What will be the result if North Korea successfully tests a nuke weapon?

[DealsGapRider]

Will South Korea, Taiwan and Japan develop nuclear weapons, too? How will the US respond?

I'm terrified over the possibility.

Also, I'm reading that the Israelis are planning a strike on the Iran facility if it begins producing weapons-grade nuclear material. The whole world is going to shit.

:kick:

[wuushew]

1. more money for the useless missile shield

the failings of which are outlined in the lastest apc.org newsletter

[paulk]

25. it's almost like the Bush junta

wanted this to happen - 'cause it does give them an excuse for their boondoggle. Also they can ramp up the "war on terra" with the threat of NK selling the stuff to a 3rd party.

Either that or the Bush Cabel is just a bunch of completely incompetent idiots.

[DrWeird]

2. WH will be as embarassed as hell.

Because they won't do shit.

[NNN0LHI]

3. Did all of them nukes in Iraq terrify you too? n/t

[wuushew]

5. Those were imaginary..........these are the real deal

Clinton knew this, that is why the agreed framework was a good diplomatic move on his part.

[NNN0LHI]

9. So what? N. Korea has had nukes since 1989. Whats the big deal now?

I don't get it? What use are they to them. They can't use them for offensive purposes or they would be turned into a grease spot within 30 minutes. Whats that advantage for them to use them in that case? Lots of countries have them. It is no big deal.

Don

[wuushew]

14. The fissile material was not assembled into warheads

that was halted thanks to Clinton in 1994(plutonium based). Their much slower and illegal manufacture of uranium based weapons continued throughout the 1990's.

Thanks to bush they reactivated the plutonium program which is ready to be reconstituted into warheads within a matter of months.

[NNN0LHI]

17. That is not what Poppy Bush's administration and his CIA said in 1989

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0827/p07s01-woap.html

How serious is North Korea's nuclear threat?

<snip>Does North Korea have the bomb now?

Perhaps. The mystery dates back to 1989, when North Korea shut down its nuclear reactor in Yongbyon for 70 days. During this time, the regime removed some of the plant's fuel rods and extracted plutonium through what's called reprocessing. Plutonium is the key element needed to make the type of bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945.

The regime claimed it reprocessed rods only once for a tiny amount of plutonium. But tests by outside inspectors showed several rounds of reprocessing.

"That immediately raised suspicions," says Charles Ferguson, scientist-in-residence at the Washington office of the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies. "Did they separate more than what they were saying?"

Experts can only estimate how much plutonium might have been processed in that month. The consensus among US experts and CIA officials is that it got enough plutonium for one or two bombs.

more

[wuushew]

19. reprocessed fuel doesn't bother me

when said fuel is shaped into a tennis ball sized mass and surrounded by high explosive and placed on a warhead then we will talk. This is nothing new, what is new is they may finally(2003) build and or test an functioning atomic weapon.

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. it's a big deal

If they feel threatened, they'll lob them at Japan or South Korea and MILLIONS will die.

And there aren't LOTS of countries that have them.

Basically it's...

U.S.
Russia
France
Britian
India
Pakastan
and someone else whose name I'm forgetting.

And, unlike Saddam Heussein, Kim Jung Il is REALLY insane.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Then perhaps it may be best not to threaten them anymore?

Has anyone ever thought of that?

Don

[DealsGapRider]

22. Are you comfortable with the fact that...

...over 20 million North Koreans live in that horrific, repressive state, where they are starved, tortured, imprisoned and controlled by a megalomaniacal dictator?

I am obviously not in favor of a military invasion a la Gulf War II, but I think the international community -- not the US acting unilaterally -- has a profound moral obligation to try to bring about an eventual change in the leadership of North Korea.

Are you suggesting that we should just mind our own business and allow those people to remain suffering the living death of life under the world's most monstrous regime?

[wuushew]

23. This is worse than the humanitarian crisis in Congo how?

because the U.S. intervention policy is obviously not based on humanitarian need.

[DealsGapRider]

24. They're both deserving of attention.

Of course, the Korean peninsula is of greater strategic value, but human lives are human lives and we should be assisting both groups of people.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

27. China and Israel

South Africa used to have them, but I understand those were destroyed (although I am not positive about that).

DTH

[HawkerHurricane]

28. You left out China and Isreal

And we are held hostage to the country with the most insane ruler, whichever one that is.

[Brian Sweat]

36. "and someone else whose name I'm forgetting."

China
Israel

The following countries were nuclear capable at one time but have supposedly dismantled or given up all of their weapons.

South Africa
Belarus
Kazakhstan
Ukraine

[DealsGapRider]

16. I think there's a very good reason to believe...

...that S. Korea, Japan and possibly Taiwan would respond by developing nukes of their own, which is troubling. I would rather see fewer nuke-u-lar nations than more.

Also, no one really knows if they have a nuke or not. If they confirm that they have them by detonating one, all our fears about N. Korean becoming the nuclear Wal-Mart and selling them to other rogue nations would be that much more plausible.

I'm pretty sure I would prefer N. Korea to remain free of nukes.

[pbeal]

26. Mini MAD

Defensive act along the lines of impose any more sanctions on us and we cant be responsible for "place terrorist group name here" getting a nuke.

Or

Attack North Korea, and Soul and several large Japanese Cities become craters

[ComerPerro]

4. Bush will provoke them

They will strike, nuke Seattle and maybe San Francisco, possibly LA. Then we will level their country, and Bush will be a hero.

[Character Assassin]

6. Really? With what delivery system?

[wuushew]

7. West coast no way, Japan yes

The longest range missile currently deployed by North Korea is the No Dong missile, with an estimated range of 1,300 kilometers for a payload of about 700 kg. Such a range would allow North Korea to target all of Japan. North Korea is believed to have flight tested the No Dong only once-in May 1993. While Pakistan may have provided North Korea with information from the tests of its Ghauri missile, which is believed to consist largely or entirely of North Korean technology, and North Korea is believed to have used a modified No Dong as the first stage of the Taepo Dong 1 (TD-1) launched in 1998, North Korea nonetheless has limited information about the reliability and accuracy of the missile. The No Dong uses a larger, more powerful engine than the Scud missile. This engine, which is believed to have been developed with foreign assistance, is believed to be used in the longer range missiles North Korea is developing

http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0320A_%20Wright.html

[NNN0LHI]

13. Then let Japan worry about it. If they are not worried, niether am I n/t

[NNN0LHI]

10. UPS maybe? n/t

[ComerPerro]

12. I heard UPS was cracking down on

Nuclear weapons through the mail. So that might be difficult.

[ComerPerro]

11. Suitcase, Rocket,

Smuggled in some guy's ass.
I don't know.
This was hypothetical anyway

[On the Road]

21. Easiest Way: Bring a Ship Into a Major Harbor

[DoveTurnedHawk]

29. Absolutely Right

And yes, it's absolutely terrifying.

DTH

[HawkerHurricane]

38. Easier still:

Smuggle it in a bale of MJ...
IF it is caught at the border, say here in San Diego, you detonate, and destroy South San Diego. If you get past the border, the sky's the limit.

[Aristus]

8. Missle Shield or B*sh will continue to ignore the situation.

Now ask what the Chimp would do if North Korea struck oil!

[LoneStarLiberal]

20. Nukes, Nukes, Everywhere...

The Israelis did it to Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s (pre-emptive bombing of a reactor). With Sharon at the helm driving the whole country to hell I think it's a pretty good bet they will try again. Of course such an action will further destabilize the entire region and probably marginalize Mohammed Khatamai and the reformers while increasing Iran's backing of Hezbollah. That will further destabilize the "roadmap" since Hezbollah will undoubtedly share goodies with Hamas, al-Aqsa, and Islamic Jihad and increase either the intensity or the tempo of attacks against Israel. This will mean Sharon and his AIPAC/End of Days buddies will have all the excuses they will need to comprehensively walk away from the remains of the roadmap.

As far as North Korea goes, them testing a nuke will be like someone insulting the President's penis size on national television during Sweeps Week. I think there is a good possibility they will test a nuke because with so many of our combat forces deployed right now we aren't going to be able to bulk up our forces on the Peninsula to rattle the saber with them.

[Cocoa]

30. we'll secretly blackmail them not to kill us

we won't know the details until much later. Maybe we'll wake up one day 10 years from now to the news that Alaska now belongs to N. Korea according to a deal signed in 2003.

[Robin Hood]

31. Who the hell is Israel to judge who can have WMD or not?

They have nukes, so how can they bomb other countries from trying to protect themselves against Israel?

[DealsGapRider]

32. Well, in fairness to Israel, I don't think Iraq ever had to worry...

...about being attacked by Israel before they started developing nuclear weapons. The only time Israel has attacked anyone outside its own borders was when it was about to be attacked. Conversely, others have invaded Israel again and again and again. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Israelis to have developed nuclear weapons in light of the perennial invasions they've had to deal with. And I for one am awfully glad that they bombed the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981.

I think you make a fair philosophical point -- that nuclear armed countries perhaps should not have the right to tell other countries not to develop nukes -- but the reality of the situation is that it's a good thing that democratically elected governments like the United States are France (both nuclear powers) are working to try to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, especially by rogue regimes.

[NNN0LHI]

33. Oh yea. I have a world atlas here I am looking at right now from 1947

There is no such thing as Israel in this world atlas on the map of the Mideast. Did the people living there at that time just welcome these folks with open arms and tell them to enjoy the new country that was built on top of their country? Who do you think you are kidding here? Yourself maybe?

Don

[ieoeja]

39. And what was there in '47?

In 1947 the Palestinian Mandate was a British construct last ruled independantly by the people living there some time before the Romans conquered it.


Following the destruction of Israel by the Romans around the start of the common era, the area was part of a principality of the Roman/Byzantine Empire.

The Caliphate founded by Mohammad then conquered the land.

When Ali became Imam and Caliph, the first of the second generation Muslims to asend to this position, the Caliphate split into at least two parts. The area you are talking about likely switched hands several times. Early in the 2nd millenia the area was ruled from Cairo. Then Damascus took it away from Cairo. While a part of the Cairo Caliphate, Jews and Christians in the region were treated decently enough for second class citizens. Damascus, however, began persecuting the Jews and Christians. In addition, having secured their southern border, Damascus felt free to increase their attempts at conquering Byzantia. These two factors -- plus somebody's evil, but successful, idea that getting the English and French knights out of Europe was the only way to bring an end to the Hundred Years War -- prompted western Europe to come to the defense of Byzantia and the aid of the Christians in the Holy Lands.

Cairo recaptured the area taken by the Christians from Damascus. Somewhere along the line Turkish mercenaries in Cairo launched a coup against Cairo then went on to conquer the Middle East, even taking Constantinople; something never accomplished by their former Arab employers. The area remained under Turkish rule until the British captured it during World War I.

Britain drew some lines on a map creating the Mandate of Palestine. In the face of Jewish and Arabic uprisings, they drew a new line through the Mandate calling one half Palestine and the other Transjordan. And this how things stood in 1947 as the British began to tire of the continual uprisings by the Jewish people "living there at the time".

[NNN0LHI]

40. The map says Palestine

Perhaps they didn't have room to put all of your historical references on the map. It just says Palestine. That is all.

Don

[ieoeja]

42. And it was bigger then!

But when the British left in '48 they split the Mandate into thirds, the largest portion was given to Egypt, the West Bank to Jordan, and the remainder to the people living in that portion of the Mandate when they were finally granted independance.

Unfortunately, the people in the Mandate broke down into two incompatible parties. One wanted a constitutional democracy. The other party mostly wanted to merge with the Transjordan (a large portion wanted to establish a separate Caliphate under the rule of a popular exiled Muslim cleric; but all agreed: Jews were to be no part of whatever transpired). The former party declared statehood on 14-May-48 calling the newly formed country Israel. On 15-May-48 Egypt, Transjordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Saudia Arabia invaded and were supported by the latter party.

Ultimately, the former party won. The latter party fled the country. Finding no Arab countries willing to take them in, they were forced to live in refugee camps (mostly in Jordan) for the next several decades.

[StandWatie]

41. errr...

56, Lebanon, no one sane would say they were going to be attacked (as a matter of fact in regards to Lebanon it was initiated after two years of upheld cease-fire with the PLO), Israel has in it's very short history adventured all around the middle east and unless you want to say that Iraq was about to attack you just cited yet another example of non-provoked Israeli aggression.

[ieoeja]

46. I guess that depends on the meaning of "attack".

In '82 the nation of Lebanon certainly had no intention of attacking Israel. Syria was (and is) Lebanon's biggest enemy.

On the other hand terrorists operating out of the region continued attacking Israel. Israel invaded in June. The PLO fled Lebanon in August. By November Israel had returned the bulk of the captured territory continuing to hold a ten-mile "security zone" along the border until 2000.

I assume you mean 82, not 56. Egypt was the only Arab country involved in the '56 war.

[jagguy]

34. earthquakes, tsunamis volcanos

and whatever else happens when hell freezes over.

Unless you call success glassing over the country and leaving a mushroom cloud over it.

China has things under control, all is well. Be patient.

[MaverickX]

35. If North Korea tests nukes...

It'll start an arms race in the far east and possibly allow North Korea to do almost anything it wants in that region. NKs leader doesn't care about his nation's welfare obviously if he's willing to risk a U.S. attack just so he can get nukes.

Of course there will be naive people on the Left who think NK having nukes is no more dangerous than the U.S. with nukes but they're very wrong. NK has had the balls to attack its neighbors 3 times so imagine what they'd do with nukes to back them up.

[wuushew]

37. When did NK go from xenophoic to imperial?

They want nukes to ensure no body fucks with them, not so they can build the Greater Korean Co-prosperity sphere.

[DealsGapRider]

43. I think it would be more accurate to say that...

...North Korea's depraved ruling elites want to build nuclear weapons to ensure that they can continue to enslave their people without molestation from the international community.

I'm not being combative with you...I'm just drawing a distinction between nations that build nukes because of a genuine - if misguided - desire to protect their citizens from perceived aggression (Pakistan and India, for example) and those that want to insulate themselves from efforts by the international community to bring about democratic reform in their countries.

[wuushew]

44. I agree

however I believe that long-term reform of despotic countries is economic not military based.

China is a much different country than when Mao died.

The best way to help Cuba is by lifting sanctions.

[DealsGapRider]

48. Agreed on Cuba

nt

[MaverickX]

47. they certainly want...

To take back SK.

[wuushew]

49. The stated goal of many Arab countries is the destruction of Israel

Even the craziest country uses the facualty of military logic.

[slackmaster]

45. They'll have sold their soul to the devil like the rest of us

With possession of any weapon comes the responsibility to store it safely and keep it from being stolen or misused. Nuclear weapons are the WORST thing a poor country like NK could come into possession of.

If they really go through with it, I pity them.