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.

Comments

If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

It scares the hell out of me.

Re:If this is true

[dorfmann]

Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them. If North Korea nukes the South, the Americans will nuke North Korea; if the Americans nuke North Korea, the North Koreans will nuke the South. So both sides have to rely on their conventional armies, just like before.

Not only that, the North Koreans have claimed to have nukes for ages now. This sort of publically-announced test is just an extremely expensive and technologically advanced version of chest-beating.

HOWEVER, assuming you are American, if you (and a significant majority of your countrymen) allow this to scare you and both 1) reelect jingoist pro-war politicians, and 2) support launching a 'pre-emptive' war against North Korea, things will become very dreadful indeed for the Korean peninsula.

As a wise man once said, 'the only thing to fear is fear itself'.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

We won't be launching any kind of war against North Korea, pre-emptive or otherwise. Like all bullies, Bush is, at heart, a pussy. If there had been even the remotest chance that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, do you think we'd have invaded Iraq?

If anyone has anything to worry about, it's... /spins the wheel /round and round she goes /round and round /click, click... /click ... Botswana. Yessirree, Bob, we've got to fight them there, in Botswana, so we don't have to fight them here! Yee. Haw.

Re:If this is true

[lordofthechia]

"Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have"

Nukes may be useless in that it's pointless to launch them (unless you do want to bring about the armageddon), but they do have a purpose. Being a nuclear power almost guarantees that your country won't get invaded. Nobody would risk you launching your nukes as a last ditch effort to "save" your country.

Reason it's called a peacetime weapon.

Re:If this is true

[supabeast!]

"Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them."

That's not really true-nukes make a great deterrent against attacks and developing them has great propagandist value. Beyond that, you base your statement on the premise that the weapons are useless because launching one nuke leads to nuclear warfare, in which no one wins. The problem is that not all nations have leaders who are even remotely sane, and Kim Jong Il is probably the craziest world leader to come along, well, ever. As crazy as he was, at least Hitler's agenda didn't completely revolve around himself. But if Kim Jong Il is feeling wacky and just wants to nuke a neighbor for kicks, it's going to happen.

Re:If this is true

[lordofthechia]

I would venture they can launch a nuke on South Korea. I'm afraid if this is real this is what's gonna happen:

* US and other countries send Diplomats to get NK to disarm
* North Korea warns other countries to stay out of it's "affairs" or else.
* NK newest "internal affair" the re-unification of North and South Korea
* After an invasion of South Korea the US is left with an ugly choice, let SK fall or risk Nuclear retalliation against a 3rd neighboring coutnry from the NK.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (and god I hope I'm wrong) but with NK's history of covert aggression against the South, isn't this the most logical progression? Unless were lead to believe that Kim Jong-il has no ambitions beyond his borders. And according to this the north does have short and medium range missles...

Re:If this is true

[Flwyd]

Understanding the MADness of Mutually Assured Destruction requires a bit of mental gymnastics.

Thinking with MADness, it's in North Korea's interest to convince the world that it has nukes. Without nukes, they have no feasible deterrent against an army of superior strength (U.S., China, etc.).

When dealing with nuclear weapons, safe is better than sorry, so when someone announces "We have nuclear weapons," one should act as if they did. However, repeated claims without evidence can lead others to think the claimant is bluffing. The next step is therefore to perform a nuclear test, proving "Yes, I am a skunk, and yes, my glands are charged." It's no coincidence that India and Pakistan conducted their first nuclear tests within about a month of each other. It's a high stakes, high tech, high investment Mexican standoff.

So in one sense, "nukes are the most useless weapon" because they take an enormous amount of resources for a handfull of bombs the owners hope to never use. On the other hand, building a single nuclear bomb can be a lot more cost effective than establishing a large enough army to deter one's enemies.

It does not make me comfortable to know that people like Kim Jong Il and George W. Bush are in charge of weapons of mass destruction. As Robert McNamara revealed in The Fog of War, the fate of the world could rest on having inaccurate information.

The technology problem has been solved. Now it becomes a political and psychological problem. To see how small things can lead to big problems, watch Dr. Strangelove, perhaps the only movie I think everyone should watch.

Re:If this is true

[Grym]

That isn't true under all circumstances. You'll still get invaded if you have no credible 2nd strike capability (ie. I'll nuke your nukes).

Second Strike capability is really a bit of a misnomer, because things like nuclear counter-attack submarines are simply a gaurentee of retaliation but not actually a requirement for retaliation to take place.

Take Cuba, for instance, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It had no second strike capability. And yet, the defense estimates at the time suggested that even after a massive carpet bombing campaign unparallleled in history which would produce similar devestation to multiple nuclear weapons, Cuba would still be likely to retaliate and hit at least one major American city with one of its nukes.

All it takes is one hidden missile silo or the survival of a single a mobile launcher. Would you be willing to risk it? JFK wasn't--and because of that, he probably saved a lot of people's lives.

-Grym

Re:If this is true

[flooey]

After an invasion of South Korea the US is left with an ugly choice, let SK fall or risk Nuclear retalliation against a 3rd neighboring coutnry from the NK.

I'm not sure you have an accurate picture of the Korean DMZ. The zone itself is covered in landmines, and each side has more than a million men guarding it (with United States troops already being part of the South Korean force). An invasion by either side would be a long and bloody struggle to get more than a couple miles into the other country.

Re:If this is true

[modecx]

You'll also get invaded if your enemies believe you aren't a rational actor.

You think so? Personally, I think that's precisely a good reason not to invade. Knowing ol' Kimmy, he'd nuke your invading forces inside of his borders, even if they occupied an area populated by a bunch of his people. He'd turn around and say that being vaporized 'brought happiness to the people of North Korea, and the patrriotic people enjoyed having their flesh melt off of their bones'

I'd give 'em credit for that kind of move, so long as he thought such a move wouldn't signifigantly disrupt his sphere of influence--his ability to make everyone do what he and his generals want them to do. I think he could easily get away with using a tactical size nuke to stop invading forces, even if it took out a few dozen villages, and only his generals would have a chance to dispose him afterwards.

Re:If this is true

[Trailwalker]

MacArthur's Inchon landing was a good example of how to flank fixed lines.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, nobody could possibly figure out how to bypass that border.

I hate to break it to you, it is no longer 1917.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

JFK wasn't--and because of that, he probably saved a lot of people's lives.

JFK was worried about West Germany. He said so, repeatedly, on tape. Cuba was 100% US vs. Soviet cold war.

One city is a casualty. When the shit hits the fan the US won't knuckle under to some regime for one city. That is the only "fact" worthy of credit. A nuclear exchange hasn't happened on Earth yet for one reason; at no time in our past has there ever been the slightest doubt about the ability and willingness of the US to retaliate effectively under all conditions. You, your ancestors and all your spawn own their lives to it.

Re:If this is true

[Maxo-Texas]

They also prevent use of concentrated large groups of troops against you.

Re:If this is true

[whereiseljefe]

Actually, sending in people you care deeply about tends to hamper you abilities to fight a war. Take for instance McClellan during the U.S. Civil War. Had he not been afraid to use the North's overwhelming numbers, McClellan would have ended the civil war much earlier than it did (it took Grant to realize that all he had to do was send wave after wave of troops and he would break Lee, despite the fact that McClellan was the only Northern commander that was near the intellectual level of General Lee).

That being said, what you are trying to say is it would be wrong for Bush to pull strings to keep his loved ones out of harms way, which if he does have anyone in the military (I smell an entire family tree of ivy league pussies... W's dad must feel greatly dissapointed) I have no doubt we would have done that.

As to your last part, I'm tired of that damned argument. These kids willingly joined the army, yes to pay for college, but they were told repeatedly and voluntarily swore an oath (no fucking fine print) that when the U.S. goes to war, they will probably have to ship off and if that is the case, there is nothing they can do about it. I feel little sympathy for these kids, I mean it sucks over there but you did sign up with the military, what did you expect? Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization.

Re:If this is true

[whereiseljefe]

You have to have the numbers to pull those off. Falling airborn troops become skeet practice (fuck up their parachute and no more soldier), not to mention anti-air defenses (south korea most definitely will have our patriot missile system), and landing craft are bottlenecks. Aim your machine guns at the exit and voila.

Re:If this is true

[nordicfrost]

What people are forgetting is the clear and present danger NK presents to China. NK is still stuck in a cold war with the US and SK, while China has moved on. Remember; NK lives on good will from China, and there are almost no defenses on the border to China. The DMZ is a nightmare for invading, but the north border is just to walk over. Mark my words, if there's an invasion of NK, the Chinese are on the side of the West and probably among SK soldiers. The political views of NK are a far cry from what China wants as its neighbour.

Re:If this is true

[gerardrj]

Yea, cause the Patriot missile system did such a bang-up job in its fist deployment. By all accounts the Patriot failed to ever hit a target and is known to have rained down debris on the bystander population causing possibly more damage than the incoming missiles did.
The Patriot missile system has yet, to my knowledge, to have an undisputed, confirmed kill in an actual combat deployment scenario. Software timing glitches, guidance failures, tracking failures, weather, jamming, etc. I certainly wouldn't trust my life to the system, never mind the security of my nation's borders.

Re:If this is true

[93 Escort Wagon]

"Thinking with MADness, it's in North Korea's interest to convince the world that it has nukes. Without nukes, they have no feasible deterrent against an army of superior strength (U.S., China, etc.)."

I think there's a bigger picture here, and most people are missing it. While it's true that a nuke has some deterrent value militarily, with North Korea it has another role - it's the only thing they've got that keeps them at all relevant in the region. They basically don't produce anything of value; their people are probably 100 years behind the times in terms of economic production (heck, they are barely staying alive by most accounts); and they have no particularly valuable natural resources AFAIK.

We've been arguing with them about nukes for at least a decade. It doesn't seem likely that they'll give away the only card they've got in their hand. Eventually, some bright boy in the military (that Kim somehow missed eliminating) may solve this particular problem for us, but I'm afraid even then it's going to be very expensive for the west, unless we're willing to watch millions die of starvation. And that's the BEST case scenario!

Re:If this is true

[polar red]

I suggest YOU go first. Here's your helmet, your weapon and your gasmask.

Re:If this is true

[jcr]

If there had been even the remotest chance that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction, do you think we'd have invaded Iraq?

The question was actually whether he stlll had them. His use of chemical weapons and his program to develop nukes was not in doubt. The cease-fire that he agreed to after being ejected from Kuwait obligated Iraq to destroy those weapons, and prove that they had done so. It was not the job of the weapons inspectors to go hunting for them. Their job was to witness, document and audit Iraq's disarmament.

-jcr

Re:If this is true

[SEE]

Being a nuclear power almost guarantees that your country won't get invaded.

Having a defense guarantee from an allied nuclear power is considered to be similarly protective, as is having the capital of your nearest hostile neighbor under your guns.

That is, North Korea doesn't need a deterrent against the U.S., because it has a defense guarantee from China and artillery in place plenty capable of pulverizing Seoul, able to inflict tens to hundreds of thousands of casualties. If North Korea is being rational, and is doing this to have deterrent to invasion, the country they're trying to deter from invading is China.

On the other hand, they may not be trying to deter a Chinese invasion. They might be trying to deter, say, a U.S. defense of South Korea in case of a North Korean invasion. One way to do that is to say, to Japan, "You interfere, and we'll nuke Tokyo". That could quite well get the Japanese to deny the U.S. use of Okinawa, which would logistically cripple any U.S. military response. While NK might not have the ability to hit the U.S. with a nuke at this time, they certainly could hit Japan with one (if the missile doesn't blow up in flight).

Re:If this is true

[Martin Blank]

North Korea doesn't need a deterrent because the US won't invade unless North Korea crosses the border first. The US has seen significantly more hawkish characters than Bush and Rumsfeld on the topic of Korea. No one wants to fight there. It's horrendously mountainous, the winters are bitter cold, and the elite corps that would be handling any nuclear weapons are bound to be even more fanatical than the best of the Iraqi Republican Guard.

That said, the descriptions from the Russians about North Korea's bomb place it at 3m in length and weighing about four tons, which is far more than any North Korean missile can mount and more than most of their planes can handle. There is zero chance of North Korea mounting nuclear missile attack in the next few years, and they would have to learn some very powerful miniaturization tricks before they could threaten anyone at a significant range.

Re:If this is true

[smilindog2000]

It sure as heck should be scared! If you haven't read this yet, you gotta check it out:

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml= /opinion/2006/04/16/do1609.xml

The other really scare force in the world is well documented here:

        http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmare s

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

I missed the part where you explained why it's any of our concern what weapons Saddam had or didn't have. Hell, whatever he did have, we probably sold to him in the first place.

Re:If this is true

[shutdown -p now]

at no time in our past has there ever been the slightest doubt about the ability and willingness of the US to retaliate effectively under all conditions.

Surely you meant to write "ability and willingness of the US and the USSR to retaliate" there?

Re:If this is true

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

So in one sense, "nukes are the most useless weapon" because they take an enormous amount of resources for a handfull of bombs the owners hope to never use.

Actually, in the Sun Tzu sense, nukes are the perfect weapon. They allow you to win a war without ever firing a shot.

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

But the poster you are replying to is correct in stating that he parent is wrong. If you are a country that is not the United States and your policies, culture, national interests or form of government conflicts with the national interests of the United States, then nuclear weapons are not only a useful weapon, they are the ONLY useful weapon.

Iraq did not have nukes and we knew this and we invaded.
North Korea is worse than Iraq and Iran, has nukes, and we will NEVER invade.
Iran doesn't have nukes, and we are pushing to invade before they get them.

The message is clear: if you don't have nuclear weapons and the U.S. doesn't like you, you'd damned well better get them ASAP.

Re:If this is true

[awful]

There are a variety of complicating factors as to what all this adds up to, but the unifying element is Japan.

Since WW2 Japan has had an explicitly 'peaceful' constitution that precludes it from engaging in any military action other than self-defense.

In recent years though Japanese politicians and strategists have been reconsidering this posture, due largely to the continuing belligerence of North Korea, and more recently because of the strong nationalist and anti-Japan sentiments emanating from China.

Memory of Japanese nationalism and militarism within East Asia is very very strong (partly because of Chinese govt efforts to remind everyone of Japan's atrocities at every opportunity). There is great suspicion within China and Korea (Nth and Sth) of Japan. If Japan becomes alarmed by Nth Korea's (and they will) they may start down the path of a more expressly offensive military posture, even to the point of pursuing their own weapon. At this point China would be very very angry and nervous indeed. An arms race in East Asia is a real possibility.

In this light - the absolute best thing the US government can do right now is to immediately reassure the Japanese government and people that they are still very much protected by the US nuclear umbrella, that there is no need for Japan to pursue its own nuke, and that they should restrain their understandable urge to assume a more offensive military posture.

In this situation the US needs to make sure that there is no possible excuse for China and Japan, and to a lesser extent, Sth Korea, to begin an arms race. The best way to do that is restrain Japanese militarism, be firm with Nth Korea, and involve China in everything it does to resolve the situation.

The wild card in all of this is Taiwan. Taiwan is going through a very interesting political situation - and Taiwanese pro-independence politicians might be considering using such sentiment to shore up their own position (rocked by a corruption scandal). Taiwanese independence will almost certainly force China to attack Taiwan (they've always said they would), and so the US could be dragged into a war it can't actually fight.

We live in VERY interesting times.

Re:If this is true

[ray-auch]

Too easy, google for patriot missile downed gives:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2877349.stm

Yep, confirmed patriot kill, right at the top of the list. Way to go.

Re:If this is true

[Profound]

he put himself at risk of being sent into war for over 5 years as a young man

Like most rich dads, Bush's father pulled strings to get him a safe posting.

the war has been going on long enough that most if not every soldier currently in Iraq knew they had a good chance of going there when they enlisted or re-upped

There are actually soldiers in Iraq who WANTED to come home at the end of their service, but were forced to stay on due to lack of numbers.

Re:If this is true

[dackroyd]

Amir Taheri, the author of that piece is a known fabricator of lies about Iran

From Wikipedia



On May 19, 2006, the National Post of Canada published two pieces, one by Taheri, claiming that the Iranian parliament passed a law that "envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public." Iranian sources say Taheri had taken an Iranian Parliament discussion on a dress code law to have Muslims wear garments that showed you were a Muslim, and reported the event as a law being passed requiring Jews to wear badges as under the Nazis. Current Iranian law does require Jews to identify themselves as such if they sell food, but Iran claims badges for Jews was not actually under discussion nor in the law. Taheri states that his report is correct and that the dress code law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of Guardians. He does not claim badges for Jews are in the law, but does say that special markers for followers of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism are under discussion as a means to implement the law.

The National Post retracted the story several hours after it was posted online. The newspaper blamed Taheri for the falsehood in the article, [4] [5] and published a full apology on May 24.

Please to not be accepting propaganda as truth.

Re:If this is true

[Opportunist]

Most of all Ol' Mac had an armed force that was on top of the world considering equipment and training, lined with battle hardened WW2 veterans and everything a General can dream of, and he had an opponent that didn't think anyone would be so outright STUPID to try a stunt like this.

Think of the trojan horse. A great success, but it only worked once in history.

Re:If this is true

[lixee]

Bob, we've got to fight them there, in Botswana, so we don't have to fight them here! Yee. Haw.

"For perhaps many a person will ask himself the question, why are we fighting at such great distances? We are fighting at such great distances in order to protect our homeland, in order to keep the war as far removed from it as possible . . . . It is therefore preferable to keep the front line at a distance of 1,000 and if necessary 2,000 kilometers from the borders of the Reich, than to hold that front somewhere near the border of the Reich and to be forced to hold it there."

- Adolf Hitler, 1942

Re:If this is true

[operagost]

I'm getting a little tired of this, the US is NOT AT WAR, it takes an act of concress to declare a war and such an act did not take place.

And I'm tired of ignoramuses saying that.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Re:If this is true

[Eccles]

He must not care about himself then, because he put himself at risk of being sent into war for over 5 years as a young man.

You guys need to coordinate your efforts more. Bush joined the Air National Guard. In the words of whereiseljefe, above, "Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization."

While there are those who think they can make a difference going to Iraq, there are plenty more who would be long gone if not for stop-loss orders.

Re:If this is true

[Rob Kaper]

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

No.

I will accept that it's virtually impossible to eradicate rogue states, terrorism and nuclear proliferation. It's definitely a huge (and increasingly difficult) challenge to come up with geopolitical policies that will improve the security and welfare of the world and it's also a huge challenge to find politicians (of either side, party or flavour) who manage.

But I refuse to be afraid. What's the point.. I'd rather be ready.

Re:If this is true

[jeffs72]

Read your own link. That's not an invocation of the War Powers Act. It's permission from congress for a brushfire engagement.

Re:If this is true

[smchris]

He must not care about himself then, because he put himself at risk of being sent into war for over 5 years as a young man.

Ahistorical. The National Guard was the way to have your cake and eat it too during Vietnam if you could get in. You could appear all acquiescently "patriotic" and not have to take a stand against your government's insane war yet the act of joining the National Guard meant you were very unlikely to actually _go_ to Vietnam. LIke, because it was the "Guard" of the nation. (if you understand?) Unlike W as President where the "Guard" is doing extended tours on the front lines. I think the appropriate term is "spoiled little rich hypocrite" of a president who got to party in Alabama and take time off to work on a political campaign but as president sends today's "weekend warriors" who would otherwise have lives in the real world to the front lines of _his_ insane war.

Re:If this is true

[Tekzel]

Like most rich dads, Bush's father pulled strings to get him a safe posting.

You know, I see this kind of post often when discussion turns to the war. The thing is, I read that as you sounding all hurt that he would dare do such a thing. I believe ANY dad would do the same given the opportunity and ability. I know I sure would if my son was going into harms way. And, if you think any different you aren't much of a dad. Call me a liar.

Re:If this is true

[Aqualung812]

Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization.

I personally know some guardsmen that will disagree with that statement.

Those people DO deserve our respect and sympathy. Regardless of their reasons for doing so, they are fighting and dying so YOU don't have to. If they didn't do it, there would be a draft and you would be rolling the dice.

Re:If this is true

[hcob$]

No, the majority of impoverished areas in America today can thank the bastardization of the welfare system to the point that people make a better living having babies and sitting on their butts than they would if they get off said butt and work for a living.

Re:If this is true

[DragonPup]

Letting someone else die in your place is corwardice. Bush didn't even have the dignity to keep his Air Guard commitment. He was grounded after refusing to take a physical that included a drug test(this was back when Bush couldn't even remember the drugs he was on).

Re:If this is true

[M1FCJ]

It is quite funny actually, maybe not.

Americans place nukes in very short distance from Russia (aka, Turkey and Italy).

In retaliation, Russians place nukes in very short distance from America (aka Cuba).

Who's the bad guy? Of course it's the Soviets! A huge crisis with lots of tension ensures.

I hoped the world would never experience such a messy situation again. With Pakistan vs. India, China vs. Taiwan and N.Korea against the rest of the world, I suppose shit will happen sometime, probably too soon.

Re:If this is true

[UglyTool]

What happened in '91 wasn't really an invasion. US troops went into Iraq a few KMs (100's?), and were prohibited from chasing the Republican Guard back to Baghdad. The government and generals in the field knew that, were we to to a full-fledged invasion, Iraq's WMD's would be unleashed on our troops.

Bush the First realized this, and did not want to subject our troops to those weapons. Can you imagine what the world's reaction would have been? I'd rather not think about it.

The reason Bush the Second could invade Iraq is because, frankly, they no longer had those weapons. The reasons he DID invade are left to the reader as a thought excercise.

Re:If this is true

[Alex P Keaton in da]

This is sad- I am interested in the technical aspects of the N. Korea bomb, and I come on slashdot and have to hear not just Bush bashing (you'll have that) but soldier bashing. It is a myth about soldiers being poor and uneducated, and it gets old. My dad was a Sr. Vp of a fortune 100 company and I was an enlisted man. Also, what a joke about the Nat'l Guard not being deployed. I can tell you first hand about an Ohio Nat'l Guard MP company that has been deployed to the middle east twice. But of course, you wouldn't care, because facts have no place here, right?
And like it or not, soldiers and their families voted overwhelmingly for GW Bush in the last election. So GW Bush's supporters do fight in Iraq. Of course, that is unimportant here, because it is a fact.
I am all for strong opinions about everything- but keep in mind that while we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. Whomever posted that there are zero congresman's kids in Iraq, are you serious? You even typed it as ZERO, and you are wrong. Seriously- how can you debate people that are like that?

Re:If this is true

[dave1791]

"Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm? Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization."

I met an Ohio National Guardsman the other day who has been deployed three out of the past five years and has seen two combat tours in Iraq (and told me a depressing story about a child with a bloody arm who was wired with explosives and killed the medic who tried to help him). He left the active duty military shortly before 9/11 becasue he thought being a part timer would allow him to spend more time with his family.

Oh and I met him in the train station in Heidelberg Germany. He is away from home again.

Re:If this is true

[CFTM]

I don't agree with Taiwan being the wild card in this instance; although on the surface it does appear as though China-Taiwan-US are all in for a nice little menage it's unlikely to happen because China is already at war with Taiwan and they are already winning. The war is not a war of bullets but of dollars; why in the world does China need to invade Taiwan when they can just use their economic might to ensure other countries do not trade with Taiwan?

Give it ten to fifteen years and they'll achieve the same end as invading Taiwan except they'll never have to fire a shot...sounds like a much smarter plan to me if I'm China...

Re:If this is true

[J05H]

You only have half of it. Confucius is attributed to saying:

"May you live in interesting times and attract the Emperor's attention."

Makes much more sense like that.

Josh

Re:If this is true

[bigdavesmith]

I wouldn't call you a liar, I certainly am not decided on the issue, but I know from personal experience that you're not wholly correct. There are families with proud military and civil service traditions, whose mothers and fathers, although I'm sure they love and care about their offspring, are proud to have them defending their various countries, and upholding their way of life.

I know that in the United States, there was a time when we held ideals that were actually worth fighting and dying for, and a lot of people were proud to be doing what they were doing. I think we've lost a lot of that now, but that doesn't make joining the army to get cuddled by your family's money an ok thing.

Just my experiences and ideas though. Call me a liar :)

Re:If this is true

[Shadow99_1]

Um their constitution doesn't forbid them, they will of the people has historically been against it... That has changed in teh last decade however and in fact they have voiced that any agression by China would lead to them producing more nuclear weapons than china could ever hope to field (said in 2002, though that's not the exact quote) and for nearly ten years their have been several military reports that in fact they do have nuclear potential in their subs (the degree is the question, is it simply tactical or is it full fledged ICBM style nukes...). It's been remarked militarily that it's awfuly funny that japanese subs have full launch capabilities for weapons they 'supposedly' don't carry, which probably has alot of weight to the argument that in fact they are armed with sych weapons.

Do some more research on the subject, you seem at least a decade behind...

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Japanese person living in Tokyo, I need to add a few facts to this.

Since WW2 Japan has had an explicitly 'peaceful' constitution that precludes it from engaging in any military action other than self-defense.

Actually, the Japanese constitution (9th paragraph) states that the only use of armed forces can be for self defense. That said, there is a plethora of laws that forbid it from doing even that. If North Korea, or any other country starts shooting Tepodong missiles into Japan, we still can't retaliate. We can't shoot missiles back into North Korea. Fuck, we DON'T EVEN HAVE LONG DISTANCE MISSILES to shoot back with! We have a sorry excuse of a missile defense system, that has been proven to be very unlikely to work if we really need it. The only thing we can do, at the moment, is shoot enemy armies if they decide to launch a full land invasion. I don't think the Maniac with Don King's hair is even that stupid. My brother-in-law pilots a tank in the self defense force, and he doesn't want war, explicitly because it'll make him a sitting duck.

In this light - the absolute best thing the US government can do right now is to immediately reassure the Japanese government and people that they are still very much protected by the US nuclear umbrella, that there is no need for Japan to pursue its own nuke, and that they should restrain their understandable urge to assume a more offensive military posture.

Won't work. Why? Because us Japanese don't want the U.S. to bring nukes into the country. There are a very few vocal people that have said otherwise, but the silent masses (and the not so silent government) has repeatedly demanded that the U.S. do not bring any ships carrying nuclear weapons into the country. What we want the U.S. to do is stop playing "I pretend to care (but really could care less since there's no oil involved)" and actually do something. Something like persuade Russia and China so that we could actually get full, binding, international sanctions against North Korea through the U.N. Last time N.K. shot missiles in the general direction of Japan (7 in total, on July 4th) we got soooo close to getting this through. But then China demanded they would veto it if the a full, binding sanction was included in the language. They wanted to keep it to "strong language" and nothing fully binding. In short, it read "If you don't stop now, we'll... tell you to stop again!!" No wonder Jong-Il doesn't seem deterred by another "Stop! Or else!" call from China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the U.S. Us Japanese people don't want nukes, we don't want to make nukes, we don't want to use nukes. And we sure as hell don't want to be bombed AGAIN with nukes. We want someone with a spine against China to help get our claims through. (On a side note, we also want a prime minister and cabinet that has a spine...)

Anyhow... even if all I wrote turns out to take a 180 degree U-turn and change, you still can't change the fact that the Japanese self defense force probably can't even win a war against North Korea, even if every single surrounding nation agrees that Japan can go ahead. The Japanese self decense army is under prepared, under staffed, and does not have the necessary equipment. We have no missiles. Our jet fighters were deliberately modified so that they don't have fuel tanks large enough to fly a round trip to Korea and back. (They can't be easily retrofitted either... owning such a jet was considered, at the time, unnecessarily provocative.) Our guns are inferior to even the North Korean AK-47 knock downs, since Japan cannot legally purchase arms, and had to develop everything internally, which turned out to be very, very expensive, and hard to use in a real war. (The old Model 66 assault rifle, when dis-assembled, broke down into 30-some odd parts, including some very small springs, which my brother says would be impossible to re-build in the field. People lose parts when undergoing re-build training in the baracks!) Even th

Re:If this is true

[Anonymous Coward]

I will try and avoid politics and provide some kernel of useful information.

Not having any proof, I think the device was probably a gun type device similar to "Little Boy" which was used on Hiroshima. This is basically a cannon with a shell made of uranium fired into a plug also made of uranium. (Of course this is a very simplistic description)

This has the advantage of simplicity. the disadvantage is the device is enormous. Little Boy weighed in around 5 tons IIRC.

These days weapons are usually built using the implosion method. This is far more efficient, but is extremely difficult to pull off. The advantage is you get a device that is smaller and a lot more powerful.

It appears from the news reports that the NK's still managed to botch the device. It looks like it was a sub-kiloton detonation.

Still, this is very unnerving. There are two nations that really can't be trusted with WMD's. North Korea and Iran.

If Iran gets the bomb, they will only wait long enough to build 5-20 devices and figure a way to deploy them to Israel and the United States. (They might send a few into Europe for good measure)

NK is less probable in using the weapons, but only a bit less. I have a feeling that if Ding Dong Il gets really sick, (Rumors are that he isn't well at all), he might just restart the Korean War. If so nuking the U.S. and ROK military would be the first thing they do.
(Chemical and bio attacks would also be high on the list)

MAD, (mutually assured destruction), only works of both sides really don't want to be destroyed.

The people running Iran believe that being destroyed will be a good thing, and if Kim whatshisname decides he's finished anyway, he won't be deterred either.

We won't go into the possibility of putting some nukes on ships and sailing into assorted harbors. In that case, the physical size of the devices really won't matter.

Yes, be concerned and be afraid.

Re:If this is true

[be951]

Also, your point is about kids willingly joining the army would be valid if they did it willingly.

If you are aware of any instances where that is not the case, some references would be nice.

But in America you put a limit on the amount of social security anyone can claim. So it is highly likely that if you run out of social security you would be very desperate for anywork you could get as starvation is fairly unpleasant. And watching your family starve is probably about the only thing less than pleasant than starving to death yourself.

Obesity -- not starvation -- is the big problem in the U.S. I gather by "social security" you mean public assitance, which is provided at both state and federal level (social security is the name of a specific federal program that pays benefits primarily to retirees). But lets back up a bit -- are we speaking of kids straight out of high school, or adults with families to support? For the moment, I'll address kids fresh out of school since that is probably the vast majority of enlistments in the U.S. armed forces. You imply that (significant numbers of) these kids face the choice of joining the military or starving. And yet, unemployment is fairly low in the U.S. (varies by region). So there is a third choice -- if no jobs are available where you live, move to where jobs are easier to come by. Now before you argue that these kids might not want to move away from family/friends, recall that these are the kids whose families choose to stop supporting them as soon as they're out of school.

This will give people a great incentive to join the army even without the fact that it is the only way a lot of poor kids can afford to go to college.And before anyone claims that they paid there own way through college with no financial help from their parents please include a free place to live while saving for college as financial help.

There are options for going to school aside from having one's parents pay, or getting a job and paying it all yourself. In the case we've been considering --in which the parents no longer provide any financial support -- a student would be elible for federal grants and loans, as well as need based assistance from most schools, and perhaps states. This is based entirely on financial need. If one is a good student, athelete, musician (or other art or performing art), or has other skills, scholarships may be available for that as well.

From your comments, it appears that you are not from the U.S., correct? If that is the case, perhaps you're just not getting the full picture. There are other choices for kids besides joining the military.

Regards

Re:If this is true

[feed_me_cereal]

The guy who typed in "ZERO" was pretty soundly refuted, and also modded to ZERO (snicker), so I wouldn't say there's a universal lack of rational discussion here, neccesarily. I sort of get the impression that you believe those who would disagree with you are all just like that guy. Maybe not, but your post really comes off that way. Anyway, being someone inclined to believe that, these days, the military mostly attracts poorer people from rural communities, glory seekers, and true believers in the bush doctrine, I'm not surprised that the military would support bush in the election, but I am surprised by your assertion that soldiers are not poor or uneducated (read: more poor and less educated than average). This is not meant to be an insult to soldiers, or anything like that, just what I would see as a consequence of the motivations for joining the military. Of course, the fact that you're not poor doesn't really mean anything, so I'm interested in the facts you claim to have concerning the average education level and poverty level among enlisted men/women. I wouldn't be terribly surprised either way, but I am curious.

Re:If this is true

[DesertWolf0132]

I am with Alex. I had two friends, both female and both National Guard, deployed with their respective companies as supply staff. One was killed when her convoy was ambushed and the other had her truck peppered with landmine shrappnel more than once and was by luck alone unharmed. I may not support Bush's approach to this war but I have nothing but respect for the troops over there. I would be with them myself were it not for a serious knee injury I suffered in Basic Training.

As to the congressional offspring in the military, there are at least 7 members of congress with children on active duty and I would wager more in the reserves and guard.

Re:If this is true

[Profound]

>> Bush actually volunteered for a unit that was very likely to be sent over to Vietnam

"No, I didn't."

-- President Bush, Feb. 8, responding to a question on NBC's "Meet the Press" about whether he volunteered to go to Vietnam

Re:If this is true

[yanos]

I'm not sure that's entirely true. You see, under the regime in North Korea, a hell lot of people choose to join the army in order not to starve and have a 'decent' life. Remember that NK had (maybe still has?) severe povrety and famine problems in their hands, and most of the humanitarian help went straigth to the soldiers. The result of this is that they now have a huge military forces, something along the line of the US army in term of man power. If the US had difficulty moving in the desert facing a much smaller army in Irak, imagine what would it be like to face an almost 1:1 ratio of soldiers. I don't think the US could invade NK, nukes or not. It would just be a *total* mess.

Re:If this is true

[Martin Blank]

It's actually 30,000, and will be dropping to 25,000 in a couple of years. And if you think that they want us out so badly, consider that the US wants to turn over wartime command of the forces to Seoul by 2009, but the South Koreans say they won't be ready until 2012. We're primarily there for overall wartime command, air superiority and close air support, artillery, and to provide a reason to bring in more forces when US soldiers are killed in combat.

Note that I didn't say that there's no reason for the US to be in South Korea. I said that no one wants to fight in North Korea. North Korea does not need a deterrent, but South Korea does. The border between the two is the most heavily-fortified area of the world, with a million or so soldiers watching each other, thousands of artillery pieces in constant state of readiness, and millions of land mines in place to make any thoughts of crossing the border suicidal.

Re:If this is true

[Rorschach1]

Our first H-bomb ("Mike") was 82 tons and occupied its own building. When you're trying to prove the basic technology, miniaturization isn't a priority. That said, I don't know if North Korea's going to bother. As someone else pointed out, they have plenty of conventional weapons, and proving that they have nukes is probably worth more for the psychological impact.

Re:If this is true

[jfengel]

You want data? We got data.

Some groups who voted overwhelingly for Bush:

* Gun owners (63%)
* People with $200k+ incomes (63%)
* Evangelicals (78%)
* More-than-weekly churchgoers (64%)
* Married-with-children (59%)

The military clocks in at 57%, which I wouldn't call "overwhelming", but I'd call "decisive". It may not seem all that big, but in politics 60% is called a "landslide".

It kinda sucks that a 40% minority could be considered to have a negligible opinion. (That's exactly what the President means when he calls for a "simple up or down vote" on a judicial candidate; he knows that he can get 51% but not the 60% required to end a filibuster.) We may see in January if the Democrats would be any more polite when they have 51%, but I'm betting the answer is "no".

Re:If this is true

[Goose3254]

This is simple...objectively, if you can afford to do nothing and still eat a diet sufficent to allow procreation, and have shelter, the welfare state is encouraging the behavior. Food and shelter are now taken care of, so, in Maslow's Heirachy of needs, the physiological and safety "layers" are met. Next in line are love and status...which in the twisted little minds of people satisfied to be impoverished baby machines are satisfied by squirting our more mewling ticks on society. Especially if you get a "raise" for each leech you generate.

Re:If this is true

[drinkypoo]

The democrats got behind the welfare reform bill too, you know. Everyone was on it. It limits welfare to five years. Personally I don't think it goes far enough. If you have two children already or have a child when you go on welfare you should be fucking sterilized. If you can't support yourself we shouldn't allow you to make the problem worse. But of course that could never happen, it's a violation of human rights or some shit. If I were Emperor of the world (provided Bush doesn't become that first) it's one of the first restrictions I'd place on welfare.

Re:If this is true

[Poppler]

If you ask most of the dissenters in the military, they'll tell you that they would fight in Afghanistan which they believe is a just war over 9/11 but most consider Iraq an unjust war of aggression that isn't fighting for the benefit of America

Dead on. A friend of mine signed up for the Army right after 9/11. He was willing to sacrifice everything to fight those who attacked his country, but he was instead forced to fight Bush's war of choice in Iraq. He's now active with Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Re:If this is true

[DesertWolf0132]

First, calm yourself. For the record, Iran is in fact batshit insane as proven by its history over the last 30 years. Anyone remember Ayatollah Khomeini? The current leader is not exactly the picture of mental health himself. That said, Iran would never directly use a nuclear device on the United States. Why do that when the multi-billion dollar terrorist movements it supports could easily do it for them with plausable deniability? It would most likely be used against one of the U.S. allies in the region like Saudi Arabia in retaliation for support of the U.S. and Iran would deny all ties to the group setting off the nuke. The cool thing about nukes is, all of the evidence to its origin is obliterated in the blast. Plus, you forget the 79 virgins baloney drilled into the heads of these bozos from birth. "Hmmm, 79 virgins for being blown up in battle with the infidels or life in this sandbox we call a country. Praise Allah and pass the Uranium!"

Re:If this is true

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Why do that when the multi-billion dollar terrorist movements it
> supports could easily do it for them with plausable deniability?

A few years back the US made it clear to Russia and China that "plausible deniability" does not exist in the realm of nuclear weapons. This was when both were having problems possibly keeping their nukes from getting on the black market for valuable western cash. "If you are having a tough time tracking them, let us help you track them. For if one of them gets into the hands of terrorists, well, if your nukes are gonna destroy our cities one way or another, we're 'gonna get into it with you directly'"

It's conceivable that all smaller nations that have nukes and might help terrorists will be sundered in a whirlwind "just in case", if the US is hit by a terrorist nuke.

Part of both Iraq and Afghanistan was to tell the world that if you start this up, diplomatic "business as usual" was over.

Re:If this is true

[hcob$]

The evidence I have is only what I saw with my own eyes growing up in an "impoverished" area. 20-yr olds popping out the 5th child on welfare, getting their children certified as mentally challegned, anything and everything to get more money from the government. I'ts also very telling when someone on welfare can afford a house, two cars, tv, cable, cell phone, and good quality food. Most hard working people I know have a hard time affording all that.

I started working at 15. It galls me to this day to see where my tax dollars go. I have SEEN what instituionalized welfare does to a populace. I get ANGRY when someone that I'm supporting with my tax dollars says that I (as a white male) OWE them something for what someone did to someone else decades ago. All I see welfare as now is a way for Democrats to get elected. In my hometown and surrounding area, the ONLY way to get elected is to say your a democrat. If the only three words you say when you step into town is "I'm a Republican"(or any party other than Democrat), you're immediately labeled as a bigot and get shouted down when you open your mouth on anything. When people actually have to start WORKING again (and not suing cause someone HURT YOUR FEELINGS), you'll see America start to thrive again. Until that day, we're doomed to a life of the actual WORKING class supporting all the fscktards that are mooching the system that was designed to help people because they feel that they are OWED something.

The only people OWED anything in the US were the actual Slaves, Native Americans, and their immediate children. Other than that, shut the hell up, get off you @ss, and get a fscking JOB!

And before anyone gets all up and arms about no work available, etc etc... That's just BS. I've done jobs from unloading trucks at walmart, hoeing weeds out of cotton fields, all the way up to my job now in a high tech company designing test software. The main problem is people have gotten this level of "pride" from somewhere that is unjustified. The only pride ANY American should feel is in a job well done. If you've ever not taken a job because "I'm too good for that" then you've never been really in need of anything. And in that case, I wish you would do the right thing and stop stealing from people who ACTUALLY need the money.

Next time, take your theory of how we should be kind to other people and shove it. Until you actually take the time to add up how much of your money goes into the biggest vote-buyer in US histroy, see where that money goes, then you can be suspect of my opinion. And I'm not talking about a 5 day trip down to the "impoverished region", I'm talking about spending 18 years in an area where you are immediately looked down upon, called a racist, and are told you OWE someone more money.... Just because you are white.

I'm a bigot indeed.

Re:If this is true

[KH]

OK, the AC has some facts wrong.

Actually, the Japanese constitution (9th paragraph) states that the only use of armed forces can be for self defense. That said, there is a plethora of laws that forbid it from doing even that.

Here is the translation of Article 9 found at Wikipedia.

ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

That it allows Japan to have self defence forces is a rather forced interpretation.

The Japanese self decense army is under prepared, under staffed, and does not have the necessary equipment. We have no missiles. Our jet fighters were deliberately modified so that they don't have fuel tanks large enough to fly a round trip to Korea and back.

I'm not sure if F-15s and Mitsubishi F-2s cannot fly sorties to North Korea from Japanese bases, not that I see point in doing that. It does not seem F-15J/DJs were in any way modified to reduce their range, either. IIRC, the range of the F-15 became an issue in the parliament when its introduction was discussed. Also, now JASDF has tankers.

The old Model 66 assault rifle, when dis-assembled, broke down into 30-some odd parts, including some very small springs, which my brother says would be impossible to re-build in the field. People lose parts when undergoing re-build training in the baracks!

Type 64 (not 66) rifle may have been PIA to maintain, but current infantry weapon is Type 89. I don't think it's not much inferior to any modern assault rifle. And I highly doubt small differences in personal weapons are strategically that significant.

Even the high-mobility vehicles, the Japanese version of the Hummer HMMV (built by Toyota under the civilian model name Mega Cruiser), simply resembles the U.S. Hummer, but in reality is not even close in functionality.

It's not like HMMVs did not have major problems not having armours. Japan also brought light armoured vehicles to Iraq.

Overall, the parent post reads very much like a typical sentiment of a Japanese person living in Japan. The problem I see is that they are not exposed to international media and do not know how much self-perception is different from perception from outside. Most of the Japanese see China and South Korea as some sort of bullies who always mention and exaggerate what the Japanese did during the WWII. This must come as a great shock for the Chinese and South Koreans who are genuinely scared of the Japanese behaviour in the first half of the 20th century. Just like they see Japan as the victim during the WWII (another big surprise for those who are not Japanese), they still feel that they are isolated and have no friend.

There is also a sensationalism with regard to North Korea. There are some factions of nationalists in Japan who capitalize on the actions of North Korea. They tend to overhype the danger of North Korea. I find this very dangerous.

North Korea always seemed to be seeking for attention. They don't seem to like the fact that the US is paying more attention to Iran, or a south Korean becoming the general secretary of the UN. As long as they get attention, they seem happy. I also figure that anybody, including South Korea,

Re:If this is true

[Harinezumi]

While that is true to an extent, I don't think that that's the biggest consideration in North Korea's case.

The problem with NK is that they have more than enough conventional weapons to turn Seoul and Tokyo into smoking piles of rubble before we can react, which would not only harm our biggest allies in the region, but also cripple the US economy since we get so much of our industrial inputs from Japan and South Korea nowadays.

Furthermore, the proximity of China, Russia, and South Korea makes nuking NK 'til it glows a somewhat less palatable option geopolitically.

Re:If this is true

[loraksus]

When Poland was under the iron curtain, you would get bonuses for having children and if you had 7 (IIRC), the government supported you completely - neither parent would have to work.
The rationale behind this is they needed soldiers to fight (and factory workers, etc) and were trying to increase the population with these subsidies.

Verification?

[Anonymous Coward]

After the tsunami panic, I'd assume that the region is absolutely rotten with seismographs under various jurisdictions. If they didn't pick anything up, I'm not impressed.

Re:Verification?

[Anonymous Coward]

Verification

Re:Verification?

[Xiroth]

The real CNN article.

Check link, then post - I always get that out of order.

Confirmed

[sholde4]

According to MSNBC, USGS has just confirmed a 4.2 magnitude tremor at 10:30 am local time Monday.

Obvious

[suso]

The reason there was no sizable seismic activity is because it was a test, they only split one atom this time. But NEXT TIME!! You just wait and see!

Mistranslation?

[EvilFrog]

Just making sure, the Korean words for "happiness" and "severe radiation poisoning" aren't similar, are they?

Sizemography

[Anonymous Coward]

At this moment, US intel claims it "can't confirm" the event. However, US geologists apparently can. Transparency is a good thing, especially when it's not intended.

Re:Sizemography

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The US has or had satellites that can detect particle bursts from nuclear explosions. If such satellites are still in operation (though likely any current ones are generations improved from the originals), then the US intelligence system would know for certain.

As an aside, that type of satellite was the type that originally detected gamma ray bursts from billions of years ago and they were almost a total mystery until the last decade.

Re:Sizemography

[jonnythan]

Aide: "We just recorded a very minor earthquake centered somewhere just off the coast in the East China Sea."

Kim Jong-il: "OMGWTFLOL!!!!11111111 Tell CNN we just blew up our nuclear shit!!!!11111"

Aide: "But the Americans have instruments and stuff that would be able to measure the radiation released..."

Kimg Jong-il: "ROFLLLLLLLLL WE're so awesome there was no radiation leaked!!!1111~~~~~~~"

Re:Sizemography

[infolib]

Danish radio reported a couple of days ago that a US plane equipped to measure radiation had gone operative near North Korea. I presume they got the data they came for. (Can't find a link, sorry)

Re:Sizemography

[Opportunist]

Dear citizen,

Please report to your local party headquarters for interrogation. We certainly would be interested how you got the transscript out, and even more how the f..k you got on the 'net!

How the heck ...

[quax]

... did North Korea get its hands on Saddam's missing WMDs?

Re:How the heck ...

[TubeSteak]

Well... first Saddam shipped them to Syria

[Insert "Where In The World Is Carmen Sandiego" theme song]

...

[Insert "Family Circus" map]

...

And that's how they got to North Korea

Another missed opportunity

[lymond01]

I guess we won't be invading North Korea anytime soon. If this is true, Pyongyang might be a psychotic dictator leading his country into chaos (sounds oddly familiar, doesn't it?), but he's smart enough to know how to keep the U.S. of his back.

It's tough to be scared of your crazy neighbors when there's a crazy man in your own household.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[eric2hill]

No, the US can't move because the world already thinks we should keep our fucking nose out of other people's business. The only way the US is going to do anything millitarily in the next decade or two is at the behest of the UN. The people in the UN are pretty much impotent (see Darfur) so basically we're going to clean up as best we can in Iraq and go back into a cold war status just bitching about others.

The only way the citizens of the US will support a unilateral decision to invade another country is when a nuke goes off on US soil. The next 25 years are going to be a radioactive bloodbath and hopefully none of it will blow over peaceful countries.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[TCM]

psychotic dictator leading his country into chaos (sounds oddly familiar, doesn't it?)

You mean Bush?

Re:Another missed opportunity

[Descalzo]

The failure of the US to win in N. Korea in the 50s was not due to a lack of ability to win. It was because of a lack of permission to win. I guess you could say the same about Viet Nam, but from what I understand, Korea was in the bag, and the UN forces were not allowed to do what it took to seal the deal, and the Chinese kept on a-comin'.

They were not allowed to block the entry of Chinese forces into N. Korea, even though they had that capability; they were not allowed to use the Atom bomb (it may not have been the right weapon to use, but it probably would have been effective); and other things, too.

Ever since WWII, the USA has hardly been able to summon the will to prosecute a war. If you believe that war is never the answer, then this could be a good thing (as long as the war is never begun). But a poorly prosecuted war is one of the most immoral things a government can do! (I think that last sentence is from Sun Tzu)

I hope you're right: N Korea will hopefully realize they can't really get anything out of this, and will not use it.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[antifoidulus]

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.

Re:Another missed opportunity

[Strudelkugel]

"I TOLD YOU SO!"

Better have a look at this (scroll down to the part about the Korean War) before making that statement. If he were alive today, no doubt MacArthur would be horrified to see what his miscalculation of the Chinese response created: North Korea in its current form.

Atleast they're telling us...

[Karloskar]

I am more afraid of the countries/groups who have nuclear capabilities but aren't telling anyone - should they exist.

Re:Atleast they're telling us...

[timeOday]

I am more afraid of the countries/groups who have nuclear capabilities but aren't telling anyone - should they exist.

Ssshhh, you know we don't talk about Israel that way.

Update: Seismic info now confirms activity

[ScentCone]

USGS and other international players are now reporting 4.2 magnitude (Richter scale) tremor at the indicated time of the test. China says they got a 20-minute warning, which they passed along to the US and other western governments.

Looks like it will be a busy day in diplo-land, and a noisy day in pundit-land.

Walmart

[stinkydog]

Time to head to the 24 hour Walmart and stock up on ammo and bottled water. I think I hear the 4 horsemen of the apocolypse mounting up. I'll keep the mutants off my land.

SD

I would like to be the first

[sokoban]

... to welcome our new North Korean overlords.

Re:I would like to be the first

[forwardhairbrush]

That's not very funny at all.

USGS Reports North Korean Nuke Test as 4.2 Quake

[pkkell0]

Seismic Data from North Korean underground Nuke test registers on USGS sensors as 4.2 mag quake http://bitterplace.homeip.net:8080/modules.php?nam e=News&file=article&sid=607&mode=&order=0&thold=0

Look at the seismic data. no spinning this one.

[macadamia_harold]

You can see the Seismic Data here.

And a global map indicating it here.

No denying that one.

Re:U.S. has not yet confirmed?

[__aaclcg7560]

India and Pakistan are a different situation since they had gone to war at least four times since World War II and the next one could easily go nuclear. North Korea been crying wolf for so many years that I wouldn't be surprised if they just shoved enough conventional explosives into the ground to fake a test.

Re:9/11, late, anniversary

[tezbobobo]

Actually, this is not so much about terrorists as residual cold war thinking. Most political scietists would treat this as either the fallout of superpower foriegn policy from the cold war, or indeed claim that the cold war is not in fact over.

America is acting no different from usual so it is not right to claim it is run by violent religious extremists. That's a comparative qualitative assessment. It is instead run by what would be known as 'realist' (not the dictionary def.) ideologists - those who would unilaterally further America's interest..

Re:Actually, USGS did detect seismic activity

[Change]

Here's the quake info: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Qu akes/ustqab.php

If you go to the Maps tab it gives you this Google Maps link (tinyURLized): http://tinyurl.com/ghvuy

Take a look about 4-5 miles north of the estimated epicenter, there's a large complex of buildings there. Wonder what those are?

Re:Take em now

[Retardican]

North Korea declared the armistice ceasing the Korean War (1950-1953), "null and void" a few months ago. It made a lot of people (US, Japan) nervous, with China trying to keep everyone calm. Now that NK has proved themselves a nuclear power, Japan will definately *consider* preemptive strikes against NK facilities, and NK fearing such attacks will escalate their threats.

We should deplay some troops over there, in case things get out of hand and bombs start flying. Oh wait, most of our fleet is still looking for WMDs next to the oil.

Get Kamiokande to verify...

[Dr. Zowie]

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...

Lets look at the bright side

[Toxicgonzo]

At least they're not building Battlecruisers.

map

[Heem]

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=41.311%C2%B0N%2C%201 29.114%C2%B0E&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&sa=N&tab=wl

Google/Yahoo Maps GPS Location of USGS event

[IdleByte]

I want my own GoogleSAT. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=41.311%C2% B0N,+129.114%C2%B0E&ie=UTF8&z=17&ll=41.310864,129. 114139&spn=0.003385,0.010815&t=k&om=1 Yahoo Approx posistion, I'm sure someone can come closer.. http://maps.yahoo.com/beta/index.php#maxp=search&m vt=h&trf=0&lon=128.969879&lat=41.338669&mag=9 IdleByte

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[terrymr]

From here: a one killoton explosion is equivalent to about 4.0. Maybe it was just a butt load of dynamite and not nuclear at all.

Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[istartedi]

The other day I read a story where they interviewed a Chinese soldier who was disgusted with the NKs. Why? Because they returned a border crosser, a young woman. This took place on a bridge over a river that divides China and NK. As soon as she was signed over, the NKs took a sharp steel wire and ran it through the flesh between the thumb and forefingers of a hand. They led her away screaming. Apparently, this is routine behavior. Other Chinese border guards related stories of NKs running the wire underneath the collarbones of returnees, harnessing them together. Needless to say, these people are not seen at the border again.

In the same article, there were stories of NKs sneaking into China, robbing banks, in general making trouble. However, most of the border crossers are coming to China to find prosperity and freedom. Yes. Prosperity and freedom. In a country that we usually associate with wage slavery and oppression. The woman at the bridge knew she would be killed. They must all realize they will be killed, yet they risk being returned. Now that has *got* to be one lousy place to live.

I don't see how the NK regime can last. It's just a question of how it's going to go down. If I were the premier of China, I'd make a secret deal with SK to put a military sqeeeze on the place, since NK would probably be overwhelmed by a Chinese invasion. The Chinese could really come out looking like good guys if they then turned it over to SK for re-unification ala Germany. I'm not that optimistic though. I think we're more likely to see the "Korean autonomous zone" or some such nonsense that's really part of the Chinese empire. Maybe real soon now.

Re:Is their time up? (not for the squeemish)

[TheFoolishOne]

It's time the Chinese started acting like the world power they are and adopt a country to destroy and rebuild in their own terrible visage. It's the only way to really make a name for yourself on the international stage.

Tough talk! Great results!

[copponex]

"I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail." -President Bush II

"I must say you don't normally engage in conversations by threatening to intercontinental ballistic missiles." -John Bolton

Hey fellas.... How is that hard-line foreign policy working out?

Re:Take em now

[GoldTeamRules]

I agree...damn democracy...if only Bush were a dictator, the US would be able to defend itself properly!

In fact, this is really all Clinton's fault for being soft on them in the first place...

If the Dems would stop critisizing Bush, Iraq wouldn't be in this mess...really, we should kill all the Dems first, then go after the Iranians, then the North Koreans.

Actually, I think we can all agree that the answer to the NK problem, really, is more tax cuts! Tax cuts and getting rid of queers. If you're not with me, you're against me.

i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[circletimessquare]

Contrary to North Korean propaganda, North Korea having nukes has more to do with Russia, Japan, China, and South Korea than it does with the United States. Northeast Asia is currently the most economically dynamic area of the world. And yet, in the center of this region sits a basket case. A country in a cult of personality throwback to the early 1950s, still fighting the Korean War.

While China continues its relentless march to economic modernity and eventual superiority, while South Korea has the most advanced internet culture in the world (see recent slashdot story still on the front page from the New York Times), and while Japan is pretty much the most advanced nation on the planet, according to a number of measures (GNP, life expectancy, etc), North Korea keeps its citizens in prisoner camps, rummaging for leaves to eat, while it focuses every ounce of its words to the world and every drop of its resources on military belligerence. And counterfeiting currency. And making methamphetamine. And now nukes.

North Korea can easily kill a quarter million people in Seoul anytime it wanted to with conventional weapons in a couple of hours. Its rockets could carry a number of nasty things to Tokyo very easily. And now nukes.

I really don't see North Korea's neighbors tolerating this scenario much longer. I don't see how they can. China has been reluctant to muzzle its maddog little psycho neighbor since it frightens the hated Japanese more than anyone else, but surely China can see now how North Korea's insane belligerence threatens China's economy just as much as it gives the Japanese nightmares. And North Korea, famously, when presented a line in the sand, does all it can do to cross it. But going nuclear may be a line in the sand it should not have crossed, if self-preservation was ever its goal. But self-preservation never seems to have been North Korea's goal. More like a headlong rush into self-realized armageddon.

I don't see this ending well, I really don't. Don't go to Seoul or Tokyo for awhile folks, I'm really worried about Northeast Asia right now, I don't see this ending well. North Korea has too much of a deathwish. And now nukes.

Re:i'm going to head off the anti-us/ pro-us bs

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

To prevent NK from firing their nukes, we would have to have very thick fighter coverage over suspected nuclear sites and hope that if a silo opens up we could bomb it's missle in time.

Reality check. The DPRK does not have nuclear warheads. They are very much like India and Pakistan in that they've got a pile of fissionable material about the size of a large room. Underground. It is a lot of work to go from a room to a warhead. I'd be surprised if they could get there in less than 5 years.

NKorea Would Use Them

[sanman2]

Hey, if there's anybody that would risk using nukes, it's that pudgy little nutcase, Kim Jong-ILL.

He's FatMan and LittleBoy all rolled into one.

A detached nutbag like him who's willing to let his people starve by the millions in famine, has no concerns about his people being hurt in a nukewar while he hides in some secret bomb shelter miles underground.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[gerardrj]

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.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[Rob Kaper]

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.

Re:NKorea Would Use Them

[Wylfing]

Dear Lord, my bullshit detector just pegged. Please note: I am rather a lefty and in favor of social programs to help those who are poor or otherwise disadvantaged.

The US has a fairly high rate of poverty and starvation

That "poverty level" is by U.S. standards, which means USD 4700 per person per year. That seems pretty low, but consider that most of the world is at approximately USD 700 per person per year. So our "poor" are nearly 7 times better off than the average person around the world. Also, starvation is virtually impossible in the U.S., even for homeless people. In fact, the very poor are one of the most likely groups in the U.S. to be grossly overweight.

The richest country in the world has over 10% of its population not able to meet basic needs

This is predicated on your phony insinuation about poverty in the United States. Below the poverty line it is possible in many parts of the country to not only meet basic needs but to have comforts that are totally unknown in most of the world. Hell, our market basket includes things like beer, tobacco, computers, TV, jewelry, and sports equipment.

I know it's superfashionable to bash the U.S. at every opportunity, and frankly it is embarrassing that we have a problem with health care in this country (but that spans the middle class as well, so it's not a poverty issue), but at least pick on the problems we actually have rather than make up new ones.

Against Alaska or West Coast

[sanman2]

Oh, and his Taepodong missiles can reach Alaska and maybe even the West Coast.

He can't fit the nukes on them yet, though.

Right now, he'd have to fly them on a cargo plane, if he ever wanted to deliver them onto a target. The main threat is him selling them to someone (AlQaeda??)

NKorea currently has the ability to make 2-3 bombs per year.

US either better bomb this guy back to the Stone Age, or else be prepared to have nukes floating all around the world.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[crazyeddie740]

"Ask yourself, why are South Koreans increasingly more afraid of the U.S. than North Korea?"

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.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Froomb]

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.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[Barnoid]

US either better bomb this guy back to the Stone Age, or else be prepared to have nukes floating all around the world.

Speaken like a true American. Wage wars, but plz not at home. Why care about collatoral damage, as long as it is so far away?

I happen to work in Seoul right now, and I'm actually more afraid of Bush & his friends than North Korea. NK will not attack the South unprovoked because even their nutcase of a dictator knows that such an act will certainly end his reign. However, if you provoke him and lead him to believe he's about to be invaded/bombed/..., he might actually be tempted to send a couple of missiles down to Seoul, just to prove that NK is dangerous.

I hope that the U.S. and Japan won't push it too far.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[WalksOnDirt]

NK will not attack the South unprovoked because even their nut case of a dictator knows that such an act will certainly end his reign.

That reminds me of Iraq moving troops near the Kuwait border in 1990. Everyone I heard said Saddam would never actually invade, but invade he did.

Maybe North Korea will sit still and be proud of its nuclear capability without using it, but I am afraid South Korea is overconfident of being left alone.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[obnoxiousbastard]

>I happen to work in Seoul right now, and I'm actually more afraid of Bush & his friends than North Korea.

If I were you, I think I might pick up a history book. South Korea exists because the US sent massive military assistance to the South. If you think Bush is scary, you had better read up on you freaky neighbor to the north.

>NK will not attack the South unprovoked because even their nutcase of a dictator knows that such an act will certainly end his reign.

That didn't stop them before. That does not stop them from inciting frequent border clases and sending suicide commandoes fo the South

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[AC5398]

* Ask yourself, why are South Koreans increasingly more afraid of the U.S. than North Korea? *

Because the younger generations of South Koreans aren't old enough to remember the bad old days.

Re:Against Alaska or West Coast

[AC5398]

* When do I get so say "I told you so"? *

When the US troops leave South Korea and North Korea disarms as a result.

Ain't never gonna happen - North Korea disarming that is. The US leaving you to deal with North Korea up close and personal - I give y'all another 10 years maximum.

tactical/sub-tactical range. 1-5kT roughly

[StandardDeviant]

This page (scroll down to the header "Seismic Energy") lists richter 4.0 as corresponding to 1kT and 4.5 as 5.1kT (richter is a log scale). So kind of a pissy sub-tactical range yield (i.e. nothing you'd want to be close to, but not a city killer either). For comparison's sake, Trinity, Fat Man, and Little Boy were all in the 12-22kT range.

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[jafac]

A "dud" (or partial) sounds consistent with everything else we know.

We know that it's probably a plutonium device (using processed fuel from a reactor that had been secured and monitored until they kicked out the inspectors).

A plutonium device is an implosion device, and implosion devices are usually much harder to get right the first time (hence the need for testing).

To keep things in perspective - they're still a long way from being able to put an operationally reliable device on an operationally reliable ICBM.

But this is still very bad news.

On a slightly more serious note...

[ChePibe]

While filling your cart with 7.62mm rounds and Evian, you may want to consider some Potassium iodide, which can provide at least some protection against Radioiodine, which I assume would be a part of most nuclear explosions (although I am no specialist on this matter - do correct me if I'm wrong). It's dirt cheap, and a little something might be better than nothing. The odds of ever needing it are, of course, extremely low. But, hey, if you're going to stock up, stock up right.

Incompetent Theorist

[abb3w]

I think you meant that headline to say "Bush administration secretly tells N. Korea to announce that they have conducted their first nuclear test before the November election".

Try again. If you want to do conspiracy theories, you ought to do them right.

MSNBC, via Daily Kos:

On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." [...] Four days later, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sweeping financial sanctions against North Korea designed to cut off the country's access to the international banking system, branding it a "criminal state" guilty of counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

Now, add in this report dated September 20th:

In the past week, Karl Rove has been promising Republican insiders an "October surprise" to help win the November congressional elections.

It's October. "SURPRISE!!!"

Bush just entered an elite club

[edwardpickman]

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.

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Anyone who thinks that there was not ample evidence of a strong possibility of Iraqi WMD is, quite frankly, delusional or utterly ignorant of the facts - there is no third possibility. (And, contrary to popular belief, a 'strong possibility' is about as good as it gets in the intel and inspection worlds.)

Cite some of those facts please. It would be compelling if they were from a source without a vested interest in supporting the invasion, since they are facts and not opinions there ought to be enough neutral sources reporting them out there.

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[althalus1969]

You must be delusional...

The guy leading the UN Inspection Team stepped down from office because of this scandal.
The UN Team found no evidence whatsoever of WMDs in Iraq.

Next time ask yourself where you get you information from, hopefully not Fox-News.

Re:Bush just entered an elite club

[dbIII]

Anyone who thinks that there was not ample evidence of a strong possibility of Iraqi WMD is, quite frankly, delusional or utterly ignorant of the facts

You discounted the possibility of people who were reading newspapers at the time with articles based on reports by experts instead of only being exposed to spin and blatant propaganda on dumbed down TV news programs. Pay attention! Most of this stuff came from real intelligence agents from many countries while the other stuff even came from advertising agencies and political campaign staff. The childish response - outing an agent and "freedom fries" in revenge for opposing views.

Export to Terrorists

[sanman2]

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.

Re:Export to Terrorists

[Megane]

no terrorist in the world could possibly pay what it costs to develop a nuclear weapon.

News flash: it's just been developed. NK would be happy to charge cost-plus to anyone else who wants one. Bring your own Iranian uranium and it's half price.

Il*Mart - your home of falling prices... and falling bombs!

Looking on the bright side of things...

[Baldrson]

Perhaps now the US government will reconsider the wisdom of leaving the security of US cities in the hands of the Mexican coast guard...

No unusual seismic activity

[Jarden]

..my ass

Re:Take em now

[lexDysic]

North Korea (and most of these arguments apply to Iran equally well) isn't even on the same planet with sane. North Korea WILL eventually start another war. There isn't any doubt whether he has WMD anymore and he has the missles to deliver them.

You realize North Korea is a country and not a person, right? Assuming you are referring to Kim Jong-Il (or Ahmadinejad, or Chavez, or Hussein, or whomever you think it is most important to be scared of today) have you considered that maybe it requires just a little bit of sanity to remain in control of an entire country? There are other people who would like the job, after all. (Note: I'm not saying that any of these people are necessarily very smart, just that they all certainly prefer being in power to being dead.)

The most likely reasons for North Korea's developing of these weapons are self-defense and, more importantly, a negotiation chip to use towards stopping sanctions. All indications are that this is what's happening. (One sample analysis, written recently, is here.)

Confirmation of NKs nuclear capabilities reduces our diplomatic power over them slightly, since it makes the threat of a direct military attack by us on them slightly less credible. This is unfortunate, but not a reason to panic, and not a reason to initiate an attack which would certainly: (a) result in many innocent deaths, and (b) damage our relationships with countries that could affect the well-being of Americans. (Make no mistake, not even Great Britain would support us on this one).

This impending disaster could have been prevented just like WWII could have. Instead a billion will probably die.

The Bay of Pigs nuclear disaster could have been prevented it too, if only we'd have had the sense not to attack until it was absolutely necessary...oh wait, we did, and it was. Be thankful.

Fox News: "Bush administration official confirmed"

[reporter]

According to a news flash from Fox News, "North Korea successfully tested of a nuclear weapon late Sunday night, a senior Bush administration official confirmed to FOX News." Several news organizations are reporting that Washington has not yet confirmed the nuclear test, but apparently Fox News just received confirmation from a senior official in Washington.

We are entering dangerous times, and the Bush administration made a tragic mistake in its dealings with India. Washington has signed the NPT, and by the terms of the treaty, its signatories agree to ban the transfer of nuclear technology to any nation that refuses to sign the NPT. The NPT further stipulates that any signatory which has not yet developed nuclear weapons shall not pursue their development.

New Delhi has long refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has aggressively pursued the development of nuclear weapons. Despite this fact and despite the fact that Washington is a signatory to the NPT, Washington has agreed to give nuclear technology to India. (New Delhi refused to support the strategic American objectives of promoting human rights and democracy unless Washington (1) gives nuclear technology to India and (2) greatly increases the number of Indian H-1B workers allowed to enter the USA.)

How can Washington demand that Pyongyang refrain from developing nuclear weapons when Washington enthusiastically ignores Indian nuclear ambitions? The point of the NPT is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to any and all nations, irrespective of their form of government.

Your numbers don't seem quite right.

[abb3w]

If the North Koreans detonated a 10-30 kiloton device, several times 1013 neutrinos from it should have passed through Kamiokande.

Assuming it was a nuke, the chemical explosive component should be neglectable. According to Wikipedia, 1 kiloton-TNT is 4.184 TJ. According to a quick search (matching what I recall from NE301 a decade back), average fission energy yield is around 200 MeV per. This gives about 4E24 fissions. Assuming you get on the order of 1 antineutrino per, at a radius of 1000 km and assuming even sterradial distribution, gives on the order of 300 billion antineutrinos per fission.

Anyone who wants to find the detector capture efficiency and make a guess at its cross-sectional area is welcome to refine the numbers further. I have some sleep to not-get.

Re:Your numbers don't seem quite right.

[Dr. Zowie]

Sorry to say it, but your units aren't right. I have attempted to reverse-engineer your mistake.

300 billion antineutrinos per fission is just wrong, as are 3e11 antineutrinos per steradian. I think you meant 3e11 antineutrinos per square meter at 1Mm distance, which is right in line with what I calculated. (I assumed twice as many neutrinos per fission as you did, and used the published size of Kamiokande to estimate its cross section at 200 square meters -- which accounts for the factor-of-400 difference between our numbers.)

Most Important Data: Depth 0km

[IanDanforth]

A clear indication this wasn't natural.

-Ian

Why is the S. Korean seismic data quiet?

[i_like_spam]

Anyone want to explain why the seismic station at Inchon, South Korea appears to be quiet at the time of the blast (1:35 UTC)?

Here's the raw seismic data at Inchon.

I see an event at Inchon at about 14:30 UTC on Sunday, but it's 11 hours earlier than the reported blast.

Good Idea... Except For One Small Piece...

[Shihar]

North Korea is armed to the teeth with chemical weapons. Any invasion into North Korea is a quick way to turn all the cities within artillery range of North Korea into dead zones. North Korea also has a vast array of short and mid range missiles that will also certainly hit your capital and any major city. In the first hour of any North Korean war, sure as shit, Seoul will be wiped out and Tokyo will be short a few million people.

China wants a North Korea it can control. China doesn't mind North Korea being a pain in the ass for the US and Japan from time to time. What China does mind is a nuclear/chemical/biological war in its back yard, and it minds a few million starving North Koreans throwing themselves at the border trying to escape. China wants a stable North Korea that occasionally acts up.

That said, what North Korea is doing is NOT what China wants. China is probably going to respond, but no one is going to take military action. Military action is not going to bring down North Korea unless a North Korean leader goes (more) insane and starts something. Otherwise, North Korea is going to collapse in an internal military coup. The only thing the rest of the world can do until that day is keep North Korea from making any trouble until then... which is exactly what everyone is trying to do.

Re:Good Idea... Except For One Small Piece...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

North Korea is going to collapse in an internal military coup.

Well, a coup of some sort. Chances are, China will be a major backer of any such event too.

From the analyses I've been reading, it is likely that this nuke test was a military coup of sorts, as was the missile test a few months ago. The military is the largest power structure in the DPRK and shooting off their weapons as a show of strength against the perceived threats of just about every other country is a big goal of theirs, big enough to override the concerns of the rest of the government regarding sustainability (foreign aid has dried up to a trickle in the last few years, and their recent efforts at counterfeiting US dollars have not gone over so well either).

Despite the typical demonization of western media, 'dear leader' Kim certainly understands that these tests are not likely to improve relations with any other country and are not in the best interest of maintaining his dictatorship and his role has chief party animal. So in that sense at least, the fact that the tests have occurred suggests that his grip on control of the country is not iron-clad.

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[hero_or_what]

I do agree that by cutting a deal with New Delhi, the US govt essentially squashed the NPT. But then, that's what happened to the Kyoto treaty as well.

The NPT by itself is a relic of the cold war and extremely biased. What it basically says is that 5 countries can build and maintain as many Nuclear weapons as they want while the rest of the world should not. Ideally, if Nuclear Non Proliferation was to work, the NPT should have contained a timetable for the reduction/removal of all nuclear weapons, including those stockpiled by the big five. The NPT isn't about reducing the risk of a Nuclear Winter. Its about maintaining a military advantage and is purely political in its framework.

I'm all for reducing the risk of Nuclear Proliferation, but I'm not convinced that NPT is the tool to use. What we need is for the big 5 to show the way and reduce their stockpile and then enforce the NPT.

It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[bmo]

It's not a nuke.

Compare the purported "nukular test":

http://aslwww.cr.usgs.gov/Seismic_Data/telemetry_d ata/INCN_24hr.html

Notice how long this lasts.

To a _real_ nuclear test

http://can-ndc.nrcan.gc.ca/recent/980528_e.php

Again, notice how long this lasts. Hint: look at the scale of both graphs.

One of these things is not like the other.

I'm sure that you can figure it out for yourself.

--
BMO

Re:It's a lie by Kim Jong Illin'

[GauteL]

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.

Sorry, I'm revoking your slashdot license

[aiken_d]

You have violated a number of important slashdot rules.

There is no "blame" in your post. This is clearly against the slashdot AUP ("all posts shall contain angry, bitter, and/or whiny assertions, accusations, and/or innuendos that blame lies squarly upon the party of your choice").

Worse, you are also clearly violating the certainty clause of the AUP ("all posts shall express absolute certainty of position; any acknowledgement that the facts are ambiguous shall result in the immediate revocation of your slashdor posting license."

And, finally, you have not expressed smug superiority, used excessive jargon to support an incomprehensible point, or displayed a willful ignorance of the context of the situation -- also violating the AUP ("All posts shall express smug superiority, use excessive jargon, and/or display a willful ignorance of the context of the situation").

Slashdot cannot tolerate posts like this. If word got out, people might think that some of the users were over 20 years old, or (worse!) had some actual life experience and knowledge of what they're talking about.

-b

PS: Yes, I was careful to stay within the AUP myself.

Clever catagory

[tr0p]

I love how this news post is cleverly filed under the "hardware" category =)

Re:Fox News: "Bush administration official confirm

[metlin]

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.

Re:I don't see why theres "fear"

[Shihar]

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.

The problem with reunification

[sheepathon]

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.

Re:The problem with reunification

[coaxial]

The ROK does want unification with the DPRK, as seen for their support for the Sunshine Policy. However they do realize that an instant unification would be an economic disaster. Germany likewise took an economic hit when it unified. Even today, the east still lags behind the west in economic growth. With the DPRK being in a much worse situation than the GDR was in 1990, we could expect the impact on the ROK, both immediate and lasting, to be far greater.

I don't believe Japan sees the ROK as a military threat. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a nuclear democratic unified Korea, would remain nuclear for long. The ROK does have a nuclear weapons program., however it is primarily focused at countering the nuclear threat from the DPRK. If unification would occur with the ROK absorbing the DPRK, that the ROK would denuclearize.

Japan's nuclear intentions are much more indoubt, since it would require a constitutional amendment. The Japanese like Section 9 of their consitituion. However, it many ways it has outlived its purpose. Japan is not a militant culture anymore, and the region has become much less stable. Japan's purpose for a nuke would to counter the DPRK nuclear threat. Once the DPRK nuclear threat is eliminated, then the need would be eliminated, and I suspect Japan would denuclearize.

The truth is, if Japan wanted a nuke, they could have one in a year. The question is whether or not they want one. Even the Japanese don't have an answer to that question.

The key mistake in your nuclear analysis is that you assume that the only consideration for a country is who in their neighborhood has a nuke. It's not. It's who in their neighborhood is likely to attack them with a nuke. The ROK isn't going to attack anyone, let alone Japan, so there's no reason for Japan to nuclearize in light of a a nuclear democratic Korea. There's already a parallel to this with Japan's historic rival, China. China already has nuclear weapons, and yet Japan has failed to nuclearize. Why haven't they? Because, they know China won't attack them.

Re:The problem with reunification

[Bueller_007]

Saying that Japan doesn't want reunification is nonsense.

There already IS a nuclear "Korean government". The North. And the weapons are currently in the hands of a madman. Japan may have problems with South Korea, but they would much see nukes in the hands of the somewhat reasonable South than the batshit-crazy North.

In addition, reunification would mean the withdrawal of most American forces from the Peninsula, increasing the strategic importance of the American military holdings in Okinawa. A stronger military relationship with America in the Far East means Japan is safer from potential attack by either China or Korea.

In addition, North Korea also has in its possession a number of Japanese abductees, who were kidnapped to be brainwashed and trained as anti-Japanese spies. That's a HUGE political issue, and the prime minister who can finally resolve this issue will be made out to be a national hero. That's simply not going to happen until reunification. Reunification will be a political blessing for whatever Japanese prime minister is around to try to take part of the credit for it.

Also, when sanctions against Korea are lifted, Japan will have a new trading partner, poor though they may be. Because the North Koreans can't afford to buy Sony just yet, the Japanese government will do the same thing with them that they've done with all of their poor South-East Asian neighbours. The government will send Japanese construction companies overseas to do "charity work". The Japanese government will pay for the majority of it, making it little more than corporate welfare, but at the end of the project, they'll erect a sign saying "This ~~ was built with funds donated by the Japanese government." That's part of the way that they build good will amongst their neighbours.

IMHO, there's no way they *don't* want reunification.

Re:Ask Rummy.

[SEE]

North Korea already had plutonium-producing reactors in 1994, which it claimed were for the purpose of making power. The deal was to sell them light-water reactors as replacements, because light-water reactors are not suitable for plutonium production without heavy modification, and have NK shut down and seal its plutonium reactors.

So what NK then did was start refining uranium to weapons-grade in centrifuges. In 2003, the U.S. officially asked them if they were doing this, and they announced they were. So the U.S. cancelled the shipment of the light-water reactors, because North Korea was building nukes anyway. That's right, the ABB reactors never made it to the DPRK.

Then, North Korea responded to this by breaching the seals on the plutonium-producing reactors, and started refining the plutonium.

So, to take your gun analogy and make it actually reflect the facts, let's assume a lunatic already has a fully-automatic AK-47, which they say they need to shoot crows that are eating their crops. The police come by, nod and smile, and convinces the lunatic to lock up the AK-47, and in exchange the police will give him a SuperSoaker to drive off the crows. The lunatic then starts making pipe bombs. A few days later, the former CEO of SuperSoaker has joined the police, and he comes by and asks the nut if he's making pipe bombs. The nut say yes, so the new officer tells him to stop it or he won't be given the SuperSoaker. In response, the nut unlocks his AK-47 and shoots off a few rounds.

You then come along, and accuse the owner/police officer of being responsible for the gunfire because he was CEO of the SuperSoaker manufacturer.

I guess when you have moral integrity, the only important facts are the ones that don't get in the way of your indignation.

Re:Take em now

[beh]

Twisted little thought, that...

But may I remind you of something? When your "big W" went to war in Iraq, despite Saddam claiming he had no weapons, and UN weapons inspectors not finding any - that little Korean dictator was openly threatening the US with his WMDs.

But - where did you end up going to war? Iraq...

It was your current "enlightened" (and I'm using that word in a VERY loose sense of the word here) leadership, which decided that revenge for the first gulf war was more important, than acting on actual problems. Political pundits here in Europe at the time commented on the one lesson to be learnt from this for every little third world dictator: Either get the bomb, or make sure you can make others believe in you having it - then the US won't touch you. But look weak, and they will come and invade you - no matter what the rest of the world has to say about it.

I, for one, believe this is right - by bombing down Iraq, not just did the invasion create the Quagmire there (because noone seemed to have planned what to do once the war was over), but it WILL have sent out the signals to other nations to get nuclear arms as quickly as possible, to make sure the US won't attack them. As such, NK will now have a list of potential buyers significantly longer than just AlQaeda or other terrorists.

you need to consider the concept of scale

[circletimessquare]

for the sake of argument, i'll take every criticism you have of the us, the solid ones and the specious ones, and flat out accept all of them

at which point, however bad the usa looks, by the exact same measurements of failure, north korea is many orders of magnitude worse, according to the most careful and neutral of estimates

in other words, to go an inch down a road is not the same as going a mile down a road

it's called scale

if i shoot someone, i'm bad

but i'm not on the same scale of bad as say pol pot, who ordered the deaths of millions

so to excuse north korea with the words you say above in any way is not right, if you appreciate the concept of scale

"yes, north korea starves its citizens to fund its military, but prisoners in the usa don't get cable tv, so north korea and the usa are morally equivalent"

not your points or your words in the quote above, but you see what i'm getting at with that example quote

the point is: i'm not excusing or apologizing for the bad the usa does: the usa DOES do bad. again, the usa DOES do bad

BUT: by the same token, you should be careful not to excuse north korea for doing far, far, far worse

get it?

ah, confirmation from the White House

[sgant]

the White House apparently confirms a nuclear test.

I usually wait until a legit source confirms it instead of taking anything that comes out of the White House seriously.

Re:Incompetent Theorist

[louisadkins]

**FEAR! FEAR! TERROR! TERROR! FEAR! FEAR! TERROR! TERROR!**
WE CAN'T CHANGE OUT LEADERSHIP AT A CRITICAL TIME LIKE THIS!

                                Vote Republician in 2006.

That's my take on it, anyway.
This admin has made a habit of trying to keep the people too scared
to allow a changeout in the driver's seat.

Hans Hans Hans

[spacefight]

... we've been frew this a dozen times....

Re:So what's the yeild amount?

[rm999]

2 million pounds of tnt - that, I would imagine, would be really difficult to coordinate (not to mention detonating in a way to create a single cohesive explosion).

I could be wrong, I have never worked with TNT

"Technological advantage" is mainly for propaganda

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Sure it helps to have real weapons that work, but so often weapons of dubious ability get unwarranted iconic status, mainly in the war of the minds to convince friendlies that they have the edge. This is nothing new and dates back to shamans claiming they have the gods on their side.

Recently we've had the Patriot Missile BS where pretty hopeless systems were claimed to be invincible. During WW2 there were carrots (gave the British superior night vision) and the Americans had the Norton Bombsight - both of which have over-hype PR which exists to this day. No doubt this will continue as long as conflict of any sort exists.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[OrangeTide]

It is more complicated than that. N. Korea (among other countries) have territory disputes with Japan. Japan's hands are tied because of Article 9 forbidding Japan from using threat or use of force to settle disputes. And it's unlikely that Japan could defend itself successfully against N.Korea if a hot war were to erupt. Part of the agreement with the US is that the US provides defensive forces, and works as a proxy to lean on nations that have disputes with Japan.

But probably the biggest issue is that Kim Jong-il is a lunatic. Saddam Hussein was not a lunatic. That is the biggest difference between a war with Iraq and a war with N.Korea. Also Saddam's military was quite small, while N.Korea's military is the fifth largest in the world. (roughly the same number of troops as the US)

I think everyone agrees that a war with N.Korea between any nation (Japan, US, S.Korea) would be an utter nightmare. And the nightmare has only gotten worse with the progress N.Korea has made with thier nuclear arsenal. We cannot entirely trust Kim Jong-il to simply use nukes as a negotiation strategy, he may actually use them (and claim that somehow he was provoked).

What better way to assert N.Korea's sovereignty than to lob a nuke on one of the disputed islands in the Sea of Japan? Sort of an "if I can't have it, then nobody can"

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[malsdavis]

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).

Inchon

[Anonymous Coward]

MacArthur's Inchon landing was a good example of how to flank fixed lines.

The Inchon landing was a gamble. It was a two phased operation that relied upon the speedy capture of the fortified island of Wolmi-do followed by a pause to wait for the tide to rise before the rest of the operation could continue which was not a good idea since there was no way to know if the island garrison would fall quickly and because the pause would give the forces ashore time to react. The Americans were lucky in several ways, firstly they only had to face some 3000 N-Korean troops who happened to have a commander of low quality, the garrison on Wolmi-do was under strength and didn't die where it stood to buy time for their comrades ashore and the local N-Korean commander didn't make any significant use of the forewarning and the time he had to react from the time the attack on Wolmi-do started and until tide rose and the rest of the American attack went ahead. An American present at the time commented that if the garrison on Wolmi-do had resisted more than it did to buy time and if the troops ashore had fought with the same determination as the German and Japanese troops he had encountered during WWII (and which the N-Koreans were fully capable of) the American forces at Inchon would have been slaughtered. Basically Inchon could *very* easily have become a compete FUBAR like operation 'Market Garden' did during WWII. It was a great success because fortune happened favor MacArthur that day but Inchon is hardly the best available study in how to plan and execute an amphibious landing, the allies set much better examples of that during WWII.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[maxume]

Chemical weapons are essentially only useful on human targets. Bombs are at least able to destroy infrastruture and equipment.

MOD PARENT UP.

[TapeCutter]

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.

WMDs in the middle ages

[brennz]

10,000 longbows ~ hardly!

It is a well known fact that during the middle ages and before then, during an attack on a city, the sieging army would catapult into cities corpses with the plague, or dead animals, in attempts to spread disease/plague that would decimate populations.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bioweapons/biowa r_timeline.html
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/xiongmn.h tml
http://www.usmedicine.com/column.cfm?columnID=109& issueID=46
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague

Re:Take em now

[jacquesm]

thank you...

comment of the month. I already posted in this thread so no chance of modding you up, but I did add you to my 'friends' list for that one.

Simply by defining the 'axis of evil' some countries got enough of a warning to start moving before it was too late. The six party talks were sabotaged as far as I can detect and provoked this chest beating performance by lil kim, the real question now is how far they are towards miniaturization and delivery.

Another real nightmare scenario would be a vessel with a goodie like this in the hold docked in SF or so.

Not all delivery needs to be done by air, not as 'efficient' (if there is such a term when it comes to mass murder), but I'm pretty sure it would get the job done.

Re:It must be Clinton's Fault (TM) right?

[killjoe]

Everything is clintons fault. Every time clinton takes a breath a hundred mosquitos are created somewhere in the world. Clinton is responsible for the darkness and cold. The boxing day tsunami was caused by clinton when he farted. The other day I tripped and fell, that was clinton's fault but it was hillary clinton's fault not bill, when she has her period she causes people to trip. When chelsea has her period she causes people to break out in pimples.

The whole foley thing was clintons fault too.

could be fake

[geoff lane]

What is the cost of 500 tons of explosive and a few pounds of radioactive dust?

Re:"Technological advantage" is mainly for propaga

[rjstanford]

Recently we've had the Patriot Missile BS where pretty hopeless systems were claimed to be invincible. During WW2 there were carrots (gave the British superior night vision) and the Americans had the Norton Bombsight - both of which have over-hype PR which exists to this day. No doubt this will continue as long as conflict of any sort exists.

The whole carrot thing was started intentionally to try to disguise the fact that the British had figured out radar. Of course there were questions as to how they were suddenly far more effective and a rumor like that one -- unprovable but possible -- was exactly what was needed to throw people off the track, at least for long enough to make the difference.

I don't think that the patriot missile was a cover-up for anything else spectacular.

Bush Bashing

[lheal]

He's not a bully. He's just an ordinary Joe, put in a position he probably shouldn't be in. But he is in that position, and by and large I think he's done a good job.

So there.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[malsdavis]

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.

Pakistan

[Per Abrahamsen]

Apropos racist prejudices, Pakistan is not "an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship". It is a good old-fascioned military dictatorship, whose main internal opposition is from Islamic fundamentalist groups (more or less are in control of Pakistans western province).

Re:Ain't no fortunate one

[TheGreek]

How many CONGRESS OR SENATOR OR PRESIDENT'S KIDS AT WAR????

-- ZERO --

The number was a bit higher than zero in 2003. Dunno what it is now, but you're still a retard.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[astralbat]

It is more complicated than that. N. Korea (among other countries) have territory disputes with Japan. Japan's hands are tied because of Article 9 forbidding Japan from using threat or use of force to settle disputes.

I read in the Economist that Japan is thinking of increasing it's military and wants to remove the ban placed on them. But the magazine also considered strongly that this will further unite South Korea, China and Japan against North Korea, so I don't see how the nightmare will necessarily get worse.

But probably the biggest issue is that Kim Jong-il is a lunatic. Saddam Hussein was not a lunatic.

Where did you get this from? Was it just your humble opinion? I don't think anyone can say they know Kim Jong-il and what his true intentions are.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[Arcturax]

Actually, Japan has a large and highly advanced military still. It is constrained by their constitution for defensive purposes. That could change very quickly as they can do as they wish with their constitution now and have been slowly pushing the US out of Japan militarily, asking us to close bases, which we have done to save money. The fact they are mulling their own atomic bomb now shows just how bad things are. WWII happened long ago, but they still have the stark reminders of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So for Japan to mull their own nukes and not set off a riot in the streets shows how tense the situation between them and North Korea has become.

North Korea may have nukes now, but how many? I doubt more than a handfull. If we struck pre-emptively with our own nukes, even small tac-nukes on military sites, we could probably cripple them so they couldn't launch even one. The danger then would be nukes left in a large city and detonated once we rolled in militarily. The North Korean government would have no qualms about killing their own people just to get back at us if they were losing a war.

The best bet may be a quick and decisive decapitation strike against their leadership.

Re:Goddamn Right

[rbochan]

...His inner cowboy...

Cowboy?
There are no cowboys born in Connecticut.

Re:Kamland is better

[jackbird]

This is why I go to slashdot. I don't comprehend a frigging word of the debate, but two people slapping each other with equations over the exact number of neutrinos from a North Korean nuclear test makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

If I were Rupert Murdoch, you two would have an hour-long show on Fox News.

Pinnacle

[jefu]

More like the heart of propaganda - and it is used by all sides. In particular, the parent uses exactly this technique to redefine liberalistm.

The ugly secert about nuclear weapons.

[LWATCDR]

A fission weapon is 1940s technology.

Your point about Japan building nukes left out some details.

Japan has around 32 tons of plutonium on hand. They use it in their reactors. That is enough for four thousand weapons.
The only thing that keeps Japan from being a major nuclear power is they don't want to be a nuclear power.

China is the real worry right now. They can not be happy that their puppet is running amoke.

What worries me is if they UN tries to blockade North Korea. The Navy is the one US service that isn't being really taxed by the war in Iraq. If Russia and China close their boarders then it could be pretty air tight.

Re:The sad thing is

[metamatic]

The alternative in the last election represents a far-left anti-war contingency.

No, the sad thing is that you believe that. Kerry voted for the Iraq war, go look it up. His position was that he would have gone to war too, he just would have done it better.

There was no anti-war candidate in the last election who had a hope in hell of winning. That's why Kerry lost--he didn't appeal to the left because he kept speaking in favor of the war on terror, and he didn't appeal to the right because he was smeared by Fox News et al as some kind of anti-war nut.

Why Saddam denied access to UNSCOM

[metamatic]

No, he didn't. Saddam went out of his way to frustrate their efforts. How many times were the denied access to sites? How many times were they kicked out?

Saddam denied access to weapons inspectors who he claimed were CIA spies rather than legimitate UN weapons inspectors.

And you know what? He was right. They were CIA spies. Of course, the US media weren't keen to remind people of that minor detail.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[Perl-Pusher]

We are not the solution. North Korea is China's dog. The Chinese leadership have allowed North Korea to survive because they share communist idiology. But China's patience is wearing thin, China has a large ethnic korean population near the border. The Chinese military has quite a few generals who are openly disgusted by the way North Korea treats it's people. This statement openly condemning them is a very positive sign. China needs to find a way to get rid of Kim Ill Jong while keeping North Korea as a country intact. The last thing China needs is hundreds of thousands of impoverished koreans flooding their country. China would also not be happy with the prospect of North Korea united with a prosperous South Korea. That whole democracy thing might give their own people ideas. The US doing anything unilateraly in China's backyard would be foolish. This is a problem that Asian countries needs to fix not the US. If anyone is going to take out pyongyang it needs to be asian. I'm retired Air Force, I spent 3 years of my life in South Korea, they have a great culture and country. I would hate to see any war there.

Soldiers

[Khammurabi]

This is sad- I am interested in the technical aspects of the N. Korea bomb, and I come on slashdot and have to hear not just Bush bashing (you'll have that) but soldier bashing.

Unfortunately most people in today's culture treat the armed forces as an extension of the Presidency, and fail to see a distinction between the two. I lay a large chunk of the blame on the disintegration of Congress over the past century. The legislative branch was originally given the power to decide when and where to declare war for two very good reasons. First, because if one man (the president) had the power to initiate war at a whim, our country would end up in trouble far more often than was prudent. And second, because congress would not authorize a war without first realizing that the people that are being sent to war are the children of the voters that the congress men and women represent.

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.

Re:Soldiers

[mr_matticus]

That's all well and good except for the fact that the military is directed not by Congress, but by the President. Congress funds the military and has the sole right to declare war, but no authority over the operation affairs of the military, power over which is vested exclusively in the executive. The activities of the past several decades have not, strictly speaking, been wars in the legal sense. As such, Congress has been saved (or has absolved itself, depending on your perspective) of the whole Iraq affair. They have been executive-mandated military actions, which Congress has permitted. There is a philosophical argument as to whether Congress should allow the President to direct the military for 3+ years without legislative intervention, but considering Iraq is not a declared war, it is the PRESIDENT who must be held accountable for the actions undertaken to this point.

The intervention (or non-intervention) of Congress in this whole affair is a separate issue from who is responsible for the actions and who has signed the orders and set the agenda. The office of the president has done such.

China needs North Korea

[swb]

China wants (and probably needs) North Korea as a geopolitical pawn in order to score political points, both in the pacific rim and with the west. Kim does something wacky, the Chinese give him a tug on his leash and foreign governments give China concessions.

The North Koreans, despite Kim's nutty behavior, know that China sets the parameters of what the North can get away with and that deviating too far from their desires will either result in allowing the U.S. to use whatever force it deeems necessary (desirable as it allows them to play 'good guy') or, if need be, with their own army, although this would probably end up being a Chinese-backed coup which kept North Korea communist, although they would probably mass a dozen armored divisions on the border to back their play and keep out the refugees.

The North Korean leadership doesn't really care if they're Chinese lapdogs, as long as they get to stay in power and they know that the worst possible outcome is a Chinese takeover -- an American attack would allow them to run to China as a safe harbor.

The reason we'll never see change on the Korean front is that China and Kim both understand the parameters well and both need each other. In many ways, ignorning Kim, despite how crazy and dangerous he is, is the best policy. China won't allow him to go over the edge and by ignoring him, we also don't play into the Chinese protection racket.

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[DavidTC]

The real failure of Saddam was nepotism. If he'd just kept his damn sons in line, or even better entirely out of the government, there would have been a lot less insanity going on in Iraq.

If you look at the history of how the governments of Iraq and the US interacted with each other, it is quite clearly the US that behaved in completely irrational and nonsensical ways. Saddam wasn't crazy when he thought the US would back him in Kuwait, the US merely had flipped its bipolar mind again and decided to defend Kuwait.

I lie. The US behaved in exactly whatever way whatever administration thought would be the best for the long term goals of the US, or at least the long term goals of their wallets. However, what these goals were and how to reach them changed almost randomly, whereas Saddam's goals didn't, except he gave up on some of them because they were clearly unreachable.

Saddam being a lunatic was always just PR, and was basically the only way to square the fact our 'friend' became our 'enemy' without changing at all. If anything, his interaction with the US had a moderating influence on him, where he at least paid lip service to human rights.

The leaders of Iran aren't lunatics, either, for future reference.

Kim Jong Il, OTOH, quite possibly, is a lunatic. He, however, isn't who we have to worry about in N. Korea. We have to worry about the military, who are not lunatics.

What about Foley story?

[inKubus]

I hate to be the one to say it here, but weren't we in the middle of an important investigation of a coverup in Congress yesterday?

Re:Most Important Data: Depth 0km

[RESPAWN]

One thing I don't get here. If NK wanted us to notice them, then why did they only give a 20 minute warning to China? Why not tell us when and where so that we can directly observe the results and come to the conclusion that they so obviously want us to come to? Are they really that afraid that if we knew when and where we would be able to disrupt the test?

Your universe is better

[Tony]

Dude, you are so lucky to be from whatever alternate universe you are from.

In *this* universe, Hans Blix headed up the UN inspections, and came to the conclusion that although Saddam Hussein was stonewalling, he had no WMD program whatsoever. Also, most of the other nations that *weren't* bullied by the US into joining a farcical "coalition of the willing" state they did not believe Iraq had WMDs, or the ability to pursue a WMD program. Then it turned out that *all* the evidence presented by our universe's President Bush turned out to be fabricated, or mis-represented.

In the fabricated area, the most notable was the "Yellow Cake Documents," a set of documents purporting to prove Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium ore from Nigeria. These were proven to be forged documents by the investigations of Joseph Wilson. Even after these documents were proven to be false, President Bush continued to use them as hard evidence.

In the "misrepresented" department, we had the "high strength aluminum tubes," which were claimed to be for suitable only for uranium enrichment. Nuclear scientists pretty much universally agreed these tubes were suitable for no such thing. The conclusion was that these tubes were most likely for medium-range conventional missiles, which Iraq was legally allowed to have.

You are from a better place than ours, my friend-- a place where the government can be trusted, and what is said is the truth, rather than lies and misinformation.

Our troops

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts

90% of soldiers in Iraq believed (2003) we were there to retaliate against Saddam for 9/11.

Same survey, by the way, showed that only a fifth agreed with staying as long as Bush wants to.

Re:Ain't no fortunate one

[bratwiz]

You're right-- its NOT zero. I stand corrected.

Here is the list compiled from various public sources. Of the 535 members of the house and senate, a total of two percent, meaning twelve members, have, or have had, children in Iraq or Afghanistan, and most appear to be Republicans. All but two seem to be officers. Three seem to have volunteered for multiple tours. One was killed in action in Iraq. And only one seems to be currently still serving. (again from what I was able to establish using public sources). There appear to be NO children from the White House senior officials serving (or have served) in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Joseph Biden, D-DE, Son is Officer in Natl Guard not very likely to go to Iraq
Marilyn Musgrave, R-CO, Son is Enlisted in the Navy serving in the Mediterranean
Duncan Hunter, R-CA, Son is Officer in the Marines, served two tours including a few months in Iraq and is now home
Christopher Bond, R-MO, Son is Officer in the Marines who served in Iraq for a few months and is now home
Becky Lourey, D-MN, Son was Officer in the Army served two tours and was killed in Iraq May 2005
Tim Johnson, D-SD, Son is Enlisted in the Army served four wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and is now home
Todd Akin, R-MO, Son is Officer in Marines serving as a Combat Engineer in Iraq and is now home
Ike Skelton, D-MO, two sons both Officers in army and navy deployment unknown (not specified)
Joe Wilson, R-SC, three sons in military, all officers, on in Natl Guard served in Iraq and is now home
John Kline, R-MN, son is Officer in Army serving in Iraq
Charles Taylor, R-NC, son is Officer in Army served in Iraq and is now home
Jim Bunning, R-KY, son is Officer in Air Force served in Afghanistan and is now home

Feel free to mod this 'tard up or down as you see fit-- but those are the facts, the best as I can determine them. I think based on the numbers I can safely assert that our nation's leaders have put this country on a war footing but are not going out on a limb with their own children.

Re:Ain't no fortunate one

[TheGreek]

I think based on the numbers I can safely assert that our nation's leaders have put this country on a war footing but are not going out on a limb with their own children.

Probably because parents can't compel their children to enter the military.

Mod parent -1 wrong please

[msebast]

> The cool thing about nukes is, all of the evidence to its origin is obliterated in the blast.

Why does factually wrong get marked as interesting?
Three other posters have pointed out that parent is wrong.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0319-04.ht m
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/02nuke. html?ex=1296536400&en=341f6ecfda09ee14&ei=5090&par tner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Too late now. The article is stale and in the future it will only be read at +4 and the parent will seem accurate to those who don't know any better...

Re:It is true -- get used to it

[mrchaotica]

Saddam wasn't crazy when he thought the US would back him in Kuwait, the US merely had flipped its bipolar mind again and decided to defend Kuwait.

I lie. The US behaved in exactly whatever way whatever administration thought would be the best for the long term goals of the US, or at least the long term goals of their wallets.

You didn't lie, you repeated yourself! Think about it: with a two-party political system, how could the US government be anything but bi-polar (or, more accurately, afflicted with multiple-personality disorder)?

no need to waste an ICBM

[r00t]

We have bombers.

To bomb Iraq/Afganistan, we sometimes fly an around-the-world trip from the base in the US. The flight is about 46 hours, with one stop for a crew change at an island in the Indian Ocean.

I think we can reach North Korea. :-)