Full Version: North Korea
North Korea announced a few days ago they will be conducting a nuclear test.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/0...r.un/index.html
Here is a link with alot of information on the North Korean nuclear program.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html
What option(s) should be implemented to attempt a solution in regards to North Korea's nuclear weapons program?
If all else fails should the United States use air strikes on North Korean nuclear targets and/or should South Korea make such a decision?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/0...r.un/index.html
QUOTE
"The field of scientific research of the DPRK will in the future conduct a nuclear test under the condition where safety is firmly guaranteed," it said.
Here is a link with alot of information on the North Korean nuclear program.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html
What option(s) should be implemented to attempt a solution in regards to North Korea's nuclear weapons program?
If all else fails should the United States use air strikes on North Korean nuclear targets and/or should South Korea make such a decision?
This is one of those situations where there don't appear to be any good options. The only bright spot I can find is that there seems to be nearly universal disapproval of the North Korean regime from the international community. From the article you provided:
If any nation has the ability to make North Korea listen to reason, it would be China.
If North Korea really tests a nuclear weapon, perhaps the best option (or the least bad) would be to completely isolate it from the rest of the world economically.
The use of direct military action against North Korea, if absolutely necessary to prevent the outbreak of nuclear disaster, would be much more effective if it were a truly international effort. It would have to be made absolutely clear to the entire world that North Korea would be endangering the planet.
(If nothing else, taking on unilateral military action in North Korea would be a serious challenge for the armed forces of the United States.)
QUOTE
China, North Korea's closest political ally, warned its neighbor against exacerbating tensions already simmering over the hermetic Stalinist country's nuclear ambitions.
"We hope that the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea's -- the north's official name) will keep calm and restrained on the nuclear test issue," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in a statement reported by Chinese state media.
"We hope that the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea's -- the north's official name) will keep calm and restrained on the nuclear test issue," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in a statement reported by Chinese state media.
If any nation has the ability to make North Korea listen to reason, it would be China.
If North Korea really tests a nuclear weapon, perhaps the best option (or the least bad) would be to completely isolate it from the rest of the world economically.
The use of direct military action against North Korea, if absolutely necessary to prevent the outbreak of nuclear disaster, would be much more effective if it were a truly international effort. It would have to be made absolutely clear to the entire world that North Korea would be endangering the planet.
(If nothing else, taking on unilateral military action in North Korea would be a serious challenge for the armed forces of the United States.)
What option(s) should be implemented to attempt a solution in regards to North Korea's nuclear weapons program? Since all talks broke down I would assume that the best effort would be to take it to the IAEA. It is clearly evident the Bush will do something alone if he must, since this is the same reason he sanctioned war with Iraq.
If all else fails should the United States use air strikes on North Korean nuclear targets and/or should South Korea make such a decision? Although it would be hard for the United States to actually penetrate a developed country such as N.KOREA we could do this. I would say once again try and get a resolution on the table and we will see from there.
If all else fails should the United States use air strikes on North Korean nuclear targets and/or should South Korea make such a decision? Although it would be hard for the United States to actually penetrate a developed country such as N.KOREA we could do this. I would say once again try and get a resolution on the table and we will see from there.
I have a bit of an odd question, and I admit as I write it that it is partly me being the devil's advocate. But, what's the big deal exactly?
North Korea has already openly admitted that they have atomic weapons, this is not in doubt. So if they test one, then what has changed? We know they have atomic weapons, and now we know they have one fewer?
North Korea has already stated the test will be done underground and will have no environmental impact on any neighbouring countries. Examination of test results through sattelite and seismographs will give the west valuable intel about their nuclear capacity. The very worst thing this signals is that Korea is not standing down as a nuclear power, but nobody seriously thought it would anyways. So before the test it was an atomic power, after the test it is an atomic power. The test itself will surely be something like the Pakistan test, a 3 or 4 kiloton bomb, perhaps up to 6 or 7 at best, all substantially smaller than what hit Hiroshima.
I am not in any way excusing NK for its actions in general, nor for sabre rattling, of which this is obviously a case. But seriously, big picture here, whats the big deal? Its not like if they DON'T test it, therefore they don't have nukes...
North Korea has already openly admitted that they have atomic weapons, this is not in doubt. So if they test one, then what has changed? We know they have atomic weapons, and now we know they have one fewer?
North Korea has already stated the test will be done underground and will have no environmental impact on any neighbouring countries. Examination of test results through sattelite and seismographs will give the west valuable intel about their nuclear capacity. The very worst thing this signals is that Korea is not standing down as a nuclear power, but nobody seriously thought it would anyways. So before the test it was an atomic power, after the test it is an atomic power. The test itself will surely be something like the Pakistan test, a 3 or 4 kiloton bomb, perhaps up to 6 or 7 at best, all substantially smaller than what hit Hiroshima.
I am not in any way excusing NK for its actions in general, nor for sabre rattling, of which this is obviously a case. But seriously, big picture here, whats the big deal? Its not like if they DON'T test it, therefore they don't have nukes...
QUOTE
I have a bit of an odd question, and I admit as I write it that it is partly me being the devil's advocate. But, what's the big deal exactly?
Are you being a devils advocate... because I'm not... what is the big deal... I'm reading all these posts and no one has give one real reason.
"it's sticky..." "It's bad..."
I thought we already knew Korea had Nukes.. so the test does.... exactly what??
Show us what we already knew.
In fact they are just giving us a courtesy...
"Hey America and world... if you feel the ground shake that's just us testing our stuff... don't start a nuclear war over it"
QUOTE
I have a bit of an odd question, and I admit as I write it that it is partly me being the devil's advocate. But, what's the big deal exactly?
North Korea has already openly admitted that they have atomic weapons, this is not in doubt. So if they test one, then what has changed? We know they have atomic weapons, and now we know they have one fewer?
North Korea has already openly admitted that they have atomic weapons, this is not in doubt. So if they test one, then what has changed? We know they have atomic weapons, and now we know they have one fewer?
Simply because you don't know that you have a nuclear bomb until you've tested it. The 'old' nuclear powers no longer bother testing because we all have highly sophisticated computer simulation equipment that we trust. But we do not share this equipment very widely - even between nuclear armed allies - the US does not pass it's knowledge onto the UK, we don't tell France etc.
But North Korea 'only' has the same technology that Pakistan developed - pretty basic stuff (on the WMD scale) and they do not have the technology that we have that makes testing redundant. The only way that North Korea can prove to itself and the world that it has nuclear capability is by testing a bomb. Which is why everyone is very keen that they do not test the bomb, because then they will be far less likely to threaten people with a nuclear bomb that might just fizzle a bit and lie there.
And generally, anything that prevents a homicidal, nutcase dictator from threatening people with a nuclear bomb is probably A Good Thing.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Oct 5 2006, 11:35 AM) 
I have a bit of an odd question, and I admit as I write it that it is partly me being the devil's advocate. But, what's the big deal exactly?
North Korea has already openly admitted that they have atomic weapons, this is not in doubt. So if they test one, then what has changed? We know they have atomic weapons, and now we know they have one fewer?
North Korea has already stated the test will be done underground and will have no environmental impact on any neighbouring countries. Examination of test results through sattelite and seismographs will give the west valuable intel about their nuclear capacity. The very worst thing this signals is that Korea is not standing down as a nuclear power, but nobody seriously thought it would anyways. So before the test it was an atomic power, after the test it is an atomic power. The test itself will surely be something like the Pakistan test, a 3 or 4 kiloton bomb, perhaps up to 6 or 7 at best, all substantially smaller than what hit Hiroshima.
I am not in any way excusing NK for its actions in general, nor for sabre rattling, of which this is obviously a case. But seriously, big picture here, whats the big deal? Its not like if they DON'T test it, therefore they don't have nukes...
Well... I'd say that the issue with testing is that they then know that their warheads work, can test the expansive destruction, and work out operational effectiveness issues. We tested Nuclear weapons extensively (and have over time) to ensure that we had the science down, of course so when the bomb dropped we knew it worked.
Two bad things come out of NK Nuke testing. One being that they use it as a show of force to prove that they not only have the weapons but they work. Second, they have the opportunity to harness effective military procedures, measure the force of the weapons, etc.
I feel pretty safe sitting in Dallas, as NK would be very hard pressed (short of using terrorists) to get a nuke to US shores... due to our vast missle defense systems, military bases world wide, Naval Fleets, etc. It would be highly unlikely. However, there are US allies and interests all over their region that are at risk. I'd feel better if the world slapped them w/ an economic embargo that cripples the population.... then pray that it doesn't push them into using force.
QUOTE
Vermillion
I am not in any way excusing NK for its actions in general, nor for sabre rattling, of which this is obviously a case. But seriously, big picture here, whats the big deal? Its not like if they DON'T test it, therefore they don't have nukes...
I am not in any way excusing NK for its actions in general, nor for sabre rattling, of which this is obviously a case. But seriously, big picture here, whats the big deal? Its not like if they DON'T test it, therefore they don't have nukes...
I am not in favor of military action against NK now but the “big deal” is that NK has tested missiles and nukes with the obvious intent to let the world know that they have nukes and will soon have the ability to deliver them to the south Japan and the US.
You cannot compare this to India and Pakistan who may have threatened each other but never the US. You may feel nice and safe in Canada but I see no reason to feel the same here in the US.
North Korea Threatens US with First Strike
Pyongyang asserts right to pre-emptive attack as tensions rise over American build-up[size=2]
by Jonathan Watts in Pyongyang
North Korea is entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US rather than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North's foreign ministry told the Guardian yesterday. Warning that the current nuclear crisis is worse than that in 1994, when the peninsula stood on the brink of oblivion, a ministry spokesman called on Britain to use its influence with Washington to avert war.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0206-01.htm
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.