Slashdot Mirror
North Korea Says It Has Conducted Nuclear Test
ScentCone writes "North Korea says that it has conducted its first nuclear weapons test and 'brought happiness to its people.' Japan and China earlier issued an unusual joint statement saying that such a test would be 'unacceptable.' As of 11:10PM EST, the USGS says that it has not detected any unusual seismic activity on the Korean peninsula in the last 48 hours." From the article: "The North said last week it would conduct a test, sparking regional concern and frantic diplomatic efforts aimed at dissuading Pyongyang from such a move. North Korea has long claimed to have nuclear weapons, but had never before performed a known test to prove its arsenal. The nuclear test was conducted at 10:36 a.m. (0136 GMT) in Hwaderi near Kilju city, Yonhap reported, citing defense officials." Update: 10/09 05:50 GMT by J : The U.S. Geological Survey reports a 4.2 magnitude quake; South Korean news is reporting a 3.58 magnitude event; the White House apparently confirms a nuclear test.
It scares the hell out of me.
Seismic results can be faked with conventional explosives -- 30,000 tons of TNT is expensive but can be amassed even by a small nation like North Korea.
However, the world's most sensitive neutrino detector (Kamiokande) is under 1,000 km away. If the North Koreans detonated a 10-30 kiloton device, several times 1013 neutrinos from it should have passed through Kamiokande. I don't know Kamiokande's exact quantum efficiency, but it should be able to detect a pulse like that. After all, it detected Supernova 1987-A...
We weren't going to be invading North Korea even before they had nuclear weapons. The reason is that half of South Korea's population as well as their political, economic, and cultural capitol is well within the range of North Korea's (relatively crude) artillery. Kim Jong Il has threatened to turn Seoul into "a sea of flames" and he can do it without nukes. There is no way that the US or anyone would be crazy enough to attack North Korea.
Monstar L
Not many Presidents can boast of being asleep at the wheel while another nuclear power was born. They aren't a big threat to the US but what do we do if they invade the south? We'd have two choices, let them or risk a nuclear war. Anyone that still thinks the middle east wasn't about oil is delusional. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction yet we knew N Korean was capible of making them. Bush threw everything we had at Iraq and ignored N Korean. Do the math and you come up with controling oil supplies and prices. The ones at risk right now are the Japanese and they may have to build a bomb out of self preservation. This just became Bush's biggest disaster and that's saying a lot. Hey at least gays can't marry so we got the important stuff done! Nice to see we have priorities in the US.
NKorea can sell to the highest bidder. That's the real threat -- not missiles/warheads launched from Pyongyang, but missiles/warheads shipped out from Pyongyang.
AlQaeda will be sending their emissaries to NKorea, along with fat checkbooks.
Because NKorea will indeed sell. They will do anything that gets them moolah and or influence.
At a guess, I'd say it's because their main image of the US comes from American soldiers on leave. Lord knows that's enough to terrify anyone.
That indeed used to be the case before the mid-1990s. By now, though, especially after the 2002 World Cup was jointly hosted by South Korea and Japan, Koreans have become quite globalized, with Ban Ki-moon set to become the new UN Secretary-General. There is substantial disaffection with U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and its implications for possible war on the Korean peninsula. South Koreans fear that the U.S. will readily sacrifice their own current peace and prosperity for the sake of achieving a neo-con policy goal.
Maybe - just maybe - because India is the world's largest democracy?
While India has not yet signed the NPT, they do have a no first strike policy.
They are surrounded by a communist military dictatorship on one side (China) and an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship on the other (Pakistan - one supported by US).
You can hardly blame a nation-state for doing what is necessary for survival.
Secondly, the transfer of technology has only for the purpose of energy and power. India has also agreed to let international observers to ensure that the plants do not enrich weapons-grade fissile material but use them only for energy.
And btw, comparing India to NK is a nice troll there - the H1B bit was a nice add, too. One is the world's largest democracy that's been making economic progress by leaps and bounds, and the other is a military dictatorship run by a crazy person.
Way to go, combining Slashdot's racist prejudices and logical fallacies all in one go.
Countries like the US and other powerful nations have nuclear weapons as well, I don't see why North Korea should not get a piece of it.
Because "the US and other powerful nations" have stable governments that won't fire the weapons. North Korea does not. Because "the US and other powerful nations" cares about its citizens enough to not blatantly kill them by the millions. North Korea does not.
When we talk about North Korea we are talking about a nation that has managed to kill of 10% of its fucking population in under a decade. They test chemical weapons on humans. If you want a hell on Earth, you couldn't point to a nation closer to achieving it. To top it all off, it isn't like this is a stable nation. This is a nation that is basically run by military gangsters with a cult of personality figurehead. You couldn't point a nation in this world that giving nukes to is a bad idea even if you tried.
You would be better off to simply give nuclear weapons to the mob... though I suppose you think that the mob has the "right" to nuclear weapons to. The only thing that separates North Korea from every other horrible criminal organization in the world is that North Korea inflicts far more suffering are more people and control enough territory that we recognize them as a nation.
No fucked up sense of justice justifies letting North Korea have nukes. The rest of the world is and rightfully should be doing everything in their power from keeping this insane dictatorship from swinging around more power then it already does.
Every country officially says they are in favor of reunification, but in reality: South Korea doesn't want reunification because obviously their government would become the legitimate one and have to foot the bill. This would likely bankrupt SK and lead to a depression in the area that would be felt all over international markets. Not to mention most South Koreans are quite racist (no offense, it's just how it is), even towards their Northern brethren. Think of it like...the way educated Americans see rednecks who paint confederate flags on their cars and think the South won the Civil War. Japan doesn't want reunification because the SK govt (well, just the Korean govt, since we're talking about reunification) would now have nuke tech in their hands. This will make Japan nervous, seeing as they don't have nuclear weapons and having their Korean neighbors next door in possession of nukes is a bit unsettling. China doesn't want reunification because then US troops would have free access to more than just the 38th parallel - they could wander about the Yalu river (right on China's border with NK). The United States doesn't want reunification because of the insane hit to the SK economy that will accompany reunification, and a few other reasons I can't recall...I studied this in a class a couple of years ago so I need to go dig up my notes. But the official stance of all the countries is that they support the reunification of these divided Korean peoples...heh.
Before you condemn other countries for their lack of assistance to the poor, I suggest you look at your own country first. The US has a fairly high rate of poverty and starvation itself. The richest country in the world has over 10% of its population not able to meet basic needs, I consider that much more egregious.
The US government also has no real concerns about the American people being hurt in a nuclear war, but there are contingency plans and entire complexes dedicated to letting the president hide miles underground in such an instance.
Don't condemn other countries for living up to the ideals put forth by those who claim to be the model for the rest of the world.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
The Russian defence ministry has confirmed it as a nuclear detonation:
"Russia's defence ministry said it was "100% certain" that an underground nuclear explosion had taken place, ITAR-Tass news agency reported"
Until other nuclear experts tell me otherwise, I'll believe their conclusion rather than your explanation. As a complete layman it is not impossible for me to think that the time scale can depend on lots of things, including type of rock surrounding the underground explosion, how far underground it was, etc.
Although it's well known he had chemical weapons back in the 1980's I don't think they can really be called Weapons of Mass Destruction. Sure, theres a ton of evidence that he killed many tens of thousands with them, but individually, the chemical shells probably didn't kill as many as our own daisy-cutters and cluster bombs can kill. So if you call Saddam's old chemical weapons WMDS, then it means we have been dropping hundreds of WMDS in Afghanistan and Iraq which kind of makes a mockery of any ethical arguement for the wars (if there even was one).
The parent makes an excellent point: Any weapon can be considered a WMD. (eg:box of matches).
Saddams use of chemical weapons in the 80's was a crime against humanity but the same can be said about the use of Napalm by the US in the 60's & 70's. None of the actual events could realistically be described as "using a WMD". A credible example of "using a WMD" would be something like the nuking of Hiroshima, Holocaust gas chambers, firebombing Dressden, carpet bombing Cambodia. A WMD is characterised by how swiftly it can kill large numbers of people, "nerve gas" cannot be used as a WMD without a great deal of infrastructure, planes, rockets, ect).
In the middle ages 10,000 longbows firing a dozen arrows a minute was the pinicale of WMD technology, control of such a "weapon" commanded inter-fifedom "respect". Here in the atomic age, a nuke on top of a long range missle is the only weapon that commands international "respect" (eg: Pakistan). In other words, international politics is mearly inter-fifedom politics wearing an expensive suit.
And yes, it is very difficult to use a box of matches as a WMD. OTOH: Arsonists still get their kicks by deliberately lighting massive bushfires here in Australia, and the energy released by some of those fires dwarfs the yeild of the largest H bombs ever built.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Oh, please, not that statistical trick again. Poverty in the west is defined as earning less than half the average income. If everyone's wealth doubles, the poverty rate actually stays the same. Poverty in the west means "only one TV and game console, only one car, no air conditioning and perhaps skipping a warm meal once or twice a week" for the majority of "poor" people. In North Korea it often means "find edible plants and drink from puddles".
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to integrate our poor into society in efficient ways. The basic needs 10% of the US apparently don't meet, would be considered luxury in the majority of the world.
Do you actually know what cluster bombs are?
They are bombs which - while high up in the air - detonate a small charge which shoot out hundreds of even thousands of smaller bombs which reign down over a large area. Yes they are carried by the wind somewhat and they definatly will kill "friend, foe, and neutral alike" but then so will any bomb so I don't understand what you mean by that. They are called "cluster" bombs because they contain a "cluster" of bomblets, not because they detonate close by each other, they are specifically designed to do the exact opposite with many capable of dispersing over an area of several thousand feet, which is greater than the predicted area of effect of the chemical weapons that were likely used during the Iran-Iraq war.
Most Americans also seem to forget that the executive branch was originally created to enforce the laws and will of the legislative branch (AKA: Congress). Anything not in writing was left up to the discretion of the President, but everything that was in writing the president was supposed to do on behalf of Congress. To insure the president's compliance in matters of Congress, the founders wrote a cause to impeach such people should they appear. But originally, it was the legislative branch that had control of the nation, not the executive. As such, the country was less prone to dive into wars without careful consideration. But that was then, this is now.
The real point that people need to realize is that congress has the power to limit the amount of force being used, and the capacity in which to use it. So please, stop faulting the president or the troops at his disposal. Soldiers do what their told, and do it to the best of their ability. If you don't like what they're being told to do, complain to your congressman, not the president. After all, congress is the only political body in the nation that can constitutionally contrain the president's powers. Congress is the one that's supposed to be keeping an eye on presidential activities. And here's the REALLY important part for you whiners out there: The president is LEGALLY allowed to ignore anyone and everyone, with the sole exception being Congress.