Slashdot Mirror
North Korea Conducts Third Nuclear Test
First time accepted submitter WolfeCanada writes "North Korea apparently conducted a widely anticipated nuclear test Tuesday, strongly indicated by an 'explosion-like' earthquake that monitoring agencies around the globe said appeared to be unnatural." North Korea has confirmed the test, according to the Washington Post, in an article that touches on its political context. Among other things, the Post notes that this "is the first under new North Korean leader Kim Jong Eun and the clearest sign that the third-generation leader, like his father and grandfather, prefers to confront the United States and its allies rather than make peace with them."
Adds reader eldavojohn "KCNA news claims that the test was safe and cited the threat of the U.S. for conducting the test, saying 'The test was carried out as part of practical measure of counteraction to defend the country's security and sovereignty in the face of the ferocious hostile act of the U.S. which wantonly violated the DPRK's legitimate right to launch satellite for peaceful purposes.' RT is posting a feed of the many condemnations from governments and organizations."
By which you mean inviting in our economic hit men and accepting loans?
They just demonstrated the intended payload of that "satellite".
But China will never abandon North Korea, unless NK attacks China directly. They'll continue to support them in any way possible, within reason, to ensure the communist stronghold on the peninsula. Further, the entire world will continue to provide support to NK via humanitarian aid and appeasement, as long as the North signs a piece of paper that says they won't do anything. We've been through this for decades, with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.
"...wantonly violated the DPRK's legitimate right to launch satellite for peaceful purposes"
I'm sorry, I must have missed where we were shooting down their satellites. What the hell are they talking about?
The scariest part about this whole test scenario is that while the induced earthquake was only a 4.9 on the Richter Scale (the previous was 4.5), that means the new bomb has released four times the energy of the last bomb. Further, they're focusing on miniaturization of the physics package, which allows them to mount the warhead on a missile. If they're ever able to engineer (or buy) a working delivery mechanism, South Korea, Japan, and even US interests, are at risk of nuclear escalation and bombardment.
I know South Korea is actively pursuing upgrading their AEGIS Destroyers with the US Navy's Ballistic Missile Defense technology, and Japan already has it, but this is a really scary scenario.
they hardly have any infrastructure or resources and somehow manage to both demand foreign aid (and have it delivered) and stay relevant on a global stage (well above where they should be based on peaceful accomplishments). Well played DPRK, my hat is off to you!
What the article is not able to articulate is the "wink wink nudge nudge" the Chinese Foreign Minister was gesturing at the NK Ambassador.
Make no mistake at all. China is 100% all for NK having nuclear weapons.
Nerds live side-by-side persons of merely average intelligence and are equally affected by evil governmental regimes and happenstance. We don't all write code for a living or live in our mother's basement. Hell, I think two or three of us even have women. Sit back, pipe down, and let the number of comments sort this out.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
We've been through this for decades, with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.
The leaders of two of these countries (Iraq and Libya) gave up their WMDs. They are both now dead. If we want the leaders of rogue nations to give up their nukes, maybe should stop killing them when they do.
If we want the leaders of rogue nations to give up their nukes, maybe should stop killing them when they do.
We didn't kill Qaddafi, the Libyan rebels did, and that was after he had threatened to exterminate them like "cockroaches" (his word, not mine). I'm not happy with the way it ended - I would have preferred a trip to The Hague and a small jail cell for the rest of his life - but his death was not a foregone conclusion, and it was certainly not precipitated by his abandonment of WMDs. All of these despots have sufficient resources and wealth to escape and live happy, indulgent lives elsewhere; Qaddafi was simply too arrogant and bloodthirsty to recognize that he couldn't hold on to power indefinitely.
They are not getting killed because they had WMDs, they are getting killed because they were fuckheads. They had WMDs also because they were fuckheads.
If they want to stop getting killed, perhaps they should stop being fuckheads?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
And that gets to the heart of the issue.. countries with nukes have a lot less to fear from the 1st world then countries without them. While not quite MAD, it changes the whole political equation. I know if I was running a nation that was on America's shit list, getting a viable nuclear weapon would be pretty high in my priority queue. If you can not actually hurt the US, US foreign policy is pretty nasty... even when international rules should curtail the US's behavior, we usually ignore them unless they other country has some kind of bargaining chip or power to push back.
Which is why the US is so adimiment about countries it doesn't like not having nukes.. not because there is any belief that rouge nations will go around attacking people, but because (naturally) we want to be in as strong of a position as possible and others as weak as possible, so anything that means we can not unilaterally push them around is something we want to prevent.
Because certainly he must realize the severity of retaliation that would occur if he were to actually make an aggressive move against another nation.
And given that... is it really so naive to think that they really just wanted to launch peaceful satellites? Although I know that the recent nuclear testing doesn't exactly help their case in that regard, it's easily conceivable that it is naught more than posturing... an attempt (not necessarily an effective one) to try to intimidate other countries into letting them practice what they wanted to do.
Like I said... if their underlying intent were genuinely to launch an ICBM against another country, I'm pretty sure that the nation's leader realizes that there won't be a nation left for him to lead afterwards. Doesn't it then follow that, by course of the instinct for one's own survival, that he might, just might, actually be telling the truth?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
And, IIRC, East Germany was about 1/4 the size of Germnay. North Korea is 1/3.
From what I have read, the reintegration of N. Korea is going to be a bigger deal then East Germany.
There is still no evidence that Saddam gave up his chemical weapons. Just because they weren't found in Iraq, doesn't mean they were destroyed. It's very likely that they were transferred to another insane state. Iran comes to mind immediately. Besides, he had the opportunity, actually, many opportunities, in the lead-up to the invasion, to present evidence that his weapons had been destroyed, allow independent investigators to inspect his facilities, and make nice with the world at large. He, instead, chose to posture and puff his chest out in defiance.
Anything that happened to Saddam was his own doing.
And, IIRC, East Germany was about 1/4 the size of Germany. North Korea is 1/3.
East Germany was about 108000 km2 and West Germany was about 248000 km2. Population in the east was around 16 million and in the west it was around 63 million. In the east, per capita GDP was about half what it was in the west.
North Korea is about 128000 km2 and South Korea is about 100000 km2. Population in the north is about 24 million. Population in the south is about 50 million. In the north, per capita GDP is less that a tenth of what it is in the south.
From what I have read, the reintegration of N. Korea is going to be a bigger deal then East Germany.
It certainly seems that way.
There is still no evidence that Saddam gave up his chemical weapons. Just because they weren't found in Iraq, doesn't mean they were destroyed. It's very likely that they were transferred to another insane state. Iran comes to mind immediately. Besides, he had the opportunity, actually, many opportunities, in the lead-up to the invasion, to present evidence that his weapons had been destroyed, allow independent investigators to inspect his facilities, and make nice with the world at large. He, instead, chose to posture and puff his chest out in defiance.
Anything that happened to Saddam was his own doing.
Spoken like someone that does not understand mid-east politics. Of course Iraq had chemical weapons at some point. Before 1990 Iraq had chemical weapons with the intent to USE them on Iran. They were at war for 8 years. Chemical weapons were used multiple times. Iran has the capability of making their own chemical weapons. There are many far worse groups that could have this stuff.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
It's very likely that they were transferred to another insane state. Iran comes to mind immediately.
Then you are ignorant of the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s. That was the reason for Gadaffi developing chemical weapons in the first place. To use agaist Iran. If he still had them in the period before GWII, the very last place he'd have sent them would be Iran.
The mostly likely thing he would have done is to bury them in the desert. That's what he did with his air force fighters after all. But given that they still haven't been found, the chance of them still existing at the time of GWII are negligible.
For sure he gave a great big "Fuck you" to the US and their allies. But that is neither morally justified, nor a rational reason for a country to be invaded. Neither NK, Cuba, nor any of the countries of Africa that say "fuck you" to America get invaded. Iraq was invaded as a US power play in the oil states of the middle east. No more and no less.
Why would Saddam give anything to Iran? Part of the reason the intelligence community was convinced that he has weapons was because Saddam was a master of denial and deception. Ever since the Iran-Iraq war Saddam has been trying to convince his neighbors that he had WMDs while simultaneously trying to convince the west that he had none. One is difficult to do, both is nearly impossible.
How much TNT did it take to simulate this nuclear test?
What is the evidence that North Korea set off a nuclear bomb? There was an earthquake, and we theorize it was caused by an explosion that was "6 to 7 kilotons." That is entirely feasible to do with conventional explosives. There have been accidents with coal trains and ships colliding that have produced explosions equivalent to over 2 kilotons. Doesn't this seem more likely? Or is there some evidence that this really was nuclear?
How is it that Iran can't get enough centrifuges to make a nuclear bomb, but North Korea can? Iran is much more advanced as far as I know. (Please reply and enlighten me if I am wrong here). If they really do have a nuclear weapon in NK, it seems most likely that they bought old soviet surplus or got it from China.
Riiight. The US has been invading or otherwise compromising countries' sovereignty right and left for the last forty years. Iraq and Afghanistan are just two big, recent, ongoing examples.
Regardless of whether you think it's justified or not (and some are pretty hard to justify, such as Iran in the 70s), the OP is spot on - if you're a country the US doesn't like your choice is pretty much between developing nukes and doing whatever the US tells you to.
They are not getting killed because they had WMDs, they are getting killed because they were fuckheads. They had WMDs also because they were fuckheads.
If they want to stop getting killed, perhaps they should stop being fuckheads?
Actually, since we are usually responsible for putting them in power and selling them the weapons, I think the real fuckheads are closer to home.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Yes, Saddam was posturing and puffing his chest out. But you're missing something - he was posturing to IRAN. He was worried about appearing weak and vulnerable to IRAN. At the same time he was publicly posturing, he was attempting to use back channels to assuage the US. Where Saddam miscalculated was that Bush & Co. wasn't actually interested in whether Saddam had WMDs, but rather just wanted an excuse to invade and were willing to lie to themselves and the country in order to get that justification.
The US wasn't Saddam's worst enemy. Iran was Saddam's worst enemy. The notion that Saddam was in bed with Iran is completely laughable.
Yeah that's effective, Saddam Hussein had the 7th largest army in the world prior to the Gulf War, it caused 148 deaths while suffering 30,000 over a month (100 hours on the ground). No conventional army is big enough to cause the US meaningful losses (especially as drone tech improves). It's WMD or bust.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.