North Korea Nuclear Test Successful

[Blaze]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061009/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear

Word.   

[Chavo]

wouldn't be the first time they've bluffed

[CrAz3D]

cool...maybe we can invade them next.

[MyndFyre]

cool...maybe we can invade them next.

Invasion would DEFINITELY be the wrong thing.  Malnourished and under-supplied as they are, they've got a million standing troops. 

No, bombing will be exceptionally effective.  And they likely can't retaliate.

[leet_muffin]

wouldn't be the first time they've bluffed

Well, there was a ~4.1 earthquake type rumble (on some sort of altered frequancy from a normal earthquake) that epicentered right about where they've been doing that shit.

As for the more policital end of things, I don't see why any nation hasn't taken any effective (I do not see sanctions as effective. At all.) actions reguarding North Korea yet. It seems like... Japan, Russia, South Korea, might be... slightly concerned?

Some folks say "WHY THIS WAR AND NOT IRAQ?!" Well, it's quite simple. Iraq doesn't have any nukes. Plus, if we're planning on fighting this in the method we have fought Iraq, I don't support it, at all. Bomb them, k, done. Foot invasion, uh, no. While we're at it, we can drop a few on the nuclear development sites in Iran, since there's no real reason for them to be there.

[skip]

wouldn't be the first time they've bluffed

Well, there was a ~4.1 earthquake type rumble (on some sort of altered frequancy from a normal earthquake) that epicentered right about where they've been doing that shit.

As for the more policital end of things, I don't see why any nation hasn't taken any effective (I do not see sanctions as effective. At all.) actions reguarding North Korea yet. It seems like... Japan, Russia, South Korea, might be... slightly concerned?

Some folks say "WHY THIS WAR AND NOT IRAQ?!" Well, it's quite simple. Iraq doesn't have any nukes. Plus, if we're planning on fighting this in the method we have fought Iraq, I don't support it, at all. Bomb them, k, done. Foot invasion, uh, no. While we're at it, we can drop a few on the nuclear development sites in Iran, since there's no real reason for them to be there.

Bombing them, IMO, wouldn't be the smartest thing either. Bombing North Korea would result in millions of refugees fleeing across to China & South Korea and, thus, destabilization in the region. Additionally, IIRC, the DPRK has stated that an attack by the U.S. would result in an attack against South Korea & Japan; I'm assuming with nuclear bombs.

I don't think this will end "nicely."

[iago]

Some folks say "WHY THIS WAR AND NOT IRAQ?!" Well, it's quite simple. Iraq doesn't have any nukes. Plus, if we're planning on fighting this in the method we have fought Iraq, I don't support it, at all. Bomb them, k, done. Foot invasion, uh, no. While we're at it, we can drop a few on the nuclear development sites in Iran, since there's no real reason for them to be there.

When going into Iraq, wasn't it widely believed (by the US, anyways) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? 

[Newby]

Trust made a flash a while ago that had all these Democrats also stating they thought there were WMDs in Iraq. Or at the very least, that we needed to remove Saddam from power.

I wish he had it. It was really good.

[Sidoh]

My physics professor touched on this for a few minutes at the end of class.  He said that no one was totally sure that they had succeeded in detonating a nuclear fission bomb.  He said the detected disturbances could have easily been the charges used to cause the implosion that initiates the fission reaction.  There are several spy planes attempting to collect air samples containing the nuclear products of the reaction (Cs and some other element.  they were suspected to have used plutonium), which was supposed to take about a week.

[leet_muffin]

Some folks say "WHY THIS WAR AND NOT IRAQ?!" Well, it's quite simple. Iraq doesn't have any nukes. Plus, if we're planning on fighting this in the method we have fought Iraq, I don't support it, at all. Bomb them, k, done. Foot invasion, uh, no. While we're at it, we can drop a few on the nuclear development sites in Iran, since there's no real reason for them to be there.

When going into Iraq, wasn't it widely believed (by the US, anyways) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? 

Yep, While nukes are a weapon of mass destruction, a weapon of mass destruction is not necessarily a nuke.

Bombing them, IMO, wouldn't be the smartest thing either. Bombing North Korea would result in millions of refugees fleeing across to China & South Korea and, thus, destabilization in the region. Additionally, IIRC, the DPRK has stated that an attack by the U.S. would result in an attack against South Korea & Japan; I'm assuming with nuclear bombs.

I don't think this will end "nicely."

North Korea has nukes and feels that sanctions are a hostile act. They feel that by issuing sanctions, America will be declaring war. So... as long as we're doing anything, why don't we drop bombs? What if there are no survivers to flee into bordering nations?

@Sidoh: They announced they had nukes. Why would they say they had nukes if they didn't? It just seems like too much to simply be a coincidence or bluff....

[MyndFyre]

@Sidoh: They announced they had nukes. Why would they say they had nukes if they didn't? It just seems like too much to simply be a coincidence or bluff....

Well, why would anyone say that they have nukes when they don't?  Detente.  Above all else, the leaders of the entire world know that to enter into a nuclear war would be devastating globally.

However, because of that knowledge, other powers are a LOT more willing to bend to your will if you actually have nukes.  I wouldn't put it past Kim to accumulate that much power in bombs if necessary (non-nuclear even) in order to make it appear that they have it.

My understanding is that the recorded seismic event indicates an explosion substantially smaller than what we dropped on Hiroshima.  If that's the case, there's still the chance that they're bluffing, or that their nuclear fuel is not being efficiently used.

[skip]

Some folks say "WHY THIS WAR AND NOT IRAQ?!" Well, it's quite simple. Iraq doesn't have any nukes. Plus, if we're planning on fighting this in the method we have fought Iraq, I don't support it, at all. Bomb them, k, done. Foot invasion, uh, no. While we're at it, we can drop a few on the nuclear development sites in Iran, since there's no real reason for them to be there.

When going into Iraq, wasn't it widely believed (by the US, anyways) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? 

Yep, While nukes are a weapon of mass destruction, a weapon of mass destruction is not necessarily a nuke.

Bombing them, IMO, wouldn't be the smartest thing either. Bombing North Korea would result in millions of refugees fleeing across to China & South Korea and, thus, destabilization in the region. Additionally, IIRC, the DPRK has stated that an attack by the U.S. would result in an attack against South Korea & Japan; I'm assuming with nuclear bombs.

I don't think this will end "nicely."

North Korea has nukes and feels that sanctions are a hostile act. They feel that by issuing sanctions, America will be declaring war. So... as long as we're doing anything, why don't we drop bombs? What if there are no survivers to flee into bordering nations?

@Sidoh: They announced they had nukes. Why would they say they had nukes if they didn't? It just seems like too much to simply be a coincidence or bluff....

Because, like I said previously, a pre-emptive attack against NK will result in NK attacking South Korea & Japan.
What do you mean by "no survivors?" Are you saying that all 22.8 million will die from bombs dropped by the U.S.?

The U.N. has already issued sanctions earlier during the year after the DPRK tested those missiles (despite those sanctions not being effective, they are still sanctions). The U.S., now, is pushing for more strict sanctions. The U.S. wants inspection of all shipments that enter North Korea and anything that is related to nukes they will prevent from entering the country.

[/quote]

[Armin]

I actually believe this will end nicely, very soon. China and a few other large countries in the area are strongly against this, and I'm guessing will probably blockade all trade to North Korea unless they choose to get rid of their nuclear weapons.

[iago]

Yep, While nukes are a weapon of mass destruction, a weapon of mass destruction is not necessarily a nuke.

Yeah, but weapons of mass destruction tend to cause... .mass destruction, whatever that means.  If the US was afraid of mass destruction, they wouldn't have attacked Iraq. 

[Joe]

Well, why would anyone say that they have nukes when they don't?

other powers are a LOT more willing to bend to your will if you actually have nukes.