N.Korea nuclear test

[desertoasis]

Well, I am sure that they will get a really stern talking to. What we need here is some REALLY strong rhetoric. I am sure that President Obama will go to the UN and get the same kind of strong response and support that he got when North Korea did their missile test a few weeks ago.

I agree that going to the UN so they can 'condemn' NK's action is a ridiculous response, and watching the UNSC masturbate each other is the epitome of idiocy. Unfortunately, what alternatives do we have? We haven't been attacked directly (neither have any of our allies been attacked) so we can't very well go storming in, because that would piss off China and Russia (two nations we probably shouldn't be pissing off right now), and might cause a few nukes to be launched for real or at least destabilize an already tense part of the world.

That's the trouble with bat-shit-crazy dictators and self-isolated countries. You never know what they're actually going to do. I guess that is what makes me so nervous about this whole thing; what CAN we do, really?

 

[Flash]

Well, I am sure that they will get a really stern talking to. What we need here is some REALLY strong rhetoric. I am sure that President Obama will go to the UN and get the same kind of strong response and support that he got when North Korea did their missile test a few weeks ago.

You mean just what the previous administration did when the North Koreans set off a bomb in 2006?

What will this test do for further development of THAAD or GBI or ??? Probably nothing, but at least it gives additional political clout to those in support of said systems.

Maybe political lout but it certainly doesn't mean that it makes it a practical threat. Are their nukes small enough to put on one of their rockets/missiles that don't seem to work?

 

[Godspeed]

Agree with Pickle on this one... I don't think the US should do a damn thing but maybe take a step back. If we didnt' have our forces already committed to other engagments we might have more of an option, but at this point I don't think we can afford another conflict.

Maybe we should let Japan have a military again? The enemy of my enemy is my friend.... If we can't fix the problem, maybe we could empower our friends to.

 

[GO_AV8_DevilDog]

I think we did something similar once.

It didn't work out so well for us in the end game.

 

[Bevo16]

Maybe political lout but it certainly doesn't mean that it makes it a practical threat. Are their nukes small enough to put on one of their rockets/missiles that don't seem to work?

Are they big enough to sell to Iran?

 

[Hozer]

Definitely not trying to minimize the significance of the event, but China and Russia have just as much to lose if not more than other industrialized countries.

Time for them to step up. Their solution/response may not necessarily be in the US's best interest, but I'd suspect they have some well crafted plans of their own to deal with Kim.

 

[Flash]

Are they big enough to sell to Iran?

Missiles/rockets or nukes?

When I was talking about the size of the nukes I was talking about the physical size and weight of the device, not the yield. You can't put a device the size of Fat Boy on a relatively 'low-tech' ballistic missile, it even took us a few years to get there.

So the fact that the North Koreans have a nuke doesn't mean they have a reliable weapon system, consisting of a small enough nuke and a missile to put it on, to deliver it.

 

[Godspeed]

Definitely poses an interesting question... I wonder how far along their nuke program is...

I have a gut feeling that with today's technology they are a bit farther than the Fat Man / Little Boy era.

I'd be more worried about a briefcase sized nuke being handed off to a terrorist organization than I would about one being strapped onto an ICBM.

 

[Bevo16]

Missiles/rockets or nukes?

When I was talking about the size of the nukes I was talking about the physical size and weight of the device, not the yield. You can't put a device the size of Fat Boy on a relatively 'low-tech' ballistic missile, it even took us a few years to get there.

So the fact that the North Koreans have a nuke doesn't mean they have a reliable weapon system, consisting of a small enough nuke and a missile to put it on, to deliver it.

OK. You missed the point. I'll connect the dots for you.

This guy has a nuke:

But even though he is batshit crazy, he is probably smart enough not to use it.

This guy wants a nuke:

And is probably just crazy enough to use one if he got it.

The two folks above are not exactly strangers when it comes to doing business with each other in arms trade:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101200953.html


Oh, and they Iranians have recently been showing off their "peaceful domestic energy delivery system".
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/official-confirms-irans-missile-launch/

Does that make my point a little more clear?

 

[Flash]

Definitely poses an interesting question... I wonder how far along their nuke program is...

I have a gut feeling that with today's technology they are a bit farther than the Fat Man / Little Boy era.

We are talking about North Korea here, low-tech is the standard for them. They may not have today's technology and would not need it to produce nukes.

I'd be more worried about a briefcase sized nuke being handed off to a terrorist organization than I would about one being strapped onto an ICBM.

I would be very worried too, but there are a few huge leaps to make before that happens. First they have to exist, which they may not, and then the country that possesses them has to give them up. That would be quite the leap to make for a country when the weapon could possibly be traced back to them, leading to the end of that government.

In the end for most authoritarian countries survival is paramount and handing a nuke over to a terrorist group could seriously endanger that.

 

[Flash]

Does that make my point a little more clear?

Yes. They are more friends with convenience than true allies, and while they may have some weapons dealings that does not mean that the North Koreans are willing to hand over nukes. That is a very big step that even Kim Jong Il may not be willing to take, especially if it can be traced back to him.

 

[Mumbles]

I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that there were Iranian technicians/observers at both today's event and the TD-2 launch last month.

 

[Godspeed]

Definitely poses an interesting question... I wonder how far along their nuke program is...

I have a gut feeling that with today's technology they are a bit farther than the Fat Man / Little Boy era.

To answer my own question, according to Fox News, the Nuke detonated today was their largest yet, at 10 kilotons...

To put it in comparison, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 22 kilotons.

 

[scoolbubba]

So the fact that the North Koreans have a nuke doesn't mean they have a reliable weapon system, consisting of a small enough nuke and a missile to put it on, to deliver it.

When should we start to care then? Ok, so they've got nukes now. NBD. 5 years from now we should worry...? Come on, seriously?

 

[desertoasis]

Well, it's happened. The UNSC climaxed into another 'condemnation'!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/25/nkorea.nuclear.test.outrage/index.html

The comforting point in that story is that analysts say they won't have effective delivery capability for years...