And so it begins...

[pomegranate]

how about your own country nuking other countries that will nuke you? Or how about your own country having nukes and pushing others around with their aggressive foreign policy to the point that other countries get paranoid and threaten world security by trying to get nukes?

I agree with you in principal, but no-one is any better off for North Korea having nuclear weapons. The US has been pushing around dozens of nations for decades but most of those nations don't feel the need to acquire nuclear weapons, (see Latin America). The US government has, and has had, many faults and its foreign policy makes me want to curl up on the floor and rock gently, but it isn't to blame for North Korea's drive to develop nuclear weapons.
As a diplomatic and economically isolated dictatorship led by an authoritarian oddball who inherited his power from his father and is open about his intent to reunify Korea, nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea are a much greater risk to stability than they generally have been in the hands of the US.

Unfortunate as the atomic bombings of Japan were, the US brought war in the Pacific to an end more quickly and with lower casualities than would have resulted otherwise. If you're going to criticise the US for its nuclear arsenal, you'd be better of concentrating on the insanity of the Cold War arms race, imo.

 

[PvtRyan]

Comparing NK to the US is lunacy and a sign of dumb anti-Americanism. The US is a stable country, not run by a single dictator but a normal democratic government, a country that's quite dependant on the rest of the world. NK on the other hand, is a shithole of a place, run by an insane dictator and pretty much independant of what the rest of the world does. "They have nukes, so they're both insane" is a very bad black and white argument, I'd much rather have just the US with nukes.

And yeah, the US used a nuclear weapon twice. To end a war. Whether or not that was really necessary, I won't enter that discussion, because hindsight is 20/20. But remember after that, the US restrained itself from using nukes eventhough it was under a constant Soviet threat for 45 years. They're not panicky madmen on the red button. Do you really think Kim Jong will show such restraint if his country is under threat?

 

[Tr0n]

New StratFor article.

Red Alert: North Korea -- Is There a Military Solution?
Summary

Whatever the political realities may seem to dictate after a North Korean nuclear test, an overt military strike -- even one limited to cruise missiles -- is not in the cards. The consequences of even the most restrained attack could be devastating.

Analysis

The reported detonation of a nuclear device by North Korea on Oct. 9 raises the question of potential military action against North Korea. The rationale for such a strike would be simple. North Korea, given its rhetoric, cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Therefore, an attack to deny them the facilities with which to convert their device into a weapon and deploy it is essential. If such an attack were to take place, it is assumed, the United States would play the dominant or even sole role.

This scenario assumes that North Korea is as aggressive as its rhetoric.

But what about North Korea's well-armed neighbors -- Russia, China, South Korea, Japan? Would they not be willing to assume the major burden of an attack against North Korea? Is the United States really willing to go it alone, even while engaged in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Leaving these obvious political questions aside for the moment, let's reverse the issue by posing it in military terms: What would a U.S. strike against North Korea look like?

The USS Kitty Hawk is currently sitting in port at Yokosuka Naval Base, Japan. The USS Enterprise is operating in the Arabian Sea, while the Nimitz and the Stennis are conducting exercises off the coast of California. All are an ocean away, and none is less than a week's transit from the region. Nevertheless, naval cruise missiles are readily available, as are long-range strikes by B-2A Spirit stealth bombers and B-52H Stratofortresses and B-1B Lancers currently supporting NATO operations in Afghanistan out of Diego Garcia. A more robust strike package would take longer to deploy.

When U.S. military planners have nightmares, they have nightmares about war with North Korea. Even the idea of limited strikes against the isolated nation is fraught with potential escalations. The problem is the mission. A limited attack against nuclear facilities might destabilize North Korea or lead North Korea to the conclusion that the United States would intend regime change.

Regime preservation is the entire point of its nuclear capability. Therefore, it is quite conceivable that Kim Jong-Il and his advisors -- or other factions --might construe even the most limited military strikes against targets directly related to missile development or a nuclear program as an act threatening the regime, and therefore one that necessitates a fierce response. Regime survival could very easily entail a full, unlimited reprisal by the Korean People's Army (KPA) to any military strike whatsoever on North Korean soil.

North Korea has some 10,000 fortified artillery pieces trained on Seoul. It is essential to understand that South Korea's capital city, a major population center and the industrial heartland of South Korea, is within range of conventional artillery. The United States has been moving its forces out of range of these guns, but the South Koreans cannot move their capital.

Add to this the fact that North Korea has more than 100 No-Dong missiles that can reach deep into South Korea, as well as to Japan, and we can see that the possibility for retaliation is very real. Although the No-Dong has not always been the most reliable weapon, just the possibility of dozens of strikes against U.S. forces in Korea and other cities in Korea and Japan presents a daunting scenario.

North Korea has cultivated a reputation for unpredictability. Although it has been fairly conservative in its actions compared to its rhetoric, the fact is that no one can predict North Korea's response to strikes against its nuclear facilities. And with Seoul at risk -- a city of 20 million people -- the ability to take risks is limited.

The United States must assume, for the sake of planning, that U.S. airstrikes would be followed by massed artillery fire on Seoul. Now, massed artillery is itself not immune to countermeasures. But North Korea's artillery lies deep inside caves and fortifications all along the western section of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). An air campaign against these guns would take a long time, during which enormous damage would be done to Seoul and the South Korean economy -- perhaps on the order of several hundred thousand high-explosive rounds per hour. Even using tactical nuclear weapons against this artillery would pose serious threats to Seoul. The radiation from even low-yield weapons could force the evacuation of the city.

The option of moving north into the North Korean defensive belt is an option, but an enormously costly one. North Korea has a huge army and, on the defensive, it can be formidable. Fifty years of concerted military fortification would make Hezbollah's preparations in southern Lebanon look like child's play. Moving U.S. and South Korean armor into this defensive belt could break it, but only with substantial casualties and without the certainty of success. A massive stalemate along the DMZ, if it developed, would work in favor of the larger, defensive force.

Moreover, the North Koreans would have the option of moving south. Now, in U.S. thinking, this is the ideal scenario. The North Korean force on the move, outside of its fortifications, would be vulnerable to U.S. and South Korean airstrikes and superior ground maneuver and fire capabilities. In most war games, the defeat of North Korea requires the KPA to move south, exposing itself to counterstrikes.

However, the same war-gaming has also supposed at least 30 days for the activation and mobilization of U.S. forces for a counterattack. U.S. and South Korean forces would maintain an elastic defense against the North; as in the first war, forces would be rushed into the region, stabilizing the front, and then a counterattack would develop, breaking the North Korean army and allowing a move north.

There are three problems with this strategy. The first is that the elastic strategy would inevitably lead to the fall of Seoul and, if the 1950 model were a guide, a much deeper withdrawal along the Korean Peninsula. Second, the ability of the U.S. Army to deploy substantial forces to Korea within a 30-day window is highly dubious. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom both required much longer periods of time.

Finally, the U.S. Army is already fighting two major ground wars and is stretched to the breaking point. The rotation schedule is now so tight that units are already spending more time in Iraq than they are home between rotations. The idea that the U.S. Army has a multidivisional force available for deployment in South Korea would require a national mobilization not seen since the last Korean War.

It comes down to this: If the United States strikes at North Korea's nuclear capabilities, it does so placing a bet. And that bet is that North Korea will not respond. That might be true, but if it is not true, it poses a battlefield problem to which neither South Korea nor the United States will be able to respond. In one scenario, the North Koreans bombard Seoul and the United States makes a doomed attempt at shutting down the massive artillery barrage. By the time the guns are silenced -- even in the best-case scenarios -- Seoul will be a mess. In another scenario, the North Korean army executes an offensive of even minimal competence, which costs South Korea its capital and industrial heartland. The third is a guerrilla onslaught from the elite of the North Korean Army, deployed by mini-subs and tunnels under the DMZ. The guerrillas pour into the south and wreak havoc on U.S. military installations.

That is how a U.S. strike -- and its outcome -- might look. Now, what about the Chinese and Russians? They are, of course, not likely to support such a U.S. attack (and could even supply North Korea in an extended war). Add in the fact that South Korea would not be willing to risk destroying Seoul and you arrive at a situation where even a U.S. nuclear strike against nuclear and non-nuclear targets would pose an unacceptable threat to South Korea.

There are two advantages the United States has. The first is time. There is a huge difference between a nuclear device and a deployable nuclear weapon. The latter has to be shaped into a small, rugged package able to be launched on a missile or dropped from a plane. Causing atomic fission is not the same as having a weapon.

The second advantage is distance. The United States is safe and far away from North Korea. Four other powers -- Russia, China, South Korea and Japan -- have much more to fear from North Korea than the United States does. The United States will always act unilaterally if it feels that it has no other way to protect its national interest. As it is, however, U.S. national interest is not at stake.

South Korea faces nothing less than national destruction in an all-out war. South Korea knows this and it will vigorously oppose any overt military action. Nor does China profit from a destabilized North Korea and a heavy-handed U.S. military move in its backyard. Nevertheless, if North Korea is a threat, it is first a threat to its immediate neighbors, one or more of whom can deal with North Korea.

In the end, North Korea wants regime survival. In the end, allowing the North Koran regime to survive is something that has been acceptable for over half a century. When you play out the options, the acquisition of a nuclear device -- especially one neither robust nor deployable -- does not, by itself, compel the United States to act, nor does it give the United States a militarily satisfactory option. The most important issue is the transfer of North Korean nuclear technology to other countries and groups. That is something the six-party talk participants have an equal interest in and might have the leverage to prevent.

Every situation does not have a satisfactory military solution. This seems to be one of them.

 

[Razor]

North Korea couldn't cause World War 3, unless America is really, really stupid, as North Korea doesn't have any allies at all...that is, like i said, if America doesn't piss off China, but then China won't do much as their economy is going so great.

 

[kirovman]

This doesn't really change much, other than allowing them to be added to the list of Nuclear Powers.

They don't have the means to deliver to the target, and even if they did, it would be suicide. Japan would probably be the first to be targetted if they had the ability.

This is an act of attention seeking, trying to pressure the US into bilateral talks (which the Bush administration has foolishly refused).

The US refused to set a guarantee of no military strikes against NK in exchange for denuclearisation, and this is the result.

 

[0mar]

This only sends a message to rogue countries. Get nuclear weapons. The US won't invade you then.

NK had nukes for a while now, we knew about them. However, we invaded Iraq, which had little to zero WMD capabilities. Rogue dictators will look at that and see that getting nukes is probably a good deterrant to US military aggression.

 

[Aenama]

I hope nothing happens...

 

[CptStern]

The story of World War 3 begins at 10/8/06 at 11:00PM EST. Numbers house starts to rumble and gets angry at his neighbors causing a loud bang with a flash of light brighter than a thousand suns. It can only mean one thing: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test.ap/index.html So far there is no radioactive leakage, no seismic activity, and the nuclear warhead went off perfectly. And I'm pretty sure China, etc are sending out the spy planes in full force tonight. All the N. Koreans need now is more nukes and a date to start the war on the world. :sniper: :sniper:

oh here we go with "teh evils that came out of nowhere to nuke the good guys!! oh noes!!!1"

every nuclear capable country out there has tested their nukes ..the US alone has detonated over 1000 nukes over the years

anyone notice how after the invasion of iraq some of the countries in the supposedly "axis of evil" have scrambled to obtain nuclear weapons? ...hmmm I wonder why that is....

 

[kirovman]

No doubt this will be seen as a massive failing in Bush's foreign policy of refusing to talk to people they don't like, whilst threatening.

If I was in charge of a country faced with dealing with the hostile Bush administration, hell, I'd be tempted to protect myself with nukes too.

 

[Raziaar]

oh here we go with "teh evils that came out of nowhere to nuke the good guys!! oh noes!!!1"

every nuclear capable country out there has tested their nukes ..the US alone has detonated over 1000 nukes over the years

anyone notice how after the invasion of iraq some of the countries in the supposedly "axis of evil" have scrambled to obtain nuclear weapons? ...hmmm I wonder why that is....

Wow... Over a thousand nukes? THat's ****ing insane. I've only ever heard/seen footage of two or three. Crazy.

It's even crazy to think of france as having tested nearly 5 times as many as the UK. I mean... the USA I can understand, but france? Wowser.

But then again, france has a far bigger piece of land.

 

[kirovman]

But then again, france has a far bigger piece of land.

The Pacific Ocean?

The UK or France haven't tested on their hometurf. Not enough space.

I think a lot of the the UK's tests were in Australia, which was quite big.

 

[Raziaar]

The Pacific Ocean?

The UK or France haven't tested on their hometurf. Not enough space.

I think a lot of the the UK's tests were in Australia, which was quite big.

Ahh... Alright. I didn't know if france had some sort of desolate mountain valley or something they could of used. Heh.

Thanks.


We should start testing our nukes down in Antartica... Nobody lives there except at the south pole.



I wonder what the global concequences of just a couple nukes would be if detonated in antartica.

 

[kirovman]

Or the moon! :shh:

 

[Raziaar]

Or the moon! :shh:

Yeah... it'd only raise the price by probably 10-20 fold. Hehehe. The effects probably couldn't even make much of a crater on the moon.

 

[kirovman]

I dunno, the lower gravity would allow the debris to fly further and make a bigger crater than on earth...

It would be cool to look up at the sky and see the explosion on the moon though.

 

[pomegranate]

Ahh... Alright. I didn't know if france had some sort of desolate mountain valley or something they could of used. Heh.

No offence but lollerskates at the idea of nukes ever having been tested in Western Europe! Almost nowhere in Europe has sufficiently big unpopulated areas...

 

[Raziaar]

No offence but lollerskates at the idea of nukes ever having been tested in Western Europe! Almost nowhere in Europe has sufficiently big unpopulated areas...

lollerskates indeed!

 

[MiccyNarc]

NK has what Iran needs: Nukes
Iran has what NK needs: Oil

 

[K e r b e r o s]

how about your own country nuking other countries that will nuke you? Or how about your own country having nukes and pushing others around with their aggressive foreign policy to the point that other countries get paranoid and threaten world security by trying to get nukes?

You think thats what this is?

Cold War countries out to push they're agenda through the use of Nuclear Weapons or aggressive foreign policy?

Our only foreign policy that it seems only a terrorist would be upset with is that we don't negiotiate or give aid to them and lastly, we're allied with Israel.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

oh here we go with "teh evils that came out of nowhere to nuke the good guys!! oh noes!!!1"

Look, I might be wrong here, albeit a little inflammatory when I say ...

What should we be?

 

[15357]

insanity? would you like a list of the insane things united states has done through out its histroy? I'm sure it outweighs north korea's.

Now, can you please, as I stated above, give me a reason besides any political, cultural, religious prejiduce why north korea should be feared more then america with their nukes? I would really apperciate factual or historical information.

Lets see, in 1999, Kim told us that we'll all die in a 'sea of fire' if we stopped aid.

2001, they did the same thing again.

2002, they sent warships across the border and we had a jolly good time getting killed.

2005, they told us that if the GNP got elected, there will be 'inevitable conflict on the peninsula.'


Thats just the past 7 years.

 

[Baal]

To be honest, I think this image sums up my feelings on the state of North Korea:

I just get a weird feeling from looking at it.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Tower to the moon? God will cast that down!!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The tower of babel -- sounds like a cheap whore house or an out of way steak house/book store.

 

[bbson john]

There are less than one hundred floors, which implies it sucks.

 

[blck_prod]

North Korea couldn't cause World War 3, unless America is really, really stupid, as North Korea doesn't have any allies at all...that is, like i said, if America doesn't piss off China, but then China won't do much as their economy is going so great.

So true...So don't worry to much.

Altough what pisses me off is that the USofA has tons of nuclear weapons, but if another country wants one (NK or Iran) not to use it, just as a defensive strategy. It's like having a big dog...The neighbours cat won't piss on your lawn anymore.
But what do they do? They freak out. Why??? why???

 

[15357]

Altough what pisses me off is that the USofA has tons of nuclear weapons, but if another country wants one (NK or Iran) not to use it, just as a defensive strategy. It's like having a big dog...The neighbours cat won't piss on your lawn anymore.
But what do they do? They freak out. Why??? why???

THE purpose of god ****ing NUCLEAR TACTICAL WEAPON. Is to kill AT THE VERY LEAST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE! And don't tell me that NK wants it for defence. They've got plenty other WMDs. Just like Iran.

Its so much better for the world if they stop making nukes.

 

[Jintor]

Nuclear Disarmerment is the best way to go, agreed. GLOBAL nuclear disarmament.

 

[blck_prod]

Nuclear Disarmerment is the best way to go, agreed. GLOBAL nuclear disarmament.

Off course the and only true solution...

 

[SAJ]

Nuclear Disarmerment is the best way to go, agreed. GLOBAL nuclear disarmament.

That concept is in fact the third plank of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.
Not that you could tell from the attitude of the major nuclear powers, -themselves signatories to said treaty- who would have you believe such ideas are pacifist fantasies.

 

[huntingbear]

no, I ran outside to make sure it was not a nuke

In retrospect that was probably not a good idea.

LOL "I heard gunfire so I went outside to see what was up." - stories to dead folks from dumb ghetto residents....

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Comparing NK to the US is lunacy and a sign of dumb anti-Americanism. The US is a stable country, not run by a single dictator but a normal democratic government, a country that's quite dependant on the rest of the world. NK on the other hand, is a shithole of a place, run by an insane dictator and pretty much independant of what the rest of the world does. "They have nukes, so they're both insane" is a very bad black and white argument, I'd much rather have just the US with nukes.


Dumb anti-americanism by ass. Comparing NK to the US in terms of their irresponsible use of nuclear weaponry to determine exactly how irresponsible they are with nuclear weaponry, is a intelligent, logical and scientific way of determining how irresponsible someone is with a nuclear weapon.

As for the crazy threats by North Korea that 153567 noted, in comparison to the crazy ACTS by america (namely afghanistan and iraq) It can be concluded that George Bush is more insane than the North Korean leader. I could also list you a bunch of things that Bush has threatened the world with and the crazy things he has said about him self about being sent by god or the "axis of evil" but I dont want to embarress you. I think we've all had enough of Bush quotes.

And yeah, the US used a nuclear weapon twice. To end a war. Whether or not that was really necessary, I won't enter that discussion, because hindsight is 20/20.

oh god your making me laugh, why the hell ELSE would you use a nuclear weapon other than to end a war? further more, I doubt that the complete ahhnilation of two cities, and the hazard (both a hazard to the people and the environment) of the radiation there that will remain for thousands of years to come will be anywhere near comparable to an conventional offensive on the japanese at the end of world war 2. That being said, the moral question of wipeing out a nations innocent people instead of their agreesing soliders is a seperate issue in its own merit.

But remember after that, the US restrained itself from using nukes eventhough it was under a constant Soviet threat for 45 years. They're not panicky madmen on the red button. Do you really think Kim Jong will show such restraint if his country is under threat?

Restrained itself from using nukes? the detonated over 1000 nuclear bombs in that time, all a result of their panick with the soviets. And if thats not enough to convince you how insane america has been with nukes, what about the cuban missle crisis? a red button away from World War 3. Thank god that George W Bush's finger wasnt hanging over that button.

It is as clear and as simple as this, Anybody, whether they be north korean, american, isreali or pakistani, whether they be communist or muslim or democratic, is irresponsible by HAVING a nuclear weapon. Nukes have no place in the world and are a threat to the existance of man kind.

That being said, historical facts and current foriegn policies and projects contend to the fact that the US are the greatest threat to the existance of mankind, and instead of focusing on Kim jong Il's measily kiloton nuke, we should be focusing on much greater threat posed to the world and the existance of life on earth by America.

 

[Aenama]

dude...you need to get a life you ****ing grasp for straws with those crack-pot ideas.Are you so dumb?
what Ryan meant was they restrained them selfs for using nukes again in an attack.People like you need something to bitch about other wise it would be "/slit wrist" for you
Also you act like the Americans put the friging nukes in to Cuba...you are obviously not very smart,I'm not ashamed to say that allot of times I talk shit too,and I dont think before I reply.But I beat you blind folded in an argument before under a other nick name.And If I can do that so can anybody else here.



LOOSER

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Right so they 'restraned' themselves by having over 1000 nuclear tests right? And unfortuneatly, nuking japan, twice, doesnt really cut it as "restrained" nuclear weapons use. Furthermore, how exactly is it that you can use nuclear weapons in a restrained way? Any use of a nuclear weapon, no matter the tonnage, no matter the style or type, will wreck absoulute havoc and terror on the target that it is used.

How about, instead of blabbing you actually post a structural arguement stating reasons that are not based on any kind of prejudice but on historcal and factual information, outlining you think why America and its behaviour isnt the single greatest threat to humanity at the moment?

Good luck.

 

[Aenama]

You did not understand my post.maybe you really are dumb.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Can you please, for the sake of god, write a nicely structured post, outlineing why you believe, that my claim of america being the most irresponsible and dangerious nation on this planet, especially with their historical record of their use of nuclear weapons, is incorrect, or at best flawed?

 

[Aenama]

"Gay people don't value each other."



nuff said.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

That quotation in no way negates what I am saying here as it is a completely different topic.

Furthermore, your conviction to slur my credibility by quoteing statements I have made completely out of context just affirms to me your incapacity to prove that what I am saying in this thread is wrong.

 

[pomegranate]

Frenzy, you're full of shit.
If you really think that asking someone to write a detailed argument, to disprove a complicated, rhetorical and well, wrong, proposition as that, is a way to make your point, then you're a moron as well. It's like:
A: "The sky is pink"
B: "No it's not"
A: "Prove it. Prove me wrong"
B: "Eh, uh..."
A: "See, I'm right!"

Here's something you don't seem to understand: It's up to you to prove your own argument, not for others to prove you wrong. Nothing you've said has been remotely convincing or even indicated you have a decent grasp of world politics.