North Koreans test the nuke

[TheAnvil 0]

Looks like the SOBs did it. Going to be interesting to see what the world's response will be.

Thoughts, anyone?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Looks like the SOBs did it. Going to be interesting to see what the world's response will be.

Thoughts, anyone?

It's all Bush's fault. There, I was the first one to say it.

[bch7773 0]

I'm interested to see what japan and south korea will do. I read somewhere that they would consider building nukes if north korea did.... and you know japan could build a nuke within weeks.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

There, I was the first one to say it.

Has anyone mentioned that Clinton got a blow job, yet?

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

I doubt China and Russian will do anything effective in this situation. Having millions of starving brain-washed refugees streaming into your country is a serious consideration for them. After all, that's what diplomacy is all about, right?

We are all engines of karma

[Scoop 0]

Looks like the UN are gonna impose sanctions. Seems only we are allowed nukes. If every country has them then how are we going to beat up on weaker countries anymore!?

I find it comical and disgusting that we feel we have a right to deny another country the means to defend itself in a nuclear stalemate. We want the advantage for ourselves. What a crock of shit.

Good for them I say. <-- just remember I said that and don't bomb my country in the next 80 years or so. Thanks

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I find it comical and disgusting that we feel we have a right to deny another country the means to defend itself in a nuclear stalemate. We want the advantage for ourselves. What a crock of shit

You are now on George's list of evil doers - expect quick an desisive action any day now

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[shropshire 0]

Massive shock and surprise, eh?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andy9o8 2]

Seriously - in the run-up to the US's elections in less than a month, I think this is a golden opportunity for Republican political strategists to turn the debate away from Foley-gate and back to the GOP's strength, which is to play off people's fears on national security and defense issues. Should be interesting to see if the GOP seizes or squanders the opportunity.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Looks like the UN are gonna impose sanctions. Seems only we are allowed nukes. If every country has them then how are we going to beat up on weaker countries anymore!?

I find it comical and disgusting that we feel we have a right to deny another country the means to defend itself in a nuclear stalemate. We want the advantage for ourselves. What a crock of shit.

Good for them I say. <-- just remember I said that and don't bomb my country in the next 80 years or so. Thanks

There are countries that started to pursue nukes and decided against it and/or dismantled their arsenal: South Africa, Kazakhstan and Libya come to mind.

So, by "only we are allowed nukes" you mean: US, Russia, UK, France, Pakistan, India, China, Israel (presumably). Your observation has a couple holes in it.

If China, DPRK's only ally, doesn't want them to have it, I think that says a lot. The problem is that China tends to be too pragmatic in the context of the six-party talks.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[mr2mk1g 10]

Expect to see claims by some that they are now able to nuke us at any moment and that they could bring their missiles to bear within just 45 minutes.

Truth is probably more likely that the bomb they built, (assuming they actually did detonate a nuke), was about the size of a house and will take another few years to weaponize, assuming they can figure it out at all.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

you mean: US, Russia, UK, France, Pakistan, India, China, Israel

You forgot Bob. Bob is this Ozzy bloke who a few years back bought a job lot of military surplus at auction and accidentally ended up with an old nuke.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Looks like the UN are gonna impose sanctions. Seems only we are allowed nukes. If every country has them then how are we going to beat up on weaker countries anymore!?

I find it comical and disgusting that we feel we have a right to deny another country the means to defend itself in a nuclear stalemate. We want the advantage for ourselves. What a crock of shit.

Good for them I say. <-- just remember I said that and don't bomb my country in the next 80 years or so. Thanks

There are countries that started to pursue nukes and decided against it and/or dismantled their arsenal: South Africa, Kazakhstan and Libya come to mind.

So, by "only we are allowed nukes" you mean: US, Russia, UK, France, Pakistan, India, China, Israel (presumably). Your observation has a couple holes in it.

If China, DPRK's only ally, doesn't want them to have it, I think that says a lot. The problem is that China tends to be too pragmatic in the context of the six-party talks.

In 1946 the US passed the McMahon Act, showing clearly that the US didn't even want those countries that provided a lot of the effort of the Manhattan Project (UK, Canada) to have nukes. The US has always had a rather one-sided view of the righteousness of nuke ownership. Should have kept up the patent and charged licensing fees.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Seriously - in the run-up to the US's elections in less than a month, I think this is a golden opportunity for Republican political strategists to turn the debate away from Foley-gate and back to the GOP's strength, which is to play off people's fears on national security and defense issues. Should be interesting to see if the GOP seizes or squanders the opportunity.

You reckon? It happened six years into Bush's watch, with GOP control of both parts of Congress. I'd be wary of making it a partisan issue if I were in the GOP.

And I'll add the obligatory "But Clinton got a BJ".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Scoop 0]

Quote

You forgot Bob. Bob is this Ozzy bloke who a few years back bought a job lot of military surplus at auction and accidentally ended up with an old nuke.

As well as the amount that have gone missing over the years. We can moan about how dangerous a country like that would be with them, but we cant even safely look after our own so who are we to dictate to anyone.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

And I'll add the obligatory "But Clinton got a BJ".

We are all engines of karma

[livendive 8]

We've got them, we've tested them, we've used them against another country. We have no real standing to whine about this.

It sure is a good thing we've focused on the WMDs in Iraq the last few years.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[shropshire 0]

Bulls Eye!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Scoop 0]

Quote

We've got them, we've tested them, we've used them against another country. We have no real standing to whine about this.

It sure is a good thing we've focused on the WMDs in Iraq the last few years.

Amen brother! Its another example of the fucking 'world police' sticking their nose into affairs that don't concern them. Cue another world war, we're nearly there already, we already have international unrest, just need the spark to ignite it.

[nerdgirl 0]

Couple interesting analyses of the seismic signals and the initial calculated strength, by Jeff Lewis (Executive Director of the Managing the Atom Project at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, http://armscontrolwonk.com:

"But even at 4.2, the test was probablya dud.

"Estimating the yield is tricky business, because it depends on the geology of the test site. The South Koreans called the yield half a kiloton (550 tons), which is more or less—a factor of two—consistent with the relationship for tests in that yield range at the Soviet Shagan test site:

Mb = 4.262 + .973LogW

"Where Mb is the magnitude of the body wave, and W is the yield.

"3.58-3.7 gives you a couple hundred tons (not kilotons), which is pretty close in this business unless you’re really math positive. The same equation, given the US estimate of 4.2, yields (pun intended) around a kiloton.

"No one has ever dudded their first test of a simple fission device. North Korean nuclear scientists are now officially the worst ever.

"Of course, I want to see what the US IC says. If/when the test vents, we could have some radionuclide data—maybe in the next 72 hours or so.

"But, from the initial data, I’d say someone with no workable nuclear weapons (Kim Jong Il, I am looking at you) should be crapping his pants right now."

Nota bene: the Russians guestimated a higher seismic value.

Repeat of India's claimed 43kT "thermonuclear" test in 1998?

Doesn't mean that DPRK's nuclear intentions don't scare the beejezus out of me any less!!!!
Don't want to credit them with greater capability than they really have.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,120]

>The same equation, given the US estimate of 4.2, yields (pun intended) around a kiloton.

That's about what I'd expect from the first attempt of a country that's impoverished and is under constant threat of attack (read - they don't have the same time, money or freedom as other countries to work on their weapons.) But unless they're complete idiots, they will learn from their mistakes - and their next try will have a higher yield.

>No one has ever dudded their first test of a simple fission device.

Depends on the type of weapon it was. If it was a gun-type, I agree. If it was an implosion-type, then there have been several prototypes that yielded far, far less than they were designed to yield.

(Keep in mind that an implosion-type weapon uses, at most, a few hundred pounds of high explosive in the lensing charges. Even half a kiloton yield means they achieved prompt criticality and a significant amount of fission before disassembly.)

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

"No one has ever dudded their first test of a simple fission device. North Korean nuclear scientists are now officially the worst ever.

I wouldn't conclude that the bomb was a dud or that the Koreans were the worst ever.

A pocket radio won't play as loud as your home stereo but you can take it anywhere. A nuke yielding only tens or hundreds of tons may only have the explosive power of a semi trailer packed with TNT but can be made the size of a basketball.

Sometimes bigger isn't better.

Take the US Davy Crocket nuclear bazooka projectile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29

51 pound warhead measuring 11 inches in diameter at its widest and 31 inches long
10-20 ton yield (McVeigh's Ryder truck was good for a 2 ton yield)
instantly lethal within a 1000 foot circle, probably lethal within a half mile diameter

What could these do in DC, New York, LA, etc?
What would the strategic value be if they're allegedly already deployed in those locations?

[billvon 3,120]

>Take the US Davy Crocket nuclear bazooka projectile . . .

Well, those sorts of very small weapons are among the most difficult to design, build and maintain, so I wouldn't think they are the primary threats. (Even if they are, the large number of them missing from the USSR are a much bigger threat than a potential partially-working one from NK.)

In the 10-20 ton range, ANFO is a lot easier to deal with. Rent an apartment downtown somewhere, fill it with ANFO, throw some low level nuclear waste in with the explosive just to get everyone nervous, and you have an instant dirty bomb - and it's undetectable, and the components are readily available.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Take the US Davy Crocket nuclear bazooka projectile

Yeah, lets look at that....I vote it one of the Dumbest weapons EVER.

It had a range of three miles, and the fallout would get you.

Dumbest nuke EVER.

[shropshire 0]

Not for a terror point of view.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome