North Korean Nuke Test A Success

[benji]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene ... rss&rpc=22

A worthless, powerless, shrinking, dying dictator suddenly becomes relevant.

[Gundy]

Who the fuck you callin' worthless you fuckin' piece of shit?

[Fitzy]

i saw this on the news, pretty scary that a nuclear war could start any time

[Ty-Land]

Wow, that happened a lot sooner than I expected. Looking forward to going to my Nuclear Weapon Planning, Strategy and Non Proliferation politics class tomorrow. The lecturer is reknown in the field worldwide and the highest arms control authority in the country.

Now, what are the affects of this test. It has delegitimised the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and places North Korea in a stand off with the rest of the world. Where will this lead us you ask? There are several possibilities:

1) A new arms race: Failure to pull North Korea in line may lead to other countries directly threatened, and that have the potential capacity to develop weapons, to build there own nuclear weapons capacity. This would lead to a domino effect, starting from Japan and South Korea and expanding out to countries like Taiwan, Australia, Indonesia, Germany, Iran, Saudi Arabia and so on. This would destroy the decades of progress in non-proliferation and change the whole dynamic of international security and relations.

2) Sanctions: Unanimous international pressure to cripple North Korea and overthrow the current regime. While this may be the most peaceful and least costly means of getting kim Jong to surrender his weapons it comes with a huge moral dilemma. Placing further burdens on the North Korean economy could lead to famine and civil war, costing the lives of thousands of innocent Koreans. It could also lead to the regime behaving irrationally, doing something stupid on its last legs; like invade the South or bomb Japan.

3) War: Probably the most unpredictable situation. A coalition organised by the UN would face an enourmous task of overhtrowing North Korea and capturing the nukes. The cost of lives, along with the financial backing of the war effort would be massive. The North Korean army would put a strong fight against any troops thrown at them. This would make this option hard to gain the political backing required. Furthermore, this could be the foundations for a greater war with tensions spreading, other rogue states and terrorists taking up the cause against the west, or leading to regional fighting (most likely the North vs Japan and the South).

4) Nuke them: Probably the easy way out strategically and tactically. Would cost the most lives and would have a huge political backlash attached to it. Would be incredibly hard to justify and could possible lead to a variant of option 1. A new arms race due to the usefullness of nukes and the destigmatisation due to there use in conflict.

Could be very interesting times ahead...

[Jing]

We are actually reading Aquariums of Pyongyang, which is a documentary of sorts of a North Korean Refugee. Also we have a former soldier in the class who actually served at the North/South border, and he was like, the North has nukes and will most likely be testing them in the next week or so....

Its a little bit scary

[Mark.]

That is pretty scary, nice assessement of the situation Ty-Land

Im happy to be able to say that I live in a Nuclear free country

[Riot]

It's time we take this son of a bitch out. I'm sick of this administration screwing around trying to play it politically correct and not get directly involved. The threat is real and it is time to act as quickly and swiftly as you did to the Iraq threat. Show everyone that you can protect the American citizens when we are in danger. It is time to take that regime out of power in North Korea. The good news is the United Nations would surely help with the cause and we would not be alone. In fact, we probably wouldn't even lead the charge against North Korea.

I understand we are fighting two wars already. However, if you use that as an excuse not to take Kim Jong Il we will regret it in the future. I hope President Bush makes this a top priority.

[shadowgrin]

^ but they (NoKor) have Nukes and will use it if provoked. Use of nukes means nuclear war. Hell on earth people.

[Mayerhendrix]

Well, then the question comes up that they may just be bluffing like Saddam was, so it's a tough call what exactly they're doing.

I don't get the American people, first sign of any type of nuclear weapons of mass destruction and they're like "Get rid of that asshole" and then when it turns out there were no weapons, they turn on their government and say "Well, I was against war all the way."

[benji]

2) Sanctions: Unanimous international pressure to cripple North Korea and overthrow the current regime. While this may be the most peaceful and least costly means of getting kim Jong to surrender his weapons it comes with a huge moral dilemma. Placing further burdens on the North Korean economy could lead to famine and civil war, costing the lives of thousands of innocent Koreans. It could also lead to the regime behaving irrationally, doing something stupid on its last legs; like invade the South or bomb Japan.

The North Korean economy is already non-existant and the people already are starving.

Our playing card is a nuclear Japan. China doesn't want that.

Hopefully this will not take focus off of Iran, but instead make clear the importance of that situation, and lead to an agreedupon effort to disable that regime. Hopefully SDI will continue to test well and be further developed. Hopefully the Democratic Party won't use it as an election issue and instead back handling NK.

Watch Iran...NK tends to do something when Teh Mullahs need a distraction.

[Bang]

NK always should have been the US' top priority, but they were concerned with the middle east first because there is much more financial benefit to be had in the middle east. I have a feeling that Bush will actually not invade NK for a long while because there are no resources to be had from NK, and NK probably will just get absorbed by South Korea. Furthermore, this will weaken the grip on South Korea because probably the amount of US soldiers will decrease. Well if he does, then I would be surprised. Look how the US are still leaning towards sanctions rather than full out war at the very first sign of trouble (which happened a long time ago). Now it's gotten much worse.

I'm guessing this is probably going to signal an earlier end to North Korea although it saddens me that the 0.1% chance of a peaceful reunification is now 0.0000000000001% or practically 0%. I hope somehow if war breaks out that somehow South Korea will not have any casualties, but it seems if it does those chances are extremely slim if not impossible. The only way maybe that would happen if the US were to attack the capital of NK so quickly that the government so that there would be no command or something.

[benji]

NK always should have been the US' top priority, but they were concerned with the middle east first because there is much more financial benefit to be had in the middle east.

Well, I certainly hope you've never said "but Iraq never attacked us!" or anything similar...as NK's done even less than Iraq...

The reason behind not attacking North Korea was the idea that with pressure from China (along with Japan, South Korea and Russia) the regime could be contained (as well as our interdiction of ships headed there) and thus would starve itself out. (Still likely.) It's been assumed they've had nukes, thus the goal has to been to prevent regimes from acquiring nukes. (Also, unlike NK there was no international support for containing and stopping Saddam.)

If war breaks out on NK's terms, Seoul will be bombed, by artillery or worse case scenario, nuke. However, currently North Korea doesn't have a conventional means of delivering the weapon as their missiles are failures.

The bigger threat continues to be Iranian acquisition of nukes from North Korea. If Iran acquires nukes, then Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia will go nuclear. Then we have a major problem.

The issue here isn't states acquiring nuclear weapons, as they will never use them, it's politically impossible for a state to use nuclear weapons directly as they would be wiped off the face of the earth instantly. The primary issue is those nukes finding their way into "independent" actors hands.

[---]

Its sorta wierd how America tries to disable everyone that is aquiring Nuclear weapons, even though they are the only ones to have ever used it. But I still agree with disabling any nuclear threat, for the sake of peoples lives.

[Versa_Playa]

Its sorta wierd how America tries to disable everyone that is aquiring Nuclear weapons, even though they are the only ones to have ever used it. But I still agree with disabling any nuclear threat, for the sake of peoples lives.

Yeah, though I'm pretty sure America isn't the only country to use it. It is threatening, but North Korea isn't stupid. It'll take long planning for them to launch any type of attack. And they could possibly scare away South Korea. Which would suck for them.

[---]

I meant actually used it as a weapon. I can't think of anyone else who has not only developed it but actually used it.

[Riot]

I meant actually used it as a weapon. I can't think of anyone else who has not only developed it but actually used it.

But 50 years later you still blame America for that? It was different people in charge in a different era. That is like saying Germans are all racist because of what Hitler did. It is in the past. The world and the people of today are different.

Plus...I think I'd trust America with a nuke a lot more than I'd trust North Korea or Iran.

[Versa_Playa]

That's a pretty mean comment.

[---]

Riot, I don't disagree with disarming anybody that has nukes. It was just a random thought that popped into my head

[Dro]

Plus...I think I'd trust America with a nuke a lot more than I'd trust North Korea or Iran.

I love that comment America should be trusted even though we're the only ones to actually use it. Not saying I disagree, I just find the logic to be very humorous.

[benji]

It's not a question of history. Would you trust Iran, Saddam or North Korea with a nuke over the United States? It's a question of rationality.

[Silas]

I really hope the typo dong doesnt strike near me

[popopo]

I don't like the way that guy looks. (one with glasses)

[cyanide]

I don't like the way that guy looks. (one with glasses)

Do you think his glasses are a little too big?

[Zoom]

The situation is getting sort of crazy...

The UN issues sanctions, North Korea says no and wants the world to see how happy and proud of themselves they are... USA must be getting unesay, warning they will attack them if North Korea attacks any of USA's allies...

China has to do something... I don't know bout all of you, but I don't want a World War III...

[Riot]

I hope America decides to do something out of action instead of reaction. We should act swiftly and effectively if we want this threat to end as soon as possible. We've tried every trick in the book. They will not disarm peacefully. They have the nuclear weapons for a reason and that is for attention. They will not go away until the spotlight is off them and that will be when Kim Jong Ill is out of power.