NK nukes?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Undecided, Feb 12, 2005.

1. UndecidedBannedBanned

Messages:
4,731
This is my last full day here on sci, I’m going on vacation but I felt it necessary to leave you with a good thread. North Korea, as I nation I pride myself on knowing quite a bit of is a nation that is rationally manipulating the world community. Why would NK admit it has nuclear weaponry? Simple the 6 way party talks were not going anywhere, the US was being just as obstructionist as NK in negotiations. The US refusal for some reason to negotiate with Pyongyang face to face is not conducive to peace, one reason I suppose the US may not want to talk to NK face to face is to make NK doesn’t fool the US into doing something (which is possible imo because the American’s don’t understand NK’s). The American government is playing a game of which it has no idea of how to play; you may here idiot pundits call the regime in NK “crazy”, “eccentric”, “irrational”, which like most insults points to a fundamental misunderstanding/ ignorance of your enemy. North Korea is anything but crazy, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the COMECON bloc NK was left to its own devices. NK had very little recourse, it did not want to abandon Juche and Socialism but it didn’t have the monetary wherewithal to stand up in the NWO, so if you have a nuclear reactor pumping out nuclear material what are you going to do? North Korea since the early 80’s has been reverse engineering Scud missiles, they are so good at it that they have been extend the range of the basic Scud from around 200 km to around 2000km with the modified Taepo Dong 1 missile. Now that North Korea has the No Dong B series missile that can attack major American targets:

Think twice America.

Like Gwen Stefanie's song "What you waiting for" says:

Last edited: Feb 12, 2005

3. KarmashockThe DoomslayerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
390
What will the failure of the now-broken nuclear non-proliferation agreement with North Korea known as the Agreed Framework cost the United States?

On Oct. 16, 2002 North Korean government officials admitted their country had secretly continued development of nuclear weapons in violation of a 1994 non-proliferation agreement with the United States. Coming from a nation identified, along with Iraq and Iran, as a member of terrorism's Axis of Evil, North Korea's nuclear weapons confession threatens peace in not only the Korean peninsula, but all of Asia. Fearing that immediate U.S. military action might prompt North Korea to attack South Korea, currently home to some 37,000 U.S. troops, the White House expressed hopes that diplomatic efforts would be sufficient to convince the North Koreans to ''comply with its commitments . . . and to eliminate its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable manner." It was, however, well-intentioned "diplomatic efforts" by the Clinton administration that failed in the first place. That piece of 1994 diplomacy was known as the "Agreed Framework."

Lacking its own supplies of traditional energy resources like oil or coal, North Korea turned to nuclear power generation and by the mid-1980s, had at least four nuclear power complexes in operation. However, North Korea's reactors, built with the assistance of China and the Soviet Union, were disclosed to be "graphite-moderated" reactors, a type capable of producing weapons grade plutonium. This fact spurred the interest of U.S. intelligence forces who determined that North Korea's largest nuclear facility at Yongbyon, along with three smaller facilities, were indeed producing plutonium. By 1985 U.S. defense experts estimated that the newly discovered North Korean nuclear program had already generated enough plutonium for two nuclear weapons and was poised to rapidly expand production. In addition, intelligence showed the N. Koreans to be quickly developing their ballistic missile weapons delivery systems.

From 1985 to 1992, N. Korea "bought time" for its nuclear weapons program by entering into a series of international diplomatic agreements under which it promised to "deweaponize" its reactors and halt further production of plutonium. Typical Asian stalling tactics, proven very effective in the Vietnam Peace talks in France, some 30-odd years ago. The bad thing is, the method works. By 1994, however, N. Korea had violated the terms of most of the non-proliferation agreements and simply withdrawn from the rest. By refusing in 1993 to disclose to international arms control agencies how much plutonium it had produced, N. Korea virtually admitted that its nuclear weapons program had continued unchecked. When in June of 1994 the Unites States, S. Korea and several allied nations succeeded in getting the U.N. Security Council to evoke sanctions against them, the N. Koreans declared the sanctions an "act of war" and threatened to turn South Korea into "a sea of fire." Typical of a hardline regime, of any type. Sound similar to the Iranian statements a few days ago? Believing a diplomatic solution still possible, former President Clinton forged an agreement with N. Korean President Kim Il-sung that the North would temporarily halt its nuclear weapons program and return to non-proliferation negotiations in Geneva. The now-violated agreement became known as the "Agreed Framework."

Key components of the Agreed Framework included:

The U.S. and N. Korea would cooperate in fully replacing N. Korea's graphite-moderated reactors with light-water reactors (not capable of plutonium production) by 2003. Graphite-moderated reactors were to be shut down until converted. To offset energy lost due to the powering down of N. Korea's graphite-moderated reactors, the United States agreed to supply N. Korea with up to 500,000 tons of heavy oil for heating and electricity production annually, until all reactors had been converted. N. Korea agreed to return to compliance with all international nuclear non-proliferation agreements and to eventually stabilize, store and dispose of all spent nuclear fuel already produced. Both the U.S. and N. Korea would work to achieve full normalization of political and economic relations. North Korea failed to uphold its end of the Agreed Framework, spectacularly. Not only that, but when we( I.E. - The US government) TOLD the N. Koreans that we knew what was going on, they blamed America for their actions. I guess being a humanitarian means you should be repaid with a suitcase nuke in the heartland. These people still remember vividly the Korean War, and Asian memories are long indeed. To even expect that we can trust the N. Koreans is somewhat akin to playing Russian Roulette with five rounds in the chamber.

In addition to the oil supplied under the 1994 Agreed Framework, the United States, as early as 1997, began sending North Korea food medicine and other forms of humanitarian aid. The contributions of U.S. humanitarian aid to N. Korea began in 1997, in response to an appeal from the United Nations World Food Program. Unprecedented flooding during 1995 and 1996 had wiped out much of N. Korea's farm land, resulting in chronic food production shortfalls and widespread malnutrition. In other words, one of the worst famines in centuries. So we're giving them the supplies to fuel their economy, AND food. Based on a UN suggestion, no less. Oh, and guess what? You think the IRAQ scandal was bad, guess who was giving them military aid during this time? France. U.S. defense analysts, viewing the rapidly declining economic stability and impending starvation in N. Korea as a threat to peace in the region, recommended continuation of the humanitarian aid program. Ironically, defense planners also reasoned that the aid would help "buy" N. Korea's compliance with terms of the Agreed Framework.
By 2000, the United States contribution of food and other forms of humanitarian aid to North Korea had amounted to over $3 BILLION. North Korea's admission of its continued development of nuclear weapons, and the fact that they POSSESS them, in direct violation of the Agreed Framework, may bring an end to the flow of U.S. humanitarian and economic aid .. providing the spark to ignite a new Pan-Asian war led by the Imperialistic Chinese -and- N. Koreans that we are VERY ill-equipped to deal with. Democrats fuck the country yet again, let's hope this situation can be defused.. I know I'm praying for it. 4. Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 5. UndecidedBannedBanned Messages: 4,731 Ok next time instead of doing illegal activity like plagiarism, why don’t you read my post, and not spam it. Secondly since you rely on the brains of others, why do you talk? Thirdly stop spamming. Fourthy, I assume I am off ur ignore list? 6. Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 7. NeildoGoneRegistered Senior Member Messages: 5,306 Where to and how long? China? Yeah, this is something that scares me about our administration. They continue to think that these countries will think like us so we can counter and manipulate a country’s response to our threat, but that just ain’t gonna happen. It pisses me off that they could be so ignorant and underestimate them. I don't feel as if the U.S. has been played. Having more and more countries gain the ability of nuclear weaponry is inevitable. There's not much that can be done to stop it. Throw as many sanctions on a country as you want, that'll only hurt those – mainly citizens -- that the government in question decides to realter funds to maintain their nuclear research. Since other powers gaining nuclear weaponry is inevtitable, the only thing the U.S. has been able to do is slow down that progress as there's not much else that can be done. The U.S. just wants to keep it's dominance in the world and once the time comes when all countries -- or at least those that won’t put up with our crap -- have nuclear weaponry, the U.S. will no longer be able to bully other countries around as they do. Yup, and glad to see someone thinking clearly and actually realizing what would happen. And now the thing that pisses me off is that Los Angeles would be a target -- a city that highly disagrees with the Bush Administration. This is just another friggin example of how the god-damned ignorant and god-loving POS red states dictate and put us in harms way due to their ignorance of voting in the Bush Administration. Hell, give me the nuke and I’ll gladly wipe out all the red states if that means those that shouldn’t be harmed won’t. How much more range do they need on their missles to hit the South instead of the West Coast and Northeast? Heres to them getting that ability in hopes of them choosing the South or Midwest as a target instead. I hope more threats come our way so that we’ll have some revolution and separate the blue from the red states. I’m all for a civil war if it means we get to kick and throw the ignorant into their own new country in the South so that their votes and beliefs will no longer be counted as the votes and beliefs of America as a whole. Quit putting others in harms way you redneck bastards. Ahh, yes, that was very relieving. Glad to get that off my back. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - N 8. Odin'IzmProcrastinatorRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,851 Aww Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! see you soon Undecided... dont leave us compleatly. 9. NeildoGoneRegistered Senior Member Messages: 5,306 How did they (note: I’m not a Demokrap or Republikkkan) screw the country by "failing" North Korean negotiations? Do you honestly believe that NK would have stopped their nuclear research? No matter what was done, it would have failed. Only an idiot would think that a country trying to research the most powerful weaponry available would actually stop. Not to mention that that’s the only real technological research that can actually put a stop to U.S. aggression. To think that NK, or anyone for that matter, would stop their nuclear research is like leaving a person in the desert all alone with a briefcase filled with a million dollars and only a sign that says "Do Not Take". Not even the U.S., the one who wants others to stop their nuclear research, has stopped it’s own. We ourselves are always developing better nuclear capabilities. Heck, and it’s not like nukes are all that bad compared to conventianal bombs as we have bombs that are just as powerful and destructive, not to mention more gruesome than nukes. The only real thing to fear from a nuke is the EMP pulse that comes with it as these are the days where electronics run our lives. The U.S. doesn’t care about right or wrong, we just care about dominance. Like that one picture in another thread said “A Nuclear Iran Threatens Our Ability to Invade Them”. That’s the only thing that matters. We want to keep our technological superiority and that’s it. These lesser countries can go ahead and commit attrocities against their own people and we won’t care, but if they have the ability to do harm to us, that’s the only time it’ll matter. By keeping other’s from being able to upgrade to more powerful techonology, it achieves the same results of maintaining our technological superiority except when we also don’t have those same “techonlogical peace talk” limitations applied to ourselves, that just helps us even more! - N 10. Stokes PennwaltNuke them from orbit.Registered Senior Member Messages: 1,503 That graphic sucks. The radii do not originate in Korea, I can tell just by extrapolating them with my eyeball. Given the shoddy level of the artwork, it looks like it's a creation of one of the FAS-fansites like globalsecurity.org or something. The circles aren't even symmetrical or concentric. I could do a better job with five minutes in MSPaint. Jesus. Anyway, the ranges are all wrong. Even with an Arctic circle overflight, you need at least 8,000km of range to hit the CONUS. 5,000 will get you barely into Alaska. That inner 2700km radius extends from a point of origin in Yukon or something. And the 4,000 km circumference is barely 500km outside of the 2700km one. If they're intended to represent ranges from the same point of origin, they are patently false. Here is something better. This is from the UK Ministry of Defence: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Note the concentricity of the ranges, and the uniformity of the circumferences. As you can see, the ranges involved are much more. Given the corrected distance envelopes, they still have a long way to go before they can declare themselves a bona fide ICBM-capable power with the ability to threaten the CONUS. Edit: As for the rest of your post, good work. Enjoy your vacation. 11. jennyRaterLuck B me 2niteRegistered Senior Member Messages: 401 what must thatve felt like, to the govt, there or the people? Itd be like Britain or smaler democratic country being left alone in a communist world... horrible. But we dont know if they can build a nuke which will fit in a rocket like that. The 1st atombombs were a lot bulkier surely + hard to deliver - perhaps if the Koreans wnated to nuke San francisco theyd have to sensd a submarine ona suicide run into the harbor, carrying the bomb. since negotiations with the Bush team is truly a waste of time I would intensify my nuclear capabilities, something North Korea has done. Now the question that some idiot pundits are saying is “why would NK attack us if we will totally destroy them?” I think North Korea realizes it would be wiped off the face of the Earth, and it’s a price worth paying to them if it means that Los Angeles is destroyed, If they feel theyve got nothing left to lose + old IlJong decides to kick off before his country goes under, might he not start with conventonal war before using nukes? The NK aremy and airforce could cause a lot of trouble for SK, for Japan, even Russia if they were told to just attck wherever America has friends. Theyve got a navy who could realy mess up shipping in the far east - plus China might help them, who knows.. ? Perhpas the US or Russia wouldnt atom bomb NK unless they got hit the same way 1st. Stokes' map is much better yes. 12. Odin'IzmProcrastinatorRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,851 Russia and china have a 200 years of peace pact .. I think it was made in 2001 cant remember, so if war erupted I think it would move either east or south. although there are few military posts in that area of russia.. I think if north korea decided to expand north they would quickly occupy a majour section of siberia before russia managed to mobilise and get there. Even then with the training of NK's soliders I suspect it would be a very long war. 13. KarmashockThe DoomslayerRegistered Senior Member Messages: 390 By being all carrot and no stick. It is the flaw of most leftists at this point... I don't know why they trust communist dictators... I'm guessing brain damage. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 14. Odin'IzmProcrastinatorRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,851 Kim ia just a dictator he isnt even a real communist. his way is closer to stalinist , so lets call NK Kimist. 15. Repo ManValued Senior Member Messages: 4,955 16. UndecidedBannedBanned Messages: 4,731 But we dont know if they can build a nuke which will fit in a rocket like that. According to the CIA she (NK) has verified her nuclear designs: As to the warhead…chances are she does have them since her and Pakistan have been working together to get them, and Iran as well. if the Koreans wnated to nuke San francisco theyd have to sensd a submarine ona suicide run into the harbor, carrying the bomb. Actually put it in a container, and then blow it up at the port. NK I believe could very well do that, or according to the DoD NK has been supposedly testing with ships being able to launch a scud or some type of missile, just a normal ship. The NK aremy and airforce could cause a lot of trouble for SK, for Japan, even Russia if they were told to just attck wherever America has friends. The NK AF would not cause much problems for anyone, NK wouldn’t even dare invade Russia and she has no beef with Russia. NK’s only real strength lies in its artillery, missiles, and massive army. Otherwise she doesn’t stand a chance. Theyve got a navy who could realy mess up shipping in the far east - plus China might help them, who knows.. ? No they can’t, the best they can do is probably blockade some South Korea ports. Also instead of Russia, China would be more likely then another country to do something to NK to preserve the regime in NK, or to avoid having SK reach the Yalu. I think if north korea decided to expand north they would quickly occupy a majour section of siberia before russia managed to mobilise and get there. Even then with the training of NK's soliders I suspect it would be a very long war/i] Actually that’s completely false, Far Eastern Russia is one of the most militarized regions in the world. 17. KarmashockThe DoomslayerRegistered Senior Member Messages: 390 If you like, communism has been so tarnished in everyone's mind that there is nothing left to protect. Communism is dead. ====================================== As to their nukes... I doubt they have multi warhead technology... we've had effective ABM protection against single warhead ICBMs since the 70s. Here is a multi warhead ICBM... The MX Peacekeeper. between 8 and 10 warheads... I think... its something like that... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thermal tiles break off after it leaves the silo... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! here are the warhead on re-entry... they can land in all sorts of programmable patterns... The main idea is that each ICBM breaks into about 10 projectiles that have to be individually destroyed. This is how we nullified the ABM shield around Moscow. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We have Peacekeeper silos all over the planet. Nuclear war with the US upon that basis alone is idiotic. We can shoot down single warhead ICBMs and have had that capability for more then 30 years. Our current ABM research is into how to stop multi warhead varients. 18. UndecidedBannedBanned Messages: 4,731 we've had effective ABM protection against single warhead ICBMs since the 70s. Where? In fantasy land? The United States has no defence against ballistic warheads. We can shoot down single warhead ICBMs and have had that capability for more then 30 years. Our current ABM research is into how to stop multi warhead varients. Are you on crack? I am sure Stokes can rape this for me while I am gone. 19. Odin'IzmProcrastinatorRegistered Senior Member Messages: 1,851 Karma thats a pritty photograph .... However, the NMD system being fielded to counter the SS-25, and any similar or less sophisticated threats that may emerge from China, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere, will probably have cumulative costs between$800 billion and \$1.2 trillion by the time it reaches completion in 2015. <<< 2015 thats in 10 years pal not 30 years ago.
If thats not enough, the Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M. The Topol-M has high-speed solid-fuel boosters that rapidly lift the missile into the atmosphere, making boost-phase interception impossible unless one is located practically next door to the launcher. The SS-27 has been hardened against laser weapons and has a highly maneuverable post-boost vehicle that can defeat any intercept capability as it dispenses up to three warheads and four sophisticated decoys.
To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch. And even if a viable defense could be mustered, by that time the Russians may have fielded an even more sophisticated missile, remaining one step ahead of any US countermeasures. The US cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a missile-defense system that will never achieve the level of defense envisioned. The Bush administration's embrace of technology, and rejection of diplomacy, when it comes to arms control has failed.
If America continues down the current path of trying to field a viable missile-defense system, significant cuts will need to be made in other areas of the defense budget, or funds reallocated from other nonmilitary spending programs. With America already engaged in a costly war in Iraq, and with the possibility of additional conflict with Iran, Syria, or North Korea looming on the horizon, funding a missile-defense system that not only does not work as designed, but even if it did, would not be capable of defending America from threats such as the Topol-M missile, makes no sense.
The Bush administration would do well to reconsider its commitment to a national missile-defense system, and instead reengage in the kind of treaty-based diplomacy that in the past produced arms control results that were both real and lasting. This would not only save billions, it would make America, and the world, a safer place

And lets face it if nuclear war startseveryone will die anyway.. there will be no victor

Here is a funny skit of the american AMD system in construction.. seriously read it tis funny: http://www.gdm93.dial.pipex.com/missile.htm

Last edited: Feb 13, 2005
20. Stokes PennwaltNuke them from orbit.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,503
They surely don't have MIRV's. However, we have no defense against an ICBM strike. We had Safeguard, back in 1973, which was a two-tiered net that protected our ICBM silos around Grand Forks and Minot AFB in the Dakotas. Safeguard was operational for all of one day. Since then, there's been a lot of talk about building one, but nothing's ever happened. Right now they're rolling out the NMD but in spite of claims made by the Bush administration, nobody realistically expects NMD to be operational until 2007 at the earliest.
No and no. I explained the former above. For the latter, the current NMD incarnation is designed to stop crude, unitary (single warhead) missiles launched in strikes of one or two at a time. The only thing we have going for stopping a MIRV strike are boost phase defenses which catch the missile before it leaves the atmosphere, while it is still slow moving, and carrying all of its warheads. The quantities of the NMD interceptors we are deploying (20, total, perhaps more in the future) are paltry, and could never contend with a huge MIRV'd ICBM like the SS-18 (the Peacekeeper's Russian equivalent).

Anyway, there's no reason to pursue a defense against MIRV's, really. Everybody who has them is sane enough to not use them, and anybody who might use them won't have them for a while, or maybe (hopefully) never.

21. jennyRaterLuck B me 2niteRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
401
Sounds like NK isnt as fearsom asthe Bush administraton makes out - bit of a paper lion really? its a pity that, to keep support + patriotism going strong at home, we need an evil enemy to be scared of... if the Kim regime falls, who wil be the new #1 bad guy in the world acording to the White house?

could be we are more likely to be nuked by 1 of our own icbm's launched by computer eror...

22. Odin'IzmProcrastinatorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,851
Undecided , the military bases in vladivostok and around it including the radio systems and the navy are rusting and falling apart its not at all up to spec to hold back an invasion.

23. jennyRaterLuck B me 2niteRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
401
Thats how it wouldve been in the Cold war, coz both sides had so many nukes.. if it jsut a limitd war with a country like NK, who cant have morethan a few atom bombs, then I think you can win unless a biger power takes their side. after all, lots of nukes were set off as tests in the 50s + 60s befoe it was outlawd above ground.. they didnt ruin the planet or make everyone mutants. A few wellplaced nukes + North Korea will be beaten - theyd have to start it though.