|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 10/10/2006 : 13:26:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yeah. Radiate the population with fallout so there is no doubt.
Oops! Sorry about the leakover, China! Guess we should have checked the weather report for the prevailing winds.
Above ground tests are banned.
North Korea doesn't seem to be all that concerned with treaties. There is also the fact that an above ground test could be conducted far out at sea. It wasn't that many years ago that South Africa flexed its nuclear muscle this way. I'm also not convinced that Kim Jong-Il is woried about what a blast would do to his population. But mentioning that above ground tests are banned in this context seems ridiculous.
quote:
I think we are all waiting for that, but in the meantime it is probably a good idea to keep "real nuclear test" on the table.
I don't see why not. A nuclear blast is plausible. My point is that it isn't valid to assume there was one.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 14:28:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
I don't see why not. A nuclear blast is plausible. My point is that it isn't valid to assume there was one.
Absolutely not. However, it can be benificial to assume there was a real test regardless. After all it could have been and even if it wasn't it can be in the future. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 14:39:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
However, it can be benificial to assume there was a real test regardless. After all it could have been and even if it wasn't it can be in the future.
I don't feel like jumping when Kim Jong-Il says to. Assuming it was a real blast is not beneficial. Either it was or it wasn't. And many things are possible. I don't see what we gain by assuming any claim is true, especially important ones, without strong evidence. It may be dangerous to conclude a blast took place if it leads to nuclear war over what "might" have happened. I don't think we should be rattling our sabers over things that are possible. That's a game with no end. We might as well kill all Iraqi citizens because they might still be hiding WMD's until the day we leave. If our governments start making important decisions based on things that might have happened, but maybe didn't but let's react violently just in case, I'm going to have trouble sleeping at night.
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 16:56:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
quote:
However, it can be benificial to assume there was a real test regardless. After all it could have been and even if it wasn't it can be in the future.
I don't feel like jumping when Kim Jong-Il says to. Assuming it was a real blast is not beneficial. Either it was or it wasn't. And many things are possible. I don't see what we gain by assuming any claim is true, especially important ones, without strong evidence. It may be dangerous to conclude a blast took place if it leads to nuclear war over what "might" have happened. I don't think we should be rattling our sabers over things that are possible. That's a game with no end. We might as well kill all Iraqi citizens because they might still be hiding WMD's until the day we leave. If our governments start making important decisions based on things that might have happened, but maybe didn't but let's react violently just in case, I'm going to have trouble sleeping at night.
@
I obviously was not clear. I don't mean we should assume in reality that the test was real. I mean that we (the US, and the rest of the world) should consider what we will do IF it is discovered that it was a real test.
Of course, acting before the test has been confirmed would be a stupid mistake. Kinda like attacking Iraq without confirming the WMD's. Oh wait didn't we do that already? Well, I guess now we have hindsight. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 17:36:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
...I would consider NK with nukes more of a threat to the world than WWII Germany ever was during the whole conflict when one considers national alliances (the possibility of nuke sales) and the massive destruction force of even a small nuclear weapon.
This is not quite right as the Nazi threat before and during WWII was enormous and aggressive with a military that was supported by a built-up war based economy. (i.e. their armies had enough fuel, ordinance and food to keep going during their blitzkrieg invasions.) North Korea has an enormous army but little infrastructure support and no on-going massive industrial base.
If I may digress for a bit, I understand the idea but its comparing "apples and oranges" because the Nazi threat just before and during WWII was prior to the development of nuclear weapons which the Allies had the lead on and which were used on Japan only at the end. Also, we tend to forget today that despite the superb British aerial victory in the Battle of Britain (1940), which literally saved England from invasion, during the following war years of 1941/42, the Allies were not doing very well and there was for a time an actual possibility that Germany could win the war if they had not made several blunders: (invading Russia, delaying jet fighters, canceling "Bomber B – Amerika Bomber" a strategic four-engine long range bomber program.) "Winning" from their viewpoint would likely have meant stopping and suing for piece so as to retain conquered European territory. Not that it would have worked for them.) Also, the Allies' Manhattan Project required enormous infrastructure development, with vast construction (whole cities) and enormous test facilities, plus very willing workers with a stake in victory. Nazi Germany's own evilness would have tapped into slave labor and they were about 10 years behind though not far behind in 1941. They also were aware of the application of terror weapons using radioactive material though did not develop dirty bombs. Imperial Japan thought of this too, including bombs carrying germ warfare and a proposed 6 engine bomber to drop them on the US. (Factory tooling for the bomber was underway when the war ended.) In historical context I think Nazi Germany was a bigger threat than North Korea is at present. (Today.)
I understand the fear that NK could sell nuclear weapons to terrorists but agree with Dr. Mabuse that at this stage the greater threat of that might be old Russian surplus technology sold to the highest black market bidder. There is implied in recent CNN reports, a disturbing intermingling of going on of former Russian military and Russian mafia elements.
Notice also how NK conducted their test. As a secretive society one might expect that they would not preannounce a test and cover it up afterwards as follows.
1. No announcement.
2. Suddenly seismic activity is detected. (World speculates what caused it.)
3. NK news agency then announces that there was an earthquake.
There would still be speculation as to if it was a nuclear test, but the small size coupled with several other conventional explosions over an area might imitate a quake and minor aftershocks. The news would have blown over and then it would be back to scandals, local violence and Foley chasing Congressional Pages. But of course NK didn't do that. They announced they're going to set off an atomic bomb. An explosion takes place and they say they did it. Real or not, it's a political ploy as was their missile launch.
|
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 21:22:11 [Permalink]
|
My comparison is more like apples and oranges. but I am only trying to establish that they are both fruits. I do not expect NK to become a serious power in the next ever. But I only meant to say that the diplomacy versus Germany did not work because Germany was only interested in furthering Germany. Likewise, NK is only interested in furthering NK. That for them means developing nukes in order to appear to be a threat to global stability and give them a measurable "stick" as it has come to be called. In the effectiveness of diplomancy was my only intentional area of comparison. Obviously, it was a bad analogy.
I agree that test or no test NK will use it as a political weapon as that was the point in any case. All I am suggesting is that no amount of diplomacy will prevent them from seaking nukes. It is just a matter of whether they do it openly and threateningly, or quitely, hiding it for as long as they can. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 22:05:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Luke T.
It's possible it was a hoax. But if it is determined it actually was a nuclear bomb, it will be even more important to determine if it was a uranium or a plutonium bomb.
I don't understand why this is important, but assuming that the seismic event really was a nuclear explosion I'd bet on plutonium.
We know that NK has had a working reactor which could be used to produce plutonium since the early '90s. We also know that NK announced in 2004 that they had sucessfully processed Pu from this reactor into a workable "nuclear deterrent", and that, also in 2004, an American expert who was permitted to inspect NK's production facilities opined that they had been extracting Pu from spent reactor fuel.
That's all stuff that's known; while there's evidence that NK obtained uranium enrichment technology from dear old A.Q. "Mr. Proliferator" Khan, their uranium activities are more a matter of speculation than of knowledge.
If the apparent low yield turns out to be a fizzle or inefficient explosion, then I'd lean even more towards the plutonium hypothesis. Reactor-produced Pu demands implosion assembly, which is tricky to get right and offers lots of opportunity for a fizzle. In contrast, a U235 bomb will work with relatively low-velocity gun assembly, which is why the USA dropped the Little Boy on Hiroshima without testing the design but tested the Fat Man design before considering it usable.
If your purpose in testing is essentially to stir the shit by announcing your arrival in the Nuclear Club, particularly with an underground test, you don't need a readily deliverable weapon. What you need is a nice impressive bang. Consequently, were I in Kim's shoes and had access to sufficient highly enriched uranium, I'd go with the near-foolproof U235 gun design- a Little Boy knockoff- to make an explosion suitable for scaring the bejabbers out of the neighbors.
OTOH, if all I had available in sufficient quantities was Pu, which is rather easier to separate from spent fuel than doing isotope separation with uranium, and was an ego-driven pimple like Dear Leader, I might just put up with the risk of a fizzle.
It will take some time for the seismic and other evidence to be fully evaluated and probably longer for really reliable information about it to become publically available. Until that happens I don't see much point in trying to draw conclusions. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
| Edited by - ktesibios on 10/10/2006 22:08:19 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 03:21:10 [Permalink]
|
With Bush's actions in Iraq and his calling N Korea among the axis of evil countries along with Iraq, then lots of media speculation that we won't invade N Korea because they have a nuke would lead a lot of leaders to have concluded the nuke option is what is keeping Bush out.
We might know there is no reason to invade N Korea, but they don't necessarily know that.
Bush is such a lousy diplomat and hasn't hired anyone better at it. What a mess! |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 05:54:36 [Permalink]
|
| Note to everyone, their is no diplomatic solution which both sides will agree on, we have no possible way of attacking them that would not lead to the total destruction of the South. Get over it, it is not Bushes fault. So maybe we delay a test for a few years, nothing short of the death of the leaders of the DPRK will acomplish anything and their is no way of knowing if the problem will get worse after that. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 07:11:02 [Permalink]
|
http://gowans.blogspot.com/2005/08/north-korea-continuing-struggle.html
quote:
A Gallup/Chosun Ilbo poll conducted this summer found that “two-thirds of [s]outh Koreans of military age, of both sexes…would side with the [n]orth in the event of a war between the United States and [n]orth Korea.”
New York Times, August 17, 2005.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Luke T.
Skeptic Friend
140 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 07:42:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ktesibios
quote:
Originally posted by Luke T.
It's possible it was a hoax. But if it is determined it actually was a nuclear bomb, it will be even more important to determine if it was a uranium or a plutonium bomb.
I don't understand why this is important, but assuming that the seismic event really was a nuclear explosion I'd bet on plutonium.
It is important because the 1994 agreement negotiated by Jimmy Carter and the Clinton Administration was based on North Korea's plutonium program. They had about 8,000 plutonium fuel rods from a nuclear reactor they were reprocessing to make nuclear weapons. The 1994 agreement resulted in North Korea ending that program. Supposedly.
In 2002, the Bush Administration confronted North Korea with "evidence" that North Korea was working on a weapons grade uranium enrichment program. North Korea, while not saying outright that they were doing such a thing, replied that they had a right to do so. The Bush Administration responded by saying that this nullified the 1994 agreement and stopped the oil shipments that had been promised to North Korea if they stopped their nuke weapons program.
North Korea then announced it was returning to the plutonium program as a result of the nullification of the agreement.
Now here's the thing. There are two kinds of uranium enrichment. One type of enrichment is for the use of nuclear reactors and is not weapons grade enrichment. The other type of enrichment produces weapons grade uranium.
The non-weapons grade enrichment would violate the 1994 agreeement, but such a program would clearly not be as great a threat.
A weapons grade enrichment program would be a much greater threat to stability.
So it is important to know which type of enrichment program North Korea had going on when the Bush Administration accused them of having a weapons grade enrichment program. It it important, because it would tell us just how much of a threat existed. If it was a non-weapons enrichment program, then it wasn't as great a threat as a weapons grade enrichment program.
A weapons grade uranium enrichment program requires an infrastructure that North Korea just may not possess. Or at the very least, it would take a very, very long time for North Korea to create enough uranium to make a bomb with their existing infrastructure.
A uranium bomb would vindicate the Bush Administration.
A plutonium bomb will force the issue of looking deeper into just what kind of uranium enrichment program North Korea had going on from 1995 to 2002.
Did the North Koreans have a non-weapons grade enrichment program? If so, was this because they couldn't get a weapons grade enrichment program because of their limited infrastructure? Or did they deliberately choose a lower threat non-weapons grade program to provide just enough leverage to provoke the US into nullifying it for them so they could resume their plutonium program?
So that is a very good reason to know if the bomb North Korea exploded the other day is a uranium bomb or a plutonium bomb. That is if this isn't all a hoax.
It is being speculated that North Korea has up to 10 nuclear bombs. If that is true, then that makes it much more likely they are plutonium rather than uranium bombs. North Korea could not possibly have created that much weapons grade uranium in the time given.
|
|
|
|
Luke T.
Skeptic Friend
140 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 07:48:08 [Permalink]
|
Another possibility is that North Korea did indeed have a weapons grade enrichment program going on. But rather than the goal of actually making a nuke weapon out of it, which would take a very, very long time, the goal was to get caught and thereby provoke the US into saying the 1994 agreeement was nullifed, and thus give them the green light to resume their plutonium program and get to the nuclear club sooner.
ETA: If this is the case, why didn't North Korea just resume their plutonium program instead of a weapons grade uranium program if both are violations of the 1994 agreement anyway, you might ask.
Levels of threat. We'll (DPRK) just make a little move in the wrong direction and they (US) will give us a bigger shove in the wrong direction.
Machiavelli.
|
| Edited by - Luke T. on 10/11/2006 07:51:51 |
|
|
|
Luke T.
Skeptic Friend
140 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 08:07:38 [Permalink]
|
So here are the questions I would like to see answered.
Did North Korea have a uranium enrichment program underway beginning in 1995 up to 2002 when they were accused of doing so by the Bush Administration, in violation of the 1994 agreement? Basically, did they violate the agreeement before the ink was even dry?
If they did, what kind of violation was it? Was it a non-weapons grade uranium enrichment program, or was it a weapons grade uranium enrichment program?
Did North Korea have a plutonium reprocessing program going on between 1995 and 2002, before they publicly announced they were returning to that program due to the Bush Administration announcing the agreement had been violated and was null and void?
What type of bomb was exploded the other day?
|
|
|
|
Luke T.
Skeptic Friend
140 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 08:26:06 [Permalink]
|
Speaking of Machiavelli, North Korea is refusing to participate in six-party talks. They are demanding to only speak to the US about this mess.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
