North Korea

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

I just glanced at the list of topics and didn’t see anything on this.

North Korea has made a threat of attcking U.S. with nuclear weapons. I know the regime over there is bat shit crazy and all, but they have sent a satalite into space by their own accounts and have nuclear cappabilties. I am not some person that believes nuclear war/winter is about to happen, but pretty bold and strong threats.

Do y’all think he(leader of north korea) is just talking shit, or are y’all concerned by this in anyway?

2

[quote]mbdix wrote:
I just glanced at the list of topics and didn’t see anything on this.

North Korea has made a threat of attcking U.S. with nuclear weapons. I know the regime over there is bat shit crazy and all, but they have sent a satalite into space by their own accounts and have nuclear cappabilties. I am not some person that believes nuclear war/winter is about to happen, but pretty bold and strong threats.

Do y’all think he(leader of north korea) is just talking shit, or are y’all concerned by this in anyway?[/quote]

It’s very unlikely that the North Koreans would have the ability to strike Hawaii, let alone D.C. They have the bomb and they have ICBM’s, but they are said to be years away from successfully fitting the former into the head of the latter. And even after that feat has been accomplished, the likelihood that a missile would arrive at its intended target without a hitch is minimal at best.

In that light, this mostly looks like the posturing, preening trash-talk of a fat little prick who wants to consolidate power by firing up the home crowd.

But, of course, those words coming from a nuclear power are nothing to scoff at. In the arena of nuclear diplomacy, much subtler language than that has been called incendiary.

3

Hellifino, but I’d be a little concerned because they are extremely more armed and ready than
the Afghans who are kickin’ our butts and giving us one hell of a fight for over a decade,
and the Afghans have NO Planes, NO Helicopters, No Aircraft Carriers, NO Humvees, NONE of
the Protective gear, and NONE of Sophisticated equipment, technology, and training we have etc.
So if these rag tag fighters with no major firepower we have other than mainly AK-47’s and IEDS
can fuck us up, I’ll give ya one guess to what just ONE Nuke in one major city in the U.S.
will do to the economy… other than the obvious physical damage, It may collapse the economy and the NK’s know it.
So, if the most powerful Military in the World can’t get it’s shit together in over a decade
and ‘break’ these Afghans…Yes, I’d be very concerned about North Korea.

And yes, I know it’s a different kind of potential conflict with NK, I realize that
NK has always given us lip service before without following through, but again, going back
to the Afghans and their history, just googling “Graveyard Of Empires” regarding their successful
history of resistance should make one’s jaw drop if we even think we can beat these people,
we CAN’T beat them, it’s practically in their DNA…fuggetaboutit.

4

If it came to the point of an actual threat from them (real not just talk) I wouldn’t be surprised if we have enough info to take out their nuclear facilities quickly. If they were able to attack us somehow it would probably be just once and we would have troops on their soil for the next 10 years. It’s almost like we want an excuse to get over there but as long as they are all talk we can’t really make the first move.

5

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
I just glanced at the list of topics and didn’t see anything on this.

North Korea has made a threat of attcking U.S. with nuclear weapons. I know the regime over there is bat shit crazy and all, but they have sent a satalite into space by their own accounts and have nuclear cappabilties. I am not some person that believes nuclear war/winter is about to happen, but pretty bold and strong threats.

Do y’all think he(leader of north korea) is just talking shit, or are y’all concerned by this in anyway?[/quote]

It’s very unlikely that the North Koreans would have the ability to strike Hawaii, let alone D.C. They have the bomb and they have ICBM’s, but they are said to be years away from successfully fitting the former into the head of the latter. And even after that feat has been accomplished, the likelihood that a missile would arrive at its intended target without a hitch is minimal at best.

In that light, this mostly looks like the posturing, preening trash-talk of a fat little prick who wants to consolidate power by firing up the home crowd.

But, of course, those words coming from a nuclear power are nothing to scoff at. In the arena of nuclear diplomacy, much subtler language than that has been called incendiary.[/quote]

The people who say the NK’s can’t put a nuke on a missile don’t know what they are talking about. They are basing that theory on false assumptions that are not supported by the facts. Or in other words they have started with a false premise and then tried to use logic to proceed to a logical conclusion that is based upon a false premise.

The first of their false assumptions is that when the NK’s detonated their first device it was a first generation device like the fat man bomb that was detonated at Alamogordo and Nagasaki. They made this false assumption because it was only about one kiloton which they claimed was a fizzle yield. The problem is one kiloton is much too big for a fizzle yield of a fat man type device.

The people who are in the know say that it is much more likely that the NK’s were confident enough in their theoretical understanding of a big, heavy, first generation, fat man device that they skipped testing it and proceeded directly to the next step which is a miniaturized device for their first test. This theory is consistent with a one kiloton yield which would be a successful test of a miniaturized device that could be put on a missile.

It is also consistent with information that the Iranians have been working on a miniaturized design known as a two point implosion device. The way a two point works is instead of using a spherical core surrounded by multiple charges like a fat man which is large, the core is ellipsoid in shape so it only needs to be compressed from two ends using explosive mirrors.

The NK’s are claiming their latest test which yielded six kiloton’s was a miniaturized device. Which means they probably can put a bomb on a missile. The next step is they will probably try pickling an atomic warhead to create a first generation thermo-nuclear bomb. The maximum yield using that method is 300 kilotons.

The take away message is don’t underestimate them at all.

6

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
I just glanced at the list of topics and didn’t see anything on this.

North Korea has made a threat of attcking U.S. with nuclear weapons. I know the regime over there is bat shit crazy and all, but they have sent a satalite into space by their own accounts and have nuclear cappabilties. I am not some person that believes nuclear war/winter is about to happen, but pretty bold and strong threats.

Do y’all think he(leader of north korea) is just talking shit, or are y’all concerned by this in anyway?[/quote]

It’s very unlikely that the North Koreans would have the ability to strike Hawaii, let alone D.C. They have the bomb and they have ICBM’s, but they are said to be years away from successfully fitting the former into the head of the latter. And even after that feat has been accomplished, the likelihood that a missile would arrive at its intended target without a hitch is minimal at best.

In that light, this mostly looks like the posturing, preening trash-talk of a fat little prick who wants to consolidate power by firing up the home crowd.

But, of course, those words coming from a nuclear power are nothing to scoff at. In the arena of nuclear diplomacy, much subtler language than that has been called incendiary.[/quote]

The people who say the NK’s can’t put a nuke on a missile don’t know what they are talking about. They are basing that theory on false assumptions that are not supported by the facts. Or in other words they have started with a false premise and then tried to use logic to proceed to a logical conclusion that is based upon a false premise.

The first of their false assumptions is that when the NK’s detonated their first device it was a first generation device like the fat man bomb that was detonated at Alamogordo and Nagasaki. They made this false assumption because it was only about one kiloton which they claimed was a fizzle yield. The problem is one kiloton is much too big for a fizzle yield of a fat man type device.

The people who are in the know say that it is much more likely that the NK’s were confident enough in their theoretical understanding of a big, heavy, first generation, fat man device that they skipped testing it and proceeded directly to the next step which is a miniaturized device for their first test. This theory is consistent with a one kiloton yield which would be a successful test of a miniaturized device that could be put on a missile.

It is also consistent with information that the Iranians have been working on a miniaturized design known as a two point implosion device. The way a two point works is instead of using a spherical core surrounded by multiple charges like a fat man which is large, the core is ellipsoid in shape so it only needs to be compressed from two ends using explosive mirrors.

The NK’s are claiming their latest test which yielded six kiloton’s was a miniaturized device. Which means they probably can put a bomb on a missile. The next step is they will probably try pickling an atomic warhead to create a first generation thermo-nuclear bomb. The maximum yield using that method is 300 kilotons.

The take away message is don’t underestimate them at all. [/quote]

They have to know that if they launched at Japan or South Korean that they would be turned into dust…they cannot be that stupid…can they?

7

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
I just glanced at the list of topics and didn’t see anything on this.

North Korea has made a threat of attcking U.S. with nuclear weapons. I know the regime over there is bat shit crazy and all, but they have sent a satalite into space by their own accounts and have nuclear cappabilties. I am not some person that believes nuclear war/winter is about to happen, but pretty bold and strong threats.

Do y’all think he(leader of north korea) is just talking shit, or are y’all concerned by this in anyway?[/quote]

It’s very unlikely that the North Koreans would have the ability to strike Hawaii, let alone D.C. They have the bomb and they have ICBM’s, but they are said to be years away from successfully fitting the former into the head of the latter. And even after that feat has been accomplished, the likelihood that a missile would arrive at its intended target without a hitch is minimal at best.

In that light, this mostly looks like the posturing, preening trash-talk of a fat little prick who wants to consolidate power by firing up the home crowd.

But, of course, those words coming from a nuclear power are nothing to scoff at. In the arena of nuclear diplomacy, much subtler language than that has been called incendiary.[/quote]

The people who say the NK’s can’t put a nuke on a missile don’t know what they are talking about. They are basing that theory on false assumptions that are not supported by the facts. Or in other words they have started with a false premise and then tried to use logic to proceed to a logical conclusion that is based upon a false premise.

The first of their false assumptions is that when the NK’s detonated their first device it was a first generation device like the fat man bomb that was detonated at Alamogordo and Nagasaki. They made this false assumption because it was only about one kiloton which they claimed was a fizzle yield. The problem is one kiloton is much too big for a fizzle yield of a fat man type device.

The people who are in the know say that it is much more likely that the NK’s were confident enough in their theoretical understanding of a big, heavy, first generation, fat man device that they skipped testing it and proceeded directly to the next step which is a miniaturized device for their first test. This theory is consistent with a one kiloton yield which would be a successful test of a miniaturized device that could be put on a missile.

It is also consistent with information that the Iranians have been working on a miniaturized design known as a two point implosion device. The way a two point works is instead of using a spherical core surrounded by multiple charges like a fat man which is large, the core is ellipsoid in shape so it only needs to be compressed from two ends using explosive mirrors.

The NK’s are claiming their latest test which yielded six kiloton’s was a miniaturized device. Which means they probably can put a bomb on a missile. The next step is they will probably try pickling an atomic warhead to create a first generation thermo-nuclear bomb. The maximum yield using that method is 300 kilotons.

The take away message is don’t underestimate them at all. [/quote]

Source this. None of the top FP information outlets support this, at all.

8

Chosen at random from hundreds of sources: “The North has a long way to go before it can threaten the West Coast of the United States with a nuclear-armed missile. It has yet to develop a nuclear warhead small enough to fit atop its missile, experts say, and it has not tested a vehicle that can withstand the heat of re-entry into the atmosphere. Nor is it clear that the country could aim a missile with much accuracy.”

-New York Times.

What source contradicts this?

9

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Chosen at random from hundreds of sources: “The North has a long way to go before it can threaten the West Coast of the United States with a nuclear-armed missile. It has yet to develop a nuclear warhead small enough to fit atop its missile, experts say, and it has not tested a vehicle that can withstand the heat of re-entry into the atmosphere. Nor is it clear that the country could aim a missile with much accuracy.”

-New York Times.

What source contradicts this?[/quote]

The Pyongyang Post

10

from http://www.cnbc.com/id/100485930/North_Korea_May_Actually_Think_a_War_Is_Coming

[i]The bottom line here is that the US and South Korea have gone on the offensive, and this is prompting a flurry of activity by Pyongyang, which will now put even more effort into its nuclear program.

While it is perhaps more amusing to paint a portrait of Kim Jong-un as an eccentric attention-seeker, and while there is an element in Pyongyang’s actions that is about solidifying stability at home, what this is really about is North Korea’s belief that an invasion is imminent.

A move on North Korea would also be in line with the Obama administration’s Asia-Pacific strategic shift, which has the US Navy bringing old forward bases back online across region, from Thailand and Vietnam to the Philippines and Australia.
[/i]

I used to frequently visit Korea and still have friends there. NK was never taken very seriously, until now.

Don’t forget about the 900lb Gorilla in the room, or, that country just north of Korea and Japan which has picked up its investments in their own Military. I doubt anyone wants WW3 but there appears to be tons of political jockying going on and territorial disputes for resources. Nothing unusual in the history of the world.

In a way it kind of reminds me of gym rats.

11

Isn’t North Korea similar to Plato’s REPUBLIC?

The elite lies to the people who are kept ignorant so that the society can be permanent.

Plato = Kim Jung Un?

12

In the “chess game” of stupid US foreign policy, one can almost imagine someone coming up with the bright idea that we kick North Korea’s ass so that we have an excuse to put a significant portion of our assets on China’s doorstep.

China would be foolish allow North Korea to escalate things to the point that we feel threatened enough to prepare for war. After we kicked NK’s ass, we’d have to “rebuild” and THAT would essentially give us a forward operating base all up in China’s shit. I can’t imagine they’d allow that.

I see China as the country telling NK to STFU and BTFD. That’s the only way the status quo will be maintained.

If it happens any other way, then China is planning, in the long run, to use our proximity to say we violated their air space or something, cause an international incident, and test us pretty seriously. I don’t know if they’d start an all out war, but I can see them having a long term plan that involved pulling our proverbial card to see what we’re made of. They’ll do it when we’re most divided and over extended. They’ll do SOMETHING soon.

13

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
I just glanced at the list of topics and didn’t see anything on this.

North Korea has made a threat of attcking U.S. with nuclear weapons. I know the regime over there is bat shit crazy and all, but they have sent a satalite into space by their own accounts and have nuclear cappabilties. I am not some person that believes nuclear war/winter is about to happen, but pretty bold and strong threats.

Do y’all think he(leader of north korea) is just talking shit, or are y’all concerned by this in anyway?[/quote]

It’s very unlikely that the North Koreans would have the ability to strike Hawaii, let alone D.C. They have the bomb and they have ICBM’s, but they are said to be years away from successfully fitting the former into the head of the latter. And even after that feat has been accomplished, the likelihood that a missile would arrive at its intended target without a hitch is minimal at best.

In that light, this mostly looks like the posturing, preening trash-talk of a fat little prick who wants to consolidate power by firing up the home crowd.

But, of course, those words coming from a nuclear power are nothing to scoff at. In the arena of nuclear diplomacy, much subtler language than that has been called incendiary.[/quote]

The people who say the NK’s can’t put a nuke on a missile don’t know what they are talking about. They are basing that theory on false assumptions that are not supported by the facts. Or in other words they have started with a false premise and then tried to use logic to proceed to a logical conclusion that is based upon a false premise.

The first of their false assumptions is that when the NK’s detonated their first device it was a first generation device like the fat man bomb that was detonated at Alamogordo and Nagasaki. They made this false assumption because it was only about one kiloton which they claimed was a fizzle yield. The problem is one kiloton is much too big for a fizzle yield of a fat man type device.

The people who are in the know say that it is much more likely that the NK’s were confident enough in their theoretical understanding of a big, heavy, first generation, fat man device that they skipped testing it and proceeded directly to the next step which is a miniaturized device for their first test. This theory is consistent with a one kiloton yield which would be a successful test of a miniaturized device that could be put on a missile.

It is also consistent with information that the Iranians have been working on a miniaturized design known as a two point implosion device. The way a two point works is instead of using a spherical core surrounded by multiple charges like a fat man which is large, the core is ellipsoid in shape so it only needs to be compressed from two ends using explosive mirrors.

The NK’s are claiming their latest test which yielded six kiloton’s was a miniaturized device. Which means they probably can put a bomb on a missile. The next step is they will probably try pickling an atomic warhead to create a first generation thermo-nuclear bomb. The maximum yield using that method is 300 kilotons.

The take away message is don’t underestimate them at all. [/quote]

Source this. None of the top FP information outlets support this, at all. [/quote]

The design of nuclear weapons has always fascinated me so I have spent more time than most people have studying them. This is information I have learned from reading multiple sources over many years. Such as this one.

http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Home.html

This next one shows the progression of the various marks of atomic and nuclear weapons.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

From what I have read for a first generation atomic bomb such as the mark 3 device that was dropped on Nagasaki a fizzle yield could not produce more than 0.66 kiloton. The first NK test was about one kiloton. That means it wasn’t a fizzle, but it was a low yield.

If they were confident they could make a mark 3 type device it would make perfect sense not to waste a lot of plutonium testing an undeliverable bomb. It makes a lot of sense to move on to miniaturization. First it would use less plutonium to test it, secondly it would produce a usable device. It’s the smartest way to proceed.

The theory that the NK’s went the exact same route as everyone else for their first test rests entirely on that first test being a fizzle. None of their test have been high yield but certainly not fizzles. The last test was 6-7 kilotons.

14

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Chosen at random from hundreds of sources: “The North has a long way to go before it can threaten the West Coast of the United States with a nuclear-armed missile. It has yet to develop a nuclear warhead small enough to fit atop its missile, experts say, and it has not tested a vehicle that can withstand the heat of re-entry into the atmosphere. Nor is it clear that the country could aim a missile with much accuracy.”

-New York Times.

What source contradicts this?[/quote]

New York Times highly favors the democrats. So it’s not an unbiased source. Who are their experts and what information are they basing their size assumptions on? Or are they basing their assumptions on a false assumption?

15

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
In the “chess game” of stupid US foreign policy, one can almost imagine someone coming up with the bright idea that we kick North Korea’s ass so that we have an excuse to put a significant portion of our assets on China’s doorstep.

China would be foolish allow North Korea to escalate things to the point that we feel threatened enough to prepare for war. After we kicked NK’s ass, we’d have to “rebuild” and THAT would essentially give us a forward operating base all up in China’s shit. I can’t imagine they’d allow that.

I see China as the country telling NK to STFU and BTFD. That’s the only way the status quo will be maintained.

If it happens any other way, then China is planning, in the long run, to use our proximity to say we violated their air space or something, cause an international incident, and test us pretty seriously. I don’t know if they’d start an all out war, but I can see them having a long term plan that involved pulling our proverbial card to see what we’re made of. They’ll do it when we’re most divided and over extended. They’ll do SOMETHING soon. [/quote]

China is the one country that can make the NK’s behave. Something that needs to be considered is unlike North Korea, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are all modern industrial powerhouses. The most powerful leverage we have against the Chinese is we could allow the Japanese to go nuclear. Nothing scares the shit out of the Chinese more than that. Except maybe the South Koreans and Taiwanese joining the nuclear club as well.

All three of those countries have reactor pools with spent fuel rods they could extract plutonium from. They also have the technical know how and industrial capability to produce a bomb in a matter of weeks.

16

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Chosen at random from hundreds of sources: “The North has a long way to go before it can threaten the West Coast of the United States with a nuclear-armed missile. It has yet to develop a nuclear warhead small enough to fit atop its missile, experts say, and it has not tested a vehicle that can withstand the heat of re-entry into the atmosphere. Nor is it clear that the country could aim a missile with much accuracy.”

-New York Times.

What source contradicts this?[/quote]

New York Times highly favors the democrats. So it’s not an unbiased source. Who are their experts and what information are they basing their size assumptions on? Or are they basing their assumptions on a false assumption? [/quote]

I will look at your sources. I was less challenging you than wanting to read where you got your information from out of genuine curiosity.

I don’t think, by the way, that the “NYT leans left” line works here. Its actual reporting is generally regarded as the best in the country for a great number of reasons, not least of which is that it’s the only paper remaining that’s willing to spend serious money on its stories. Even the Post has dried up and fallen mightily from the Watergate days. I notice the NYT’s editorial slant in the politics section just like I’m sure you do, but very rarely are outright lies printed in its pages. You’ll probably remember, by the way, that their biggest blunder in recent decades was Judith Miller, who erred right, not left.

17

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
If it came to the point of an actual threat from them (real not just talk) I wouldn’t be surprised if we have enough info to take out their nuclear facilities quickly. If they were able to attack us somehow it would probably be just once and we would have troops on their soil for the next 10 years. It’s almost like we want an excuse to get over there but as long as they are all talk we can’t really make the first move.[/quote]

This…except there would be no boots on the ground in retaliation. It has always been the policy of our country that any nuclear attack against us would be met with equal retribution, or worse. There would be no life on that upper penninsual for the next 5,000 or so years except for cockroaches…

As it should be, IMO.

<>

18

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
If it came to the point of an actual threat from them (real not just talk) I wouldn’t be surprised if we have enough info to take out their nuclear facilities quickly. If they were able to attack us somehow it would probably be just once and we would have troops on their soil for the next 10 years. It’s almost like we want an excuse to get over there but as long as they are all talk we can’t really make the first move.[/quote]

This…except there would be no boots on the ground in retaliation. It has always been the policy of our country that any nuclear attack against us would be met with equal retribution, or worse. There would be no life on that upper penninsual for the next 5,000 or so years except for cockroaches…

As it should be, IMO.

<< Only Serious post from VTBalla on PWI FTW>>[/quote]

Fixed that for ya.

I actually agree with you though.

19

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
If it came to the point of an actual threat from them (real not just talk) I wouldn’t be surprised if we have enough info to take out their nuclear facilities quickly. If they were able to attack us somehow it would probably be just once and we would have troops on their soil for the next 10 years. It’s almost like we want an excuse to get over there but as long as they are all talk we can’t really make the first move.[/quote]

This…except there would be no boots on the ground in retaliation. It has always been the policy of our country that any nuclear attack against us would be met with equal retribution, or worse. There would be no life on that upper penninsual for the next 5,000 or so years except for cockroaches…

As it should be, IMO.

<>[/quote]

I think that would be the only proper way to respond. Parking lot for South Korea for real.

20

Well this should add some fuel to the fire with the whole situation.