North Korea Conducts Nuclear Test 573
viyh writes "North Korea conducted a nuclear test on Monday, South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted a ruling party official as saying.
A magnitude 4.7 earthquake was recorded by the USGS in North Korea.
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has called an emergency meeting of cabinet ministers over the test, Yonhap said."
I'm ronery.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm ronery.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm ronery.... (Score:5, Informative)
Kim Jong Il on his country (Score:3, Funny)
the last line is haunting, "keep on throwing I dare you.. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpF5-mBmI0c [youtube.com]
ArmsControlWonks view of the test. (Score:5, Informative)
Japan Goes Nuclear At Last? (Score:2, Interesting)
It'll be interesting to see if this latest provocation makes Japan [nuclearweaponarchive.org] finally go nuclear [scitizen.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If they go Nuclear, you won't be able to figure it.
Exploding nukes underground is so backwards technology or done to get attention. See the top500.org , you will see they are the documented ones. Japan has hit number 1 very easily just 2 years ago. They have companies like NEC, Hitachi and many more. They can build a super computer or use existing super computer instead of actually blowing stuff up.
I am saying this to people who thinks just because Russia and USA doesn't blow stuff up, nukes are over. Nukes
Re:Japan Goes Nuclear At Last? (Score:5, Informative)
I am saying this to people who thinks just because Russia and USA doesn't blow stuff up, nukes are over. Nukes just explode digitally these days which means they must be progressing way better than ''Lets blow this thing and see what it does'' ages.
There is a difference. The nuke testing done on computers by the USA and Russia is done for purposes of maintenance of current stockpiles and was key to implementing the 1992 moratorium on testing. The simulations aren't generally about simulating explosions, they are about simulating decay and related aging of the current stockpiles so that we can know what nukes will still go boom if we launch them.
In the US, the federal program that handles this stuff (and puts a lot of systems on the Top500 list) is ASCI - the Advanced Strategic Computing Initiative. [wikipedia.org]
Broken Record (Score:2, Insightful)
This whole North Korea situation sounds like a broken record.
Every U.S. administration since Clinton has been dealing with these sorts of North Korean threats. The Republicans criticized Clinton for his handling of the situation, and they found themselves in the exact same position.
Re: (Score:2)
They are trolling the planet (Score:5, Informative)
Whole N Korea thing is something like a troll guy who begs for ''replies'' or getting banned until he gets the ultimate attention.
There were no news about N Korea for a while and bam, they explode a nuke.
Can a country troll? They seem to be able to do it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course you can't ignore a nuclear device exploding but just imagine if you could... Kim Jong guy like any troll would be extremely pissed.
Do they really dream about using it against South Korea? I mean, a country in walking distance is not good for nuking.
It is more like a crybaby looking for attention with nukes. I know it sounds crazy but what they did is no less. Also, I'd be very careful underground nuke testing if my country is small and has faults around.
Radioactive S. Korea? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like they fixed their yield problem (Score:2)
A magnitude 4.7 earthquake was recorded by the USGS in North Korea.
If memory serves their last couple tests didn't generate much of a yield. But that big of tremor likely indicates they have overcome that problem. They got it working now.
Lovely.
China. (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the North Koreans are interested in China's continued aid supplies over the long term? As in, after they get a credible, deliverable weapon, 'If you stop the gravy train, we take out Hong Kong, even if we're glass 8 minutes later. That whole "we don't like the west" thing was just so you would let us build nukes.'
I really don't get China's motivations. Once the nuclear genie is out, they won't be able to stuff it back in. It's like the U.S.A. helping Haiti to get nukes because they don't like Cuba. Does it not occur to the Chinese govt. that once North Korea has a real nuclear capability, they could aim it anywhere they so wished?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:China. (Score:4, Informative)
Which just furthers my point. If the Chinese goverment really worries about an invasion of U.S. soliders, they are seriously deluded.
Heck, in WWII, the planed invasion of Japan, a beaten, firebombed nation (although not nuked yet) with less than a twentieth the population of China now, was estimated to cause a MILLION or more allied casualties. That was one of the biggest arguments that was given to nuke Japan. Even if we take nukes off the table, a plain old-invasion of China would make WWII casualty figures look like chump change.
I see why the North Koreans would really like nukes, but it still doesn't make sense to me from China's point of view. I would place stronger odds on the Koreas' uniting sometime in the next 50 years than not. Language, culture and blood are much stronger long-term ties than country. Then, they'll have a unified, nuclear armed Korea right on their border. Which will likely encourage a nuclear armed Japan (which they might do much sooner as a result of North Korea's tests anyway). Is encouraging a nuclear arms race on your borders really a good idea? I can't see how having a few more heavily armed, somewhat paranoid neighbors benefits you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The North Korean nuclear program is based on technology acquired from Pakistan's A.Q. Khan [bbc.co.uk], not so far as I know from either China or the former USSR.
I think both the Chinese and the Russians understand that a nuclear armed Korea represents a threat to them. Their occasional diplomatic wavering probably has much more to do with internal political struggles than with blindness or deception.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Both [Pakistan and North Korea] have also had close ties with China - seen by many experts as a key exporter of nuclear and missile know-how.
The response (ie, the actions, not the words) of Russia and China will be an indication of where they actually do stand.
Personally I don't consider Kim Jong II to be a threat. He wants attention and respect. He won't attack unless he feels he has no other recourse. The major danger will come once his regime falls: what will replace it? It could be bad. Kim Jong is not insane as many people seem to believe.
They will never be used offensively (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not good, but all this means is North Korea can't be invaded, and who would want to? Altruism is not a good enough reason to sacrifice troops in a country that would be prepared to use Nukes against an invader. The leadership is weak and in a time of turmoil. I'm fairly certain that Kim Yong-il suffered a stroke recently so he can't lead the country there forever so someone has to replace him. They will inherit a country with weapons, but no bread. How sad for the North Korean people.
So while the leadership of North Korea is at it's weakest, it beats it's chest with it's weapons forcing improving their position of bargaining. This can be summarised with the wisdom of Sun Tzu: "the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him." and the North Korean leadership is doing the opposite of "masking strength with weakness is to be effected by tactical dispositions."
They are masking weakness with strength.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet you forgot one factor. Nutjobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Well another one yet - both countries are still technically at war still.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Were we talking about Iran, for example, I'd agree with you - although their leaders hold a vastly different ideology to many of our own, writing them off with simplistic statements is totally unfair. Their country works in its own way and while legitimate criticism could be levelled at them for failing to represent the wishes of their people, that would not negate the fact that the decisions they do make often work to achieve the desired outcome.
I'd say the ideology is a bit different. Here [youtube.com] is a video of them chanting "Death to America" at a political rally before a speech by their president promising to continue developing nuclear technologies. You might consider rethinking giving these people nuclear weapons.
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
them chanting "Death to America" at a political rally
In Iran the phrase "Death to...." is a commonly used slang term. It is used much in the same manner as you would hear Americans say "Fuck that" or "Dammit" or "Damn it to Hell".
So when you hear people chanting Death to America, its meaning is more along the lines of "Fuck those assholes" than "We want to kill all Americans". You can also commonly hear people say Death to traffic, Death to children, Death to politics, and Death to whatever happens to be pissing someone off at the time.
Think about what you yourself say if it's taken literally. Have you ever said "I'm going to kill somebody"? Did you really mean you were going to murder them? Didn't think so. Ever said "Damn it" or "Damn them"? That phrase literally means to send someone/something into the Hellish afterlife, but is that what you were actually advocating?
Getting worked up over slang words that you saw on TV is a stupid method of making an opinion about an entire culture.
Re:Scary (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not sure I get your point - I said that Iran's ideology is vastly different to our own, but that they run a functional government nonetheless.
An Iranian guy once told me a joke.
Mossad, the CIA and the Iranian Intelligence service decide to hold a contest. Each team must go out, wrestle bears and bring them back alive. The first team to come back is Mossad. They have one bear each, beaten unconscious and carried on their backs. All of the bears but one die over their injuries soon after they return. A bit later the CIA team come back. They have one bear tied up and hooded in a high tech cage they have presumably assembled from the contents of their packs.
There is a long wait. Mossad and the CIA decide the Iranians aren't coming back and start to pack up. Suddenly the Iranians return. They have a dear on a leash, looking very scared and clearly badly beaten. The dear says "I'm a bear! I'm a bear!"
I think that joke tells you a lot.
Re:Scary (Score:5, Interesting)
Kim Jong Il is definitely not a nutjob. North Korea's internal politics are a pressure cooker like few on the planet. He's extremely smart, politically savvy and extremely ruthless. He learned at the feet of a master - his father - and successfully transitioned to power when it was widely expected he would fail. This is a man that thinks nothing of starving millions (as happened in the late '90's) of his own people if it suits his political needs. North Korea has survived for over half a century by using it's massive military to threaten the South and has played public opinion in South Korea like a violin.
Since China transitioned from a closed economy and withdrew much of it's overt support, North Korea has successfully used seemingly insane threats as negotiating leverage to obtain international aid many times. Because of China's residual support for the regime and their legitimate fear of massive numbers of refugees crossing the border, as well as resistance by (probably North supported) elements in South Korea it has been politically impossible to call North Korea's bluff. This is perhaps the one thing that could successfully break the back of the regime and initiate change in the North.
If it were possible to "pull the plug" on international aid and enlist China to stare down the North's military threats the regime would probably collapse, but it's unlikely China could be induced to do so given the flood of refugees they would inevitably have to handle.
Hence the "insanity" continues with no end in sight.
Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Kim Jong Il is definitely not a nutjob ... [he] thinks nothing of starving millions
What were you saying?
successfully used seemingly insane threats as negotiating leverage to obtain international aid many times
Name one that has succeeded.
The aid has been given despite the insane threats as we know the situation of the people there.
Sure the insanity continues as the other possibility is death. Or can you imagine a peaceful change in the country (like in USSR)?
Re:Scary (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You want to avoid disaster? Don't push their backs to the wall and make sure their enemies all have nukes too so they don't have an unfair advantage. Balance is the key.
What makes the advantage "unfair"? Who should have nuclear weapons in order to maintain "balance"? Should you or I personally have them? My view is that no, we haven't demonstrated either the need, maturity, or the security to have nuclear weapons. Oddly enough, neither has North Korea.
what? you got a better alternative? Harsh language and UN sanctions that hurt nobody but the people?
We need to remember that penalties can go far beyond harsh language. My view is that the civilized world, not just the US, should back up nuclear nonproliferation efforts with the threat of both conventional and nuclear force
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But communism DIDN'T work. And in a few years we'll realize that democracy doesn't work either.
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
But communism DIDN'T work. And in a few years we'll realize that democracy doesn't work either.
Democracy is the worst government system. Except for all the other ones we have tried in the past...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, sod gender-neutral language. the masculine forms are meant as unspecified gender, as is common practice throughout Europe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone with a bit of knowledge knows that democracy only works in populations up to about 6500 people. After that it stops working and it was the inventors of democracy who figured that out
Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to be working fairly well so far. Maybe not to your expectations, but I don't see people falling over dead from starvation outside my house.
Also, keep in mind that we don't use straight-up democracy... It's a mixture of many different disciplines. Taxes, health care, and education are socialist ideals.
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seems to be working fairly well so far.
That's because the US is a Republic, not a Democracy.
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, here's an scenario for you:
Citizen A introduces a bill. Citizen B votes yes. Citizen C votes no. Citizen D and E vote for C.
Now it gets ugly. Citizen F, G, H, I and J are employed by A. Citizen A is very rich and the owner of a big corporation.
Citizen A tells F, G, H, I and J: "If you don't vote for me, you'll lose your jobs and you won't be able to work anywhere in this town".
Citizens F, G, H, I and J vote for A and A can do anything he wants.
Lesson: The secrecy of the vote is not there because it's fun.
Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)
You're making a HUGE assumption when you say that F, G, H, I, and J are all going to break with A on this issue. They have a prisoner's dilemma type choice where individually, it's a safer choice to stick with A, because if the bill loses then they don't get punished, and if the bill wins then no harm was done. Therefore, perfectly rational self-interest will lead to continued oppression, even though a collective decision to break with A leads to the optimal outcome.
And if you were to argue that F won't vote A because when G, H, I, and J win the vote then they'll also kick F to the curb (thus breaking the dilemma by providing the same negative consequences either way but divergent positive consequences), then you've really traded one tyranny for another.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While there are a few holes in ShieldW0lf's idea (the public ballot idea is a huge question mark), I think your issue could be sorted out if there was a website for searching and categorizing the bills. You could subscribe to categories you're interested in, block ones you're not interested in, filter bills by category or creator, etc...the bills could be kept relatively short and concise instead of being a bigass slab of paper with politicians tacking on everything they happen to want done at the time.
Afte
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Communism didn't work for several reasons but two of about the biggest ones were:
- constant paranoia about getting sabotaged by outside enemies, which paralyzed progress by destroying mutual trust, on which communism must be built to succeed.
- constantly getting sabotaged by actual outside enemies - CIA funding religious extremists opposing the nation, never-ending propaganda about the paradise of the capitalist life, restrictions in trade of modern technologies, constant threat of war which stole lots of r
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
How about, when you have a job and get paid the same no matter what you do, you don't try very hard and industry stagnates.
Like union dominated US car industry?
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why the social democratic system is so popular in Europe... You get most of the benefits of capitalism, with the safety net of communism.
The golden path lies in the middle.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it only seems logical to start there. I mean if the people of North Korea REALLY knew how they were living in comparison to the rest of the world, or even the other half of their little peninsula which many of us even envy because of their crazy fast and cheap broadband, they would be up in arms in no time.
The party members at the top of the ladder know what the "west" is like, and emulate the lifestyle themselves with lavish palaces, cars, food, women, entertainment, all at the expense of their starv
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In communism the people own everything and everyone works for the good of everyone. The obvious problem is that people are lazy and greedy. If I build houses and you just do gardening, I'm going to expect to make more than you. After all if I don't build a house you don't even have a place to garden
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
Things don't simply "work" or not. Human history is a continuum of change. Communism worked for some time in some places, Capitalism is working for some time in some places. There is no definitive solution, because there isn't a definitive problem.
The real nutjobs are the ones that claim to have found the "End of History". And both commies and cappies are guilty of such arrogance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where and when did communism work?
Never met a Hudderite? There's plenty of small-scale communes that've worked just fine.
Of course, the GP is wrong in that no large scale deployment of communism has ever existed.
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
You're full of shit, capitalism is the idea that a LARGE group of individuals ought to be able to make unilateral and INDIVIDUAL decisions with wide reaching consequences according to their own arbitrary whims.
Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not that Communism didn't or doesn't work, but rather it has never existed as Marx envisioned. The reform has never succeeded. Communism, like Democracy, exists only as a fantasy.
As an ideal, it is not half bad. Sadly, the worst kind of humans always manage to find a way to ruin things for everyone, regardless of the government.
The insane need not apply (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The insane need not apply (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Hint: they're extremely expensive to manufactuer and not really portable.
Colin Gray talks about the possibility of a terrorist using a nuke in Another Bloody Century [amazon.co.uk]. He thought it was more likely that a terrorist would buy or be given a nuke to use rather than fabricating it due to the difficulties that you mention. He also says that nukes have a certain cultural taboo that make even a small detonation A Big Deal.
That's a great book; he talks about how cyber warfare being overhyped and also where he
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Detonation blast radius? Ability to be detonated on it's own?
Here's a snip from wik [wikipedia.org]i: The W48 was 846 mm long and weighed 58 kg; it could be fitted in a 155 mm M-45 AFAP (artillery fired atomic projectile) and used in a more standard 155 mm howitzer. The fission warhead was a linear implosion type, consisting of a long cylinder of subcritical mass which is compressed and shaped by explosive into a supercritical sphere. The W48 yielded just 72 tons TNT equivalent.
78 tons of TNT? That's hardly a fart in the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares about traceable? So you know I nuked you. Big deal: I did it because your troops were already surrounding my palace and you were about to raid it anyway, and I know what happened to Saddam. I was dead anyway, so do I care that you can trace me?
Worse, why deliver it? I nuke my palace, myself and your troops. I'm dead anyway, you'll hang me! That way, at least I take some of you bastards with me and hey, who knows, maybe I'm gonna be a hero to some other nutjobs out there who celebrate my death and
Re: (Score:2)
*Must* they?
Re: (Score:2)
Consider it from the USA's point of view - a North Korean nuke sails out of the sky and flattens, say, Seattle. Should the US respond with nuclear weapons? Where should they go?
Targeting North Korean cities just kills a lot of civilians who the NK au
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Brother man, I did not support the invasion of Iraq one iota, but I'd support a multinational invasion force in North Korea, you better believe it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that I said 'multinational', as in the UN. It should be decided by many bureaucrats, not by a few war mongers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:War is peace (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem of world peace is one of leadership. It's not only a struggle for resources, but a struggle for supremacy, which guides our national policies. America believes it cannot continue to exist without controlling others. And NK believes that it must dominate its enemies in order to survive.
This can't be fixed so easily, I'm afraid. It's simply human nature. So it's up to each and every one of us to work towards that goal. I'm starting with the man in the mirror. I'm asking him to change his ways. And no message could have been any clearer: if you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And no message could have been any clearer: if you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change.
In my estimation, more misery has been created by reformers than by any other force in human history. Show me someone who says, "Something must be done!" and I will show you a head full of vicious intentions that have no other outlet. What we must strive for always! is to find the natural flow and go with it. - The Reverend Mother Taraza, Conversational Record, BG File GSXXMAT9
Re:War is peace (Score:5, Interesting)
The odd thing about North Korea is that even without nukes it is offlimits for US military action for three reasons
First most people think the North Korean army would fight if attacked, unlike the Iraqi one. Their equipment is outdated, but they have numbers and determination would most likely kill enough Americans to trigger a Vietnam style withdrawal. I'd guess China would keep them supplied too.
Secondly North Korea has vast amounts of artillery aimed at Seoul, the capital of South Korea. It is theorized that if attacked they would shell Seoul. By the time the artillery had been destroyed by US airpower millions of South Koreans would be dead, and probably thousands of US pilots. The US government would most likely not be able to accept that loss.
Finally it's widely believed that China has told the US that NK is under its protection and that attacking it would move the US and China into an open state of hostility.
Now they do have nukes they could use them on US forces, Japan or South Korea. Actually I think that Japan or the US would probably be able to shoot down NK missiles or destroy them on the ground as they are liquid fueled and thus take time to set up. Also there are questions of whether they would be able to build a warhead that would fit on a missile. So compared to their conventional military and powerful allies, their nukes are not particularly useful.
Of course even a few dummy missile launches at Japan may trigger an extreme overreaction on Japan's part. Their current pacifism could be revoked quite quickly and while pointedly non nuclear it is widely believed that they could build a large nuclear arsenal very quickly if threatened. China would no doubt react by building up its own military. So an attack on NK would most likely leave South East Asia looking like a much more threatening place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Secondly North Korea has vast amounts of artillery aimed at Seoul, the capital of South Korea. It is theorized that if attacked they would shell Seoul.
This point can't be emphasized enough: not only are there literally thousands of (somewhat crude) artillery pieces along the North/South Korean border, but it's widely believed that they are equipped with chemical warfare shells. In practice, North Korea doesn't really need nukes to bring massive devastation and megadeaths to South Korea: their artillery can do much more damage than a dozen 50 Kiloton nukes. Before taken out, the Korean artillery can bring pandemonium to the South, and the NK leadership wou
Re:War is peace (Score:5, Funny)
I think the most likely scenario would be something like this:
USA: Bad NK! We are gonna invade! Booya!
China: If you do, we will demand you pay your debt to us.
USA: That would totally fsck our economy man!
China: So don't do it then.
USA: Lets get Iran! Booya!
Re:War is peace (Score:4, Informative)
I think your figures are wrong. When I made my military service in the artillery our guns could shoot about 21 km and they where of an older model. The newer model could shot further and this was standard 15 cm artillery.
As far as I know, battleships of WWII could fire to the horizon and could possible fire beyond it today with better aiming - according to Wikipedia an Iowa class battleship could fire it's 40cm guns at targets 39km away.
I wouldn't be suprised if NK has artillery that can reach at least 40 km which is close enough to hit Seoul if you add chemical or biological weapons.
Re:Barry's Fault (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
People claimed Bush was able to stage/provoke 9/11 in just nine months. It's perfectly fair to blame this on Obama, it's all part of the job.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also I think the guy is delusional and belongs in a mental institution. He seemed to think he was Jesus's second coming or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the difference here is that only a few nutjobs are dumb enough to claim Bush orchestrated 9/11.
Just like only a few nutjobs are stupid enough to claim Obama is somehow responsible for North Korea nuclear testing.
Or that Obama is responsible for the current economic situation, or responsible for "government spending" (including bailouts) that started before he ever entered office.
The more sane conspiracies re: Bush+9/11 are regarding how his administration used it to take political control over the c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not referring specifically to nuke tests. I'm referring to the threats that North Korea has made to the West, mostly relating to medium-range missile tests. Also, I'm not American and I couldn't care less about partisan politics in that country. As far as I'm concerned, there are very few differences between the two major parties as they're both financed and mostly controlled by major corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile... in North Korea... (Score:3, Interesting)
News not yet confirmed by THE OFFICIAL NEWS SOURCE. [kcckp.net]
See? Absolutely nothing new happened since Kim Jong Il received a gift from UK figure. [kcckp.net]
Re:In Communist Korea... (Score:5, Informative)
The test is being reported as an 'Hiroshima' size yield: around 20 kilotons.
This doesn't mean they have a fully-funtional nuke in the moden sense of the word. The Hiroshima bomb was basically a large gun that fired a chunk of 90% U-235 into another chunk of Uranium, and was a proof-of-concept that was simple and guaranteed to work. And big: not possible to mount on a Taepodong-2. They have hundreds of kilos of Uranium from their pre-2007 nuclear power industry that can be enriched for this type of bomb.
Until they can show they're testing nukes using shaped Plutonium and timed explosives, this could be just bravado to stir up support for the military as Kim Jong-Il hands power over to one of his sons. Not necessaily technical achievement.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hiroshima sized yield doesn't mean Hiroshima sized device or Hiroshima technology device. (Note that the Little Boy bomb is reported to be about 13-18 Kiloton while the Nagasaki bomb - a plutonium pinch device - only 21.)
The Hiroshima bomb was dropped without testing because it was such a near-sure-thing. The Nagasaki bomb had a prototype tested at Trinity because it was it was more iffy: Any screwup in the explosive focus, the calculations, the isotope mix, the timing of the neutron strobelamp, or more
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, and now they can hug them with their nuclear arms.
Re:n. korea ignores sanctions - where's the news? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. North Korea has the second largest standing army in the world, behind only China.
2. They would instantly invade S. Korea.
3. They'd launch anything they could at Japan.
Both S. Korea and Japan are allies, and make nice shiny stuff. We're not interested in provoking a massive retaliation on either country.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Educate [wikipedia.org] thyself [wikipedia.org].
Re:Why should USA care about S Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps statements like this are part of the reason why some South Koreans 'hate' the US?
I agree with your post about the U.S. needing to get out of the world-running business. But - your casual statement regarding the extermination of 70+ million people only in terms of positive impact to U.S. car companies is not helpful to your argument, since people may assume you are a ghoul, which means they won't take your otherwise good idea as seriously as they should.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The USA place itself on first the conventional defense and now nuclear defense obligations so that our so-called allies can dump their products on the USA.
You'd have a point if there were any decent cars manufactured by U.S. companies; but for many car categories, this just isn't true. I shopped around for a car not very recently - a low-end but roomy subcompact - and not a single car from American manufacturers was appealing, or scored well on reviews. Not one. But plenty of options from Japanese car makers, and some nice stuff from Koreans as well.
I'm looking at another car purchase in a year - something along the lines of Mazda5 - and, again, I don't see a
Re:Why should USA care about S Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
A few things:
1) The S. Korean army can defend itself from the North. The reason we (I'm American) were there originally was that it was assumed (probably rightly) that any confrontation would actually be with China, through North Korea, which would be a pretty big, horrible war.
2) The reason we're still there is basically the same: As a deterrent against China. If China misbehaves, we're right there. Also, we have a joint security treaty with Japan, and basically share militaries with them (they don't have one, officially, but... they have one). There are many Asian history scholars who basically see the current Korean situation (North/South) as a buffer to keep China away from Japan (remember that the US and Japan are old buddies, having only had that little spat in the 40s). Full disclosure: I live in Japan and my wife is Japanese; I'd like us to continue this deal (there's no reason to stop it--Japan is and always has been the only country in Asia whose values mesh well with the West--chivalry and Calvinism, basically, although they go by different names).
3) Who would benefit from a war in South Korea? Nobody in the short term, China in the long term. In the short term, Korea (both of them) would suffer, Japan might take some hits (they would be really not cool with that), and then China would take the area over, getting all that American infrastructure and brain investment, in addition to some of the shittiest land in East Asia. It wouldn't really be a desirable thing.
4) Koreans are crazily patriotic. They denounce everybody. They insist on serving kimchi with French food (I love kimchi, but, um... Do we serve ketchup with pulgogi in the US???), just to assert their Korean-ness. It's insane. They bitch and moan about Japan and burn the Japanese flag every time a politician has the audacity to honor Japan's war dead, despite the fact that a large percentage of their business comes from Japan and they have just basically copied the Japanese economic model--even where it makes no sense to their situation. Korea is nuts. Both Koreas. Crazy. A history of playing second-fiddle to whomever else was in power has bred a keen inferiority complex, which they overcompensate for. So saying they hate America is not really the whole picture. They hate everybody.
Finally, I don't really care if North Korea gets the bomb either, and I live in their closest target. 10 years ago when I was a student in Osaka, they fired a rocket over our heads and it landed in Osaka harbor. I think I was supposed to be scared, but my response was, "Oh fuck you." That's all I feel today, too. I'm not afraid of these morons. They're not going to do shit, and if they did, they'd be wiped off the map by mid-afternoon.
Re:Why should USA care about S Korea (Score:5, Interesting)
How does a nuclear armed North Korea benefit China?
All the explanations I can come up with only make short-term sense. I don't think the Koreas' will remain seperate forever (or even for more than 50 years). A unified, nuclear armed Korea is probably not a good thing to have on your doorstep - why encourage it?
I DO think the North Korean government is pretty crazy, and once they get deliverable nuclear weapons, that gives them a big stick to use against anyone, including China! Allowing North Korea to develop nuclear weapons ultimately reduces China's control over them. Why would they do this?
North Korea and China are allies for strategic, historical reasons which are becoming less important. The basic relationship seems to be, "We give you arms, and food when you botch up your agriculture or have a drought -- you cause trouble/distractions for us when we ask". I wouldn't bet a lot on such a relationship enduring many decades.
The fact that North Korea would be a smoking hole within a half-hour doesn't seem to deter them much, but I think China might object to having Guangzhou or Hong Kong removed as well. That's the problem with nukes - their destinations are not hard-coded into them based on the political winds of the day they are done.
And, risking veering off into serious off-topic land: Why do you think Japan's culture is more compatible with the West than any other Asian country? I know it might be a long response...
Your history is a bit wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Your premise that the USA has historically been "buddies" with Japan is entirely wrong. The USA sailed in Japan with a fleet of modern warships in the 1850s and forced Japan to essentially surrender without so much as half a fight.
"The black ships" was one of the most humiliating episodes in Japanese history and there are plenty of Japanese that haven't forgotten it.
The deal is, historically, if anything, the USA has had a much better relationship with China. We accepted numerous Chinese immigrants and we
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The occupation didn't end until the end of World War 2 and underscored the more well-known rape of Eastern China, commonly known as "the Rape of Nanjing."
There is a lot to be said about this, so here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule [wikipedia.org]
Japan was
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, Im not going to even comment on the rest of your post, but in your mind, if Korea destroys itself, the first thing that comes into your mind are Korean car companies?
And you know, this being slashdot and all, maybe you heard of a little company named Samsung [samsung.com], which is just one the biggest semiconductor companies in the ent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe? The US gives nearly $10M a day in aid to Israel in direct cash, and billions a year in military equipment/assistance/discounting. It gives more aid to the average Israeli citizen than it does the average US citizen. I think the "neither confirm or deny" stance of Israel on nuclear weaponry is stretching even the most avid Michael Bay movie fan's sense of plausible and credible deniability at this point.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Damn right so. Nuclear weapons seem to be great way for countries to make sure other countries arent going to attack them and that is probably why other countries are so afraid of North Korea having nukes. I really doubt they will use them for anything other than having them around for defence, because if they do there will be many countries attacking them and nuking the whole place to shit right away.
Its also a nice note that only US has so far used nukes against other countries and then they attack other