying to prevent other countries from creating rockets.

 

 

You really believe this? Do you think criminals should be allowed to carry guns just because the police can?

 

How many nukes have been used in war? One right? Out of how many thousands that have been created? Of those countries that hold them, exclusing maybe Pakistan, how many aren't third world countries?

 

The notion that nuclear technology is some right is ludicrous. And the idea that we have to pay countries NOT to develop that technology is equally ridiculous. I'm guessing that if a country like Australia stood up and said, hey we're going to build a nuke, there wouldn't be a world wide reaction of "hell no!" (I have no idea if Australia has a nuke, so that might be a bad example, but I think you get my point).

[Balta1701]

If we go back in time to 1991, this was the state of the Iraqi army:

Later, Saddam Hussein, looking to build fighting power against Iran soon after the outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War doubled the size of the Iraqi army from 1981, when it numbered 200,000 soldiers in 12 divisions and 3 independent brigades, to 1985, when it had 500,000 men in 23 divisions and nine brigades. By the eve of the Invasion of Kuwait which led to the 1991 Gulf War, the Army had 1 000,000 men, 42 infantry and seven armoured divisions, and 20 special forces brigades, grouped in seven corps, plus six Iraqi Republican Guard divisions.[11]

At the time, the Iraqi army was a veteran, experience, very well equipped fighting force, while the coalition forces were comparatively smaller by a factor of nearly 2 and didn't have nearly the experience that the Iraqi army had gained fighting Iran. The coalition was that much better equipped, better trained, had better airpower (winner!), and had much better leadership.

 

A war with North Korea is a war that the U.S./coalition could win easily, if China didn't get involved. The problem is that Seoul and Tokyo are within North Korea's weapons range. It's the same reason why countries no longer try to push Israel back in to the ocean...you may beat them, but they're taking everyone with them if they go down. Iraq couldn't really do that; the best they had was Kuwait City and oilfields to burn, along with a few non-nuclear scuds. And by 2003, their Chemical/Bio weapons were gone, so they couldn't fire those off as they were collapsing either.

[Balta1701]

I really seem to recall that Iraq had something like the 6th or 7th biggest army in the world during the original Gulf War numbering something like a million people. I don't have time to look now, but I remember that for some reason.

Didn't you know I was already typing the post with the answer?