Ellington

Last night, North Korea tested a 5-15 kiloton nuclear weapon in an underground test, according to the government there.

Seismometers at the U.S. Geological Service reportedly detected tremors with an intensity of 4.2 on the Richter scale, which experts say is consistent with a small underground test. The test came two days after the U.N. Security Council warned North Korea of "severe consequences" if it went through with a test.

Meanwhile, President George W. Bush called the test a "provocative act" and seemed to draw a new line in the sand. Bush said he "remains committed to diplomacy," but that any transfer by North Korea of nuclear or nuclear-related missile technology to "any state or non-state actor" would "be considered a grave threat to the United States."

Previous Comments

ID

89355

Comment

Now we have eight known countries with nuclear weapons. America continues to be the only country that has used it and let's hope like heck that it stays that way. The very thought of a nuclear war is spell binding!

Author

justjess

Date

2006-10-09T14:40:38-06:00

ID

89356

Comment

Deployment is their big issue. I don't think they've got a ICBM capibable of reaching across the pacific at the US. I do think we could still reach out and give 'em the old Thermonuclear Massage if pressed.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-10-09T21:26:56-06:00

ID

89357

Comment

From the little I know about this, it sounds like one thing that might happens is that Japan wil make a push to go nuclear, as a deterrent. So I wonder what that might do? Even the suggestion of Japan going nuclear might motivate China to be more proactive about North Korea. Or, it might just make things worse -- I dunno. Anyway, I guess we need to reinstitute the "duck and cover" drills in school again.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-10-09T21:30:23-06:00

ID

89358

Comment

It is important to note that the concept of mutually assured destruction still applies to North Korea, even more so. North Korea will not make a "pre-emptive" strike on the U.S. because such a strike would be limited to Hawaii and the west coast and would involve no more than a few, very small warheads. They do not have the H-bomb, which is literally thousands of times more powerful. North Korea was desperate to get the bomb simply because it makes a conventional strike against North Korea intolerably dangerous. What is more worrisome is that now Japan will be greatly tempted to acquire nuclear weapons, which it could accomplish in very little time. I fear that it is only a matter of time before a nuclear conflict breaks out either in East Asia or the subcontinent. This will not be a global apocalypse, but it will mean hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dead.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-10-09T21:36:15-06:00

ID

89359

Comment

Japan coud go nuclear fast, China is, Russia is, India is, Pakistan is... Far as we know, North Korea only had one.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-10-09T21:50:41-06:00

ID

89360

Comment

Brian writes: It is important to note that the concept of mutually assured destruction still applies to North Korea, even more so. Agreed, but Kim Jong-il has shown little concern in the past for the welfare of his people. I went into this a few months back in my North Korea profile, but the gist of it is that the Supreme Leader happily let 3.5 million North Koreans die during the 1990s rather than submit to treaties. One haunting statistic I ran across was that an average North Korean seven-year-old is eight inches shorter than a South Korean seven-year-old, due to widespread malnutrition. The upper class (haeksim kyechung) is provided for, but everyone else pretty much gets screwed. The fact that North Korea is feeding its people based on foreign grain donations--and is essentially saying "No thank you" with this nuclear weapon test--speaks volumes about the leadership's concerns regarding casualties. Basically, Kim Jong-il is so batshit crazy that he makes Frank Melton look like Adlai Stevenson. There is NO predicting what he will do, and he appears to have NO concern for the long-term well being of his people. He seems to fully believe that he is a divine being (buying into the religion taught in the country's 450,000 indoctrination centers), which is what he has been taught since he was a child, and so it is best to think of him more as a religious fanatic than as a communist ideologue. North Korea will not make a "pre-emptive" strike on the U.S. because such a strike would be limited to Hawaii and the west coast and would involve no more than a few, very small warheads. I think they're years away from having weaponry that could stand a decent chance of hitting Hawaii or the west coast, and even then it'd be unreliable--not worth risking one of its few nukes on. And with massive weaponry, including probable chemical and biological weapons, aimed at Seoul along the DMZ, I doubt South Korea would be a likely target either--they have already threatened an "annihilating strike" against South Korea by those means if the U.S. invades. My money would be on Japan, which would be unfortunate given that Japan is the only country to have been attacked with nuclear weapons in the past. This will not be a global apocalypse, but it will mean hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dead. Millions will already die as a result of sanctions alone. Be sure to read my report above; Jong-il sacrificed 3.5 million of his own people on the altar of national sovereignty, he may sacrifice as many more as a result of sanctions, and another million or more South Koreans alone would most likely die in the event of a DMZ-based strike--and this is even before we bring nukes into the picture. The North Korean government is killing countless people and will kill more if provoked, and there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop them. Our hope rests in the will of the North Korean people and in Kim Jong-il's poor health. Peace, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-10-09T22:58:05-06:00

ID

89361

Comment

In other news this morning, the US Governement (via the Wash. Times is doubting that the test was fully nuclear. Other experts are saying it was, could have been, and the Russians are saying it was huge. We shall see.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-10-10T07:37:58-06:00

ID

89362

Comment

Tom, I think we do ourselves a disservice if we regard Kim as "batshit crazy," though I do not in any way dispute his sadism. I don't think of him as either a religious fanatic or a communist idealogue but rather a Machiavellian tyrant. In any case, acquiring nuclear weapons was clearly in his strategic interest, as long as he has no regard for what sanctions will do to his people. Clearly, he does not care, and is perfectly content to let millions starve, as you write. I guess my point is that though he is a monster, a "crazy" man does not game the international system so well. Perhaps I was taking you too literally. By the way, what do you think we ought to do with North Korea now? Sanctions will only make Kim stronger, not that we shouldn't impose them. We must inspect all trade coming in and out of N. Korea, but there is little question that this is going to happen. Obviously, there are no easy answers here. Do you have any suggestions?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-10-10T10:26:55-06:00

ID

89363

Comment

the DPRK problem is an issue in that, given that matters have been allowed to get to the point where he presumably has fissibles ready to use even if his test didn't work quite right, any action against him would have a huge toll (mainly carried by ROK) even at a conventional level. This has been the big joker held by DPRK for longer than I have followed news - huge civilian death toll in the Seoul area of ROK, where the suburbs run almost up to the DMZ, meaning the collapse of the ROK economy and this is without bringing up any issues with strike potential on Japan. I think there is a great failure (intentional, a la CNN in Iraq pre-invasion, is my primary suspicion) among the media to educate the masses on exactly what kind of orwellian police state DPRK is, and exactly how bad an idea it is for this regime to exist at all, much less have an ongoing nuclear program. My view is that the west and the major asian powers (japan china india etc) will do nothing decisive on this until something *really* bad happens, at which point the major powers might actually begin to control proliferation even if it means taking some KIA's. I only hope the inciting event doesn't also collapse the US economy in the process.

Author

Scott Thomas

Date

2006-10-14T01:53:32-06:00

ID

89364

Comment

Brian writes: Tom, I think we do ourselves a disservice if we regard Kim as "batshit crazy," I think I do the mentally ill a disservice by using that term, but the truth is that Kim Jong-il really does appear to be a delusional megalomaniac who literally thinks he's God, who has a self-justifying morality in which allowing 15% of the national population to starve rather than adhering to prior treaties was justified because it showed his nation's self-reliance and commitment to, well, him. This is not sane behavior, and it certainly isn't Machiavellian. Scott writes: I think there is a great failure (intentional, a la CNN in Iraq pre-invasion, is my primary suspicion) among the media to educate the masses on exactly what kind of orwellian police state DPRK is, and exactly how bad an idea it is for this regime to exist at all, much less have an ongoing nuclear program. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but there's definitely a failure. Of course, a large part of it is that North Korea does not allow media and human rights observers into the country, so news reports have to be written based on sketchy information. My own human rights profile was scraped together using little bits of data from all over the place; there wasn't really anything else like it on the web. Scott also writes: My view is that the west and the major asian powers (japan china india etc) will do nothing decisive on this until something *really* bad happens, at which point the major powers might actually begin to control proliferation even if it means taking some KIA's. This won't be a matter of "some KIAs." This will be a matter of a minimum one million civilian casualties, independent of military casualties, followed by combat with the world's fifth-largest army, followed by what may be a difficult or impossible military occupation. I don't believe the North Korean problem can be solved militarily under conditions that the American people would regard as acceptable. Brian writes: Obviously, there are no easy answers here. Do you have any suggestions? Other than doing what we can to bolster revolutionary movements within the country, no. Kim Jong-il will welcome sanctions as a way of starving off unwanted citizens, and any military actions against the DPRK will be at the cost of countless South Korean and Japanese lives, not even to speak of the lives of our own soldiers. I recommend prayer. That won't do any good, either, but some people find it calming. If Kim Jong-il drops dead tomorrow, everything changes. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-10-14T05:25:40-06:00

ID

89365

Comment

really don't have time to write right now as am headed out to tiger stadium BUT Brian, I think a blockade is now something to be seriously considered. By blockade I mean all shipping to/from N Korea is inspected for nukes and the corresponding technology. You KNOW he will be passing out nuke technology to Iran and any other high bidder. I know that will be opposed in this forum.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-10-14T11:43:01-06:00

ID

89366

Comment

Actually, I don't really know whether I oppose that or not. I don't want to see a nuclearized world, either, and agree that nuclear arms sales are a clear and obvious motive for development. But I think efforts to monitor sales, and then go after countries DPRK sells nukes to, would probably be more productively enforced than a blockade. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-10-14T13:10:04-06:00

ID

89367

Comment

This just in: The U.N. Security Council unanimously voted to impose sanctions against North Korea. This will result in mass death by starvation, potentially reaching the level of 3.5 million who starved during the 1990s, but was probably the least costly (in human terms) of the available options. Maybe a second famine will stir up anti-government resistance and lead to internal regime change. I don't know. But in this instance, the Security Council probably did what they had to do, though I don't think I would have been able to do it. Peace, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-10-14T14:15:07-06:00

ID

89368

Comment

They have to do something, and no one wants military intervention it seems.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-10-14T16:54:52-06:00

ID

89369

Comment

The problem with military intervention is that the North Korean government will essentially decimate Seoul to the tune of God only knows how many casualties (I think one million is a conservative number), thanks to the batteries of chemical and biological weapons they've got running along the DMZ, and that doesn't count the potential for a nuclear strike against Japan, or the military casualties we would sustain in a war against the world's fifth-largest army. Now, assassination of Kim Jong-il might be a suitable response if, and only if, elements within the North Korean government itself could be framed for the hit. Cheers TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-10-14T17:43:01-06:00

ID

89370

Comment

Tom, Military casualties against the NK army, have you been asleep for the last 3 wars launched by the US combined arms machine? OH no, the fifth largest army, with no fuel, no close air support, no means of resupply. Oh My! Oh My! Reminds me of NPR story after first Gulf War in which a sound clip of Stormin Normin snorting out a contemptuous "hah" was played after a parade of horribles regarding our inability to defeat the second (or was it third) largest army in the world. The pundits are consistently and fantastically wrong about US kinetic military ability, just take a quick review of the pre-war coverage - if you can find it (perhaps the memory hole should visit that aspect of ex post facto censorship). The kinetic fight is not the problem. Thats why our enemies constantly leverage civilian deaths as a deterrent. They know they would get glassed in a military confrontation but also know their enemy is fundamentally decent (in their mind weak) and won't do it at the expense of 1 milliion plus civilian casualties. Lets face it, DPRK is now a nuclear player and the UN won't do a thing except starve some folks, forcing China to ultimately bankroll a bailout and causing more problems. The U.S. won't do much either because we can't act without large scale annihilation of civilians. Japan, however, might view things a bit differently, considering that the NK ballistic missles can easily reach Tokyo. Perhaps Japan will skip the fission bomb entirely and simply explode a small yield hydrogen bomb in the near future and a demonstration that they will not be victimized without consequences. This really just sucks. The UN has failed, again. We have failed, again. Wow! You mean missle defense might have actually not been a bad idea? Holy crap, I thought that was just a right wing scheme to enrich defense contractors! Niles.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-10-14T18:44:20-06:00

ID

89371

Comment

Given the air force's tour de force in Gulf War One, I think we could muster up something suitable. B-52's are a nice asset, in the end. :D

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-10-14T18:56:49-06:00

ID

89372

Comment

[quote]The resolution also calls on all countries to inspect cargo leaving and arriving in North Korea to prevent any illegal trafficking in unconventional weapons or ballistic missiles. The final draft was softened from language authorizing searches, but was still unacceptable to China — the North's closest ally — which said it would not carry out any searches.[/quote] -- From FoxNews Uh, it'll get out to Iraq in a couple of weeks now. Heck, I'll bet China would ship it to the free. People won't be starving, things will be normal. China will see to that.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-10-14T20:32:23-06:00

ID

89373

Comment

Can we go ahead and say fizzle? The force of the explosion was less than one kiloton, the officials said, smaller than the usual size of nuclear tests and smaller than the four-kiloton explosion the North Koreans had told the Chinese government to expect. A four-kiloton device is already pathetic as nuclear weapons go. That's only a quarter the size of Hiroshima. The largest American H-bomb has a yield 25,000 times that. It's the difference between destroying a town and destroying a county. North Korea does not yet have a credible nuclear threat. It has not successfully demonstrated its long-range ballistic missiles, much less shown that it can mount an atomic warhead on one.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-10-16T20:24:34-06:00

ID

89374

Comment

So a 1 kiloton nuke on an artillery shell is not a credible nuclear threat? I think I would be searching trucks and ships going out of NK as carefully as those going in.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-10-16T20:47:56-06:00

ID

89375

Comment

Wikipedia Link What looks to be video of above... [quote]During the 1950s and 1960s, nuclear weapons were developed for every conceivable military mission. An estimated 1,000 W48 nuclear artillery shells (designed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) were produced and deployed with Army and Marine Corps forces between 1963 and 1991. The W48 had a yield of 0.02-0.04 kilotons (equal to 2-4 tons of TNT). [/quote] --from Here There was also the "Davy Crockett" system, a Nuclear Mortar. It wasn't too viable, on account of endangering the crews.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-10-16T21:22:51-06:00

ID

89376

Comment

The point is that it is very difficult to miniaturize nuclear weapons, certainly to the degree that they could be fired from an artillery piece. It took the U.S. years of unlimited testing to achieve that feat. If the N. Koreans could drop their bomb from a jet, it wouldn't matter much how big it was. But because it has to be fired from an artillery piece or mounted on a ballistic missile, they have real problems.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-10-17T23:23:02-06:00

ID

89377

Comment

Huh, good point. I don't think its too far fetched however because there is a world of difference between high end bombs and low end bombs. I would think a gun type u235 warhead could be miniturized well within the capabilities of the DPRK, but maybe not. As for that meaning that NK is not a realistic nuclear threat, I disagree. Are you so confident that they could not use a more prosaic delivery system, such as a truck? The Chinese apparently take this fairly seriously since they are in the process of closing the border, although that obviously has a good bit to do with refugees as well. Judging from Japan's reaction and our attempts to reaffirm that we will, in fact, launch a nuclear attack if Japan is attacked, someone seems to find this threat credible. I thought Rice's speech yesterday was pretty good. Ironghost, I believe the Davy Crocket did have an longer effective range than its blast radius, and I believe it was based on a recoiless rifle platform, not a mortar, but still, how would you like to have been detailed to fire that? RNH.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-10-18T08:17:26-06:00

ID

89378

Comment

Yes, the Davy Crocket was designed for hardcore tactical warfare. You fire the warhead into enemy lines, then you rush your troops in to push through the breach. There's a wonderful documentary on the history of nuclear weapons testing called "Trinity" (narrated by William Shatner, no less). The movie ends with the atmospheric test ban between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. But then ... the movie says ominously, and this light Chinese music starts. The Chinese set off their nuke, troops chear and rush off toward the nuclear battlefield, and cavalry mounted on horses with gas masks gallop off toward the mushroom cloud. You have to see madness like that to believe it. I think it would be difficult to miniaturize a uranium gun weapon like the Hiroshima device, simply because it requires so much uranium. In any case, the U.S. government says the fizzle was a plutonium device, which makes sense. The U.S. never even tested its uranium gun weapon because it was so simple it just had to work. Explosive lensing is much trickier. I do not mean to make light of the hazards surrounding N. Korea's nuclear program, but I do not think we need to panic either. They could load a weapon onto a truck, as you suggest, but they wouldn't get very far with it. Certainly not to Japan, and certainly nowhere near the U.S. Word is that the N. Koreans are preparing for another test. If they pull this one off, then they will truly be in the "nuclear club." If they fail again, it will be humiliating for them.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-10-18T11:07:45-06:00