Seismic activity in N Korea indicates nuclear bomb test

[IGotWorms 3,315]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/11/world/asia/north-korea-seismic-disturbance/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

(CNN) -- North Korea appeared to have conducted its third underground nuclear bomb test Tuesday, as the U.S. Geological Survey reported a seismic disturbance centered near the site of the secretive regime's two previous nuclear tests.

 

The area around the reported epicenter of the magnitude 4.9 disturbance has little or no history of earthquakes or natural seismic hazards, according to U.S. Geological Survey maps. The disturbance took place at a depth of about 1 kilometer, the USGS said.

 

There were no initial reports concerning the activity on the North's state-run Korean Central News Agency on Tuesday.

 

"It's a nuclear test," said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. "That magnitude and that location -- it's awfully unlikely it's anything else."

 

In Washington, a senior administration official said the United States was working to confirm a nuclear test.

 

The reclusive, Stalinist state announced last month that it planned a new nuclear test and more long-range rocket launches, all of which it said were part of a new phase of confrontation with the United States.

 

U.S. analysts say North Korea's first bomb test, in October 2006, produced an explosive yield at less than 1 kiloton (1,000 tons) of TNT. A second test in May 2009 is believed to have been about two kilotons, National Intelligence Director James Clapper told a Senate committee in 2012.

 

By comparison, the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was a 15-kiloton device.

 

 

I wonder when we're going to have to step in and do something about this. I mean, right now it seems that they don't have a delivery system to strike us with a nuclear attack, but you have to figure they'll develop one eventually, right?

[naomi 343]

On the map

[naomi 343]

The longer-term game plan from Pyongyang may be to restart talks aimed at winning food and financial aid.

 

Its puny economy and small diplomatic reach mean the North struggles to win attention on the global stage - other than through nuclear tests and attacks on South Korea, last made in 2010.

 

"Now the next step for North Korea will be to offer talks... - any form to start up discussion again to bring things to their advantage," said Jeung Young-tae, senior research fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification in Seoul.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/12/us-korea-north-idUSBRE91B04820130212

[nikki2200 4]

Hit the bunker!!!

 

 

In all seriousness though... I never understood how the US and other allied countries could possess enough nuclear power to destroy the entire earth multiple times over, and then somehow through the UN, tell another independent country that they are not allowed to have any. How exactly does that work on a human level? If I'm czar of North Korea, I'm saying "fock that shiit". The whole thing is a mess. And we maybe need to start thinking about how to diplomatically deal with this on the world stage other than just saying "I can have them but you can't. Na Na Na." Did they think this strategy was going to work for all of eternity?

 

Basically we should be sucking North Korea's cack right about now to make sure they are our friend and they aren't going to sell one of those suckers to some extremist group who wants to blow up NYC.

 

It might not be exactly now, but it is retarded to think that at some point in all of our lives every single prominent country out there is not going to be able to get nuclear arms.

 

The bright side of this situation, which most people seem to disagree with, is China wouldn't give a ratsass if we eliminated North Korea from the map. But that would have to happen before they got cocky and sold their shiit to someone thinking China had their back. And wiping them out wouldn't go over so well for a variety of obvious reasons.

 

Diplomacy. Making sure that shooting nukes at the US is not in anyone's best interest. There really is no other answer. It's been what? Over 60 years since we dropped the first Atom bomb. Did we really think the rest of the world was so focking dumb they could never come up with one themselves? And they were going to listen when we said "Na Na Na. I have one but you can't"?

[drobeski 3,061]

Hit the bunker!!!

 

 

In all seriousness though... I never understood how the US and other allied countries could possess enough nuclear power to destroy the entire earth multiple times over, and then somehow through the UN, tell another independent country that they are not allowed to have any. How exactly does that work on a human level? If I'm czar of North Korea, I'm saying "fock that shiit". The whole thing is a mess. And we maybe need to start thinking about how to diplomatically deal with this on the world stage other than just saying "I can have them but you can't. Na Na Na." Did they think this strategy was going to work for all of eternity?

 

Basically we should be sucking North Korea's cack right about now to make sure they are our friend and they aren't going to sell one of those suckers to some extremist group who wants to blow up NYC.

 

It might not be exactly now, but it is retarded to think that at some point in all of our lives every single prominent country out there is not going to be able to get nuclear arms.

 

The bright side of this situation, which most people seem to disagree with, is China wouldn't give a ratsass if we eliminated North Korea from the map. But that would have to happen before they got cocky and sold their shiit to someone thinking China had their back. And wiping them out wouldn't go over so well for a variety of obvious reasons.

 

Diplomacy. Making sure that shooting nukes at the US is not in anyone's best interest. There really is no other answer. It's been what? Over 60 years since we dropped the first Atom bomb. Did we really think the rest of the world was so focking dumb they could never come up with one themselves? And they were going to listen when we said "Na Na Na. I have one but you can't"?

We'll send you over to suck the cacks, maybe you can just jerk off the gay ones ?

[NorthernVike 2,080]

We'll send you over to suck the cacks, maybe you can just jerk off the gay ones ?

Do you have to bring up her daddy in every thread?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

I wonder when we're going to have to step in and do something about this. I mean, right now it seems that they don't have a delivery system to strike us with a nuclear attack, but you have to figure they'll develop one eventually, right?

With the direction of the Illegal Alien policy, the "delivery" system could be a van crossing the border.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Hit the bunker!!!

 

 

In all seriousness though... I never understood how the US and other allied countries could possess enough nuclear power to destroy the entire earth multiple times over, and then somehow through the UN, tell another independent country that they are not allowed to have any. How exactly does that work on a human level? If I'm czar of North Korea, I'm saying "fock that shiit". The whole thing is a mess. And we maybe need to start thinking about how to diplomatically deal with this on the world stage other than just saying "I can have them but you can't. Na Na Na." Did they think this strategy was going to work for all of eternity?

 

Basically we should be sucking North Korea's cack right about now to make sure they are our friend and they aren't going to sell one of those suckers to some extremist group who wants to blow up NYC.

 

It might not be exactly now, but it is retarded to think that at some point in all of our lives every single prominent country out there is not going to be able to get nuclear arms.

 

The bright side of this situation, which most people seem to disagree with, is China wouldn't give a ratsass if we eliminated North Korea from the map. But that would have to happen before they got cocky and sold their shiit to someone thinking China had their back. And wiping them out wouldn't go over so well for a variety of obvious reasons.

 

Diplomacy. Making sure that shooting nukes at the US is not in anyone's best interest. There really is no other answer. It's been what? Over 60 years since we dropped the first Atom bomb. Did we really think the rest of the world was so focking dumb they could never come up with one themselves? And they were going to listen when we said "Na Na Na. I have one but you can't"?

 

Really? You are going to allow North Korea, an oppressive tyranny with an unstable leader and one of the most aggressive countries, to possess weapons of mass destruction. Might as well let Iran do it too.

 

I think that we have been pretty darn good at not jumping to the nuclear option since WWII. Others have the technology and have the weapons, so I don't get how you think that we have somehow said no one else can have it. If we have the ability to prevent countries who will use them for offensive reasons, then we should use it.

 

Do you really want to have the US just be a big poosay in the world community and just let everyone else do whatever the fock they want?

[GobbleDog 816]

Really? You are going to allow North Korea, an oppressive tyranny with an unstable leader and one of the most aggressive countries, to possess weapons of mass destruction. Might as well let Iran do it too.

 

I think that we have been pretty darn good at not jumping to the nuclear option since WWII. Others have the technology and have the weapons, so I don't get how you think that we have somehow said no one else can have it. If we have the ability to prevent countries who will use them for offensive reasons, then we should use it.

 

Do you really want to have the US just be a big poosay in the world community and just let everyone else do whatever the fock they want?

I agree with Nikki that it's tough to justify "lots of countries can have nukes, but a few countries the U.S. doesn't like cannot."

 

I also agree with you - right or wrong, the U.S. should use its power to prevent nuclear-armed Iran, North Korea, etc. It's just too dangerous. The world can't afford to later say "gee, too bad we didn't try harder to stop them." When the stakes are this high, fairness goes out the window.

[hoytdwow 202]

Confirmed

[Mungwater 588]

There are ICBMs that can hit the US until maybe Arizona. I don't remember I'd north Korea has them, but they're a crafty bunch. They still use the AN-2 colt for reconnaissance, we can't see a wooden bi-plane on radar and they know it.

[Mrdirt73 0]

Hit the bunker!!!

 

 

In all seriousness though... I never understood how the US and other allied countries could possess enough nuclear power to destroy the entire earth multiple times over, and then somehow through the UN, tell another independent country that they are not allowed to have any.

 

I tend to avoid the usual political threads, so I have no idea if this fits you but I find it odd that the some of the same people who argue that everyone should undergo a mental evaluation to own a hand gun are all for allowing the north korea's of the world to have nukes.

[Cruzer 1,992]

Launching a military operation against a foreign nation that has neither attacked nor landed on our soil, or those of our allies, seems an awful lot like a George W Bush policy. Obama's prized global reputation rating may take a hit.

[Finbabble Garp 1]

Launching a military operation against a foreign nation that has neither attacked nor landed on our soil, or those of our allies, seems an awful lot alike a George W Bush policy. Obama's prized global reputation rating may take a hit.

Not with China, Russia, the EU, and Japan practically leaping out of their seats to officially condemn N. Korea. The world community is all but rolling out a red carpet for us. Every day we don't level Pyongyang, the Axis of Evil grows a little stronger.

 

The Axis of Evil I'm pretty sure was North Korea, Iran, and Hillary. But fact check me on that.

[Cruzer 1,992]

The Axis of Evil I'm pretty sure was North Korea, Iran, and Hillary. But fact check me on that.

I checked, you are correct on this.

[RLLD 3,455]

Launching a military operation against a foreign nation that has neither attacked nor landed on our soil, or those of our allies, seems an awful lot alike a George W Bush policy. Obama's prized global reputation rating may take a hit.

 

Or an Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson..... policy. We have a long history of attacking people who have not landed on our soil of provided any threat to us.Let's not forget why there are two Korea's right now.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Or an Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson..... policy.

Or Roosevelt, or Wilson.

[RLLD 3,455]

Or Roosevelt, or Wilson.

 

True.....every president after WWII ( save for perhaps Ford and Carter) went ahead and dropped troops on some chump nation....

[nikki2200 4]

Really? You are going to allow North Korea, an oppressive tyranny with an unstable leader and one of the most aggressive countries, to possess weapons of mass destruction. Might as well let Iran do it too.

 

I think that we have been pretty darn good at not jumping to the nuclear option since WWII. Others have the technology and have the weapons, so I don't get how you think that we have somehow said no one else can have it. If we have the ability to prevent countries who will use them for offensive reasons, then we should use it.

 

Do you really want to have the US just be a big poosay in the world community and just let everyone else do whatever the fock they want?

 

My point was it is inevitable, not that I think it's OK for them to have nukes because it is clearly not. The reason I brought up 60 years is because that's a long time in the world of technology. Whether it's now, 20 years from now, or 50 years from now, countries we don't like are going to have nukes and we need to figure out how to deal with that STAT.

 

I was talking about "fairness" from the perspective of jumping into the head of the leader of one of those countries. If I am in his shoes, I'm going to be thinking it's not fair. Not that I think it's cool if Iran has a couple of nukes.

[edjr 5,567]

if only Hairy S. Truman were president.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

My point was it is inevitable, not that I think it's OK for them to have nukes because it is clearly not. The reason I brought up 60 years is because that's a long time in the world of technology. Whether it's now, 20 years from now, or 50 years from now, countries we don't like are going to have nukes and we need to figure out how to deal with that STAT.

 

I was talking about "fairness" from the perspective of jumping into the head of the leader of one of those countries. If I am in his shoes, I'm going to be thinking it's not fair. Not that I think it's cool if Iran has a couple of nukes.

 

Well, I think that we should prevent the nutties from getting the WOMD regardless of whether they think that it is "fair". This is not tiddlie-winks that you are playing with 3rd graders.

 

In the meantime, we are trying to deal with what to do if/when unfriendlies get nukes. I am not sure if you remember this, but there was this powerful nation that did not like us much who decided that they would park some nukes off the Florida coastline and we had this little thing called the "Cold War". Of course, you deal with what happens when people get/have them, but we fight like heck to make sure that no new people get them. This is especially true when the World Community feels the same way about the country, like they do about N. Korea.

[RLLD 3,455]

if only Hairy S. Truman were president.

 

All right. I'll say it. 'Cause Truman was too much of a *pvssy wimp* to let MacArthur go in there

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

My point was it is inevitable, not that I think it's OK for them to have nukes because it is clearly not. The reason I brought up 60 years is because that's a long time in the world of technology. Whether it's now, 20 years from now, or 50 years from now, countries we don't like are going to have nukes and we need to figure out how to deal with that STAT.

 

I was talking about "fairness" from the perspective of jumping into the head of the leader of one of those countries. If I am in his shoes, I'm going to be thinking it's not fair. Not that I think it's cool if Iran has a couple of nukes.

Letting a country like NK have nukes is like giving a depressed psycho a truck load of guns, a ride to a school, a media crew, and unlimited ammo and then hoping nothing goes wrong.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Launching a military operation against a foreign nation that has neither attacked nor landed on our soil, or those of our allies, seems an awful lot alike a George W Bush policy. Obama's prized global reputation rating may take a hit.

 

The difference here would be that N Korea unquestionably has nukes and is actively working to expand its program, whereas the supposed threat of WMDs was a total fabrication to justify a war of choice.

 

I'm not saying war with a N Korea is a good idea--it almost certainly isn't, especially when you consider the risk to our vital ally S Korea. But we also seem to be nearing a point where sitting idly by may be a poor choice too.

[RLLD 3,455]

The difference here would be that N Korea unquestionably has nukes and is actively working to expand its program, whereas the supposed threat of WMDs was a total fabrication to justify a war of choice.

 

I'm not saying war with a N Korea is a good idea--it almost certainly isn't, especially when you consider the risk to our vital ally S Korea. But we also seem to be nearing a point where sitting idly by may be a poor choice too.

 

Never fight a land war in Asia

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Never fight a land war in Asia

 

I was envisioning heavy bombing and cruise missile strikes. Hell we know where a lot of their nuclear activities are taking place--it couldn't be that hard to set them back bigtime whilst sending a very pointed message.

 

That said, I don't know what kind of surface-to-air and naval capabilities they have. Also if they retaliated against S Korea, we'd have to put troops there to help and BOOM, there's your land war.

 

[Finbabble Garp 1]

Never fight a land war in Asia

When you have B.O.O.B.S., land war is a thing of the past.

[Saint Elistan 106]

Operation MIMAL - WW3 Commences

[Mrdirt73 0]

I was envisioning heavy bombing and cruise missile strikes. Hell we know where a lot of their nuclear activities are taking place--it couldn't be that hard to set them back bigtime whilst sending a very pointed message.

 

That said, I don't know what kind of surface-to-air and naval capabilities they have. Also if they retaliated against S Korea, we'd have to put troops there to help and BOOM, there's your land war.

 

I'm pretty sure we already have troops on the ground in S Korea unless we've pulled our troops out completely.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

I'm pretty sure we already have troops on the ground in S Korea unless we've pulled our troops out completely.

 

You're correct, I should've said "more" troops. I think we have thousands on the DMZ.

[Mrdirt73 0]

You're correct, I should've said "more" troops. I think we have thousands on the DMZ.

I googled it earlier just to make sure I hadn't missed something, and apparently we pulled a lot of our troops back from the DMZ in 2003. I don't remember anything about that though.

[naomi 343]

The more severe the sanctions against them get, the more they ramp up their provocation.

 

We know how the imposed worship of the state there is But is the leadership itself functionally unrealistic when it comes down to it?

 

If they were to send a nuke our way, they're inviting being wiped out. They have to know that. So what is their actual incentive at this point? Just leverage. Getting necessary aid from other nations but retaining their self perception at the same time.

 

Not saying that matter of fact, but I wonder if that's their motivation. They don't have a principled (foremost) axe to grind with us, and that's the resolved kind.

[SUXBNME 1,337]

Letting a country like NK have nukes is like giving a depressed psycho a truck load of guns, a ride to a school, a media crew, and unlimited ammo and then hoping nothing goes wrong.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

I googled it earlier just to make sure I hadn't missed something, and apparently we pulled a lot of our troops back from the DMZ in 2003. I don't remember anything about that though.

 

I wasn't aware of that either

 

Must've been shifting them to Iraq/Afghanistan?

[IGotWorms 3,315]

The more severe the sanctions against them get, the more they ramp up their provocation.

 

We know how the imposed worship of the state there is But is the leadership itself functionally unrealistic when it comes down to it?

 

If they were to send a nuke our way, they're inviting being wiped out. They have to know that. So what is their actual incentive at this point? Just leverage. Getting necessary aid from other nations but retaining their self perception at the same time.

 

Not saying that matter of fact, but I wonder if that's their motivation. They don't have a principled (foremost) axe to grind with us, and that's the resolved kind.

 

Good point, but you are assuming they are rational actors. That's where it gets sticky.

[nikki2200 4]

The more severe the sanctions against them get, the more they ramp up their provocation.

 

We know how the imposed worship of the state there is But is the leadership itself functionally unrealistic when it comes down to it?

 

If they were to send a nuke our way, they're inviting being wiped out. They have to know that. So what is their actual incentive at this point? Just leverage. Getting necessary aid from other nations but retaining their self perception at the same time.

 

Not saying that matter of fact, but I wonder if that's their motivation. They don't have a principled (foremost) axe to grind with us, and that's the resolved kind.

 

That was pretty much what I was trying to say but didn't come across correctly. From their perspective, telling them they aren't allowed to have nukes, may motivate them to try to get nukes even harder because their enemies are allowed to have them and they are not. And if I were the leader of one of those countries, I would be saying fock that shiit.

 

As for what the end goal is.... who knows? They really really hate Japan. I don't think the US would be a target and I doubt China would let them do that anyway. The Japanese? No clue. And then there is the risk that they develop the nuclear weapons and sell them to people who would want to use them against the US. Or they literally could just be building up their own national defense to make sure they are as equally armed as some of the governments who may want to attack them are.

[Finbabble Garp 1]

We know how the imposed worship of the state there is

That's fine if you believe the lies the liberal media tell you about anything and everything. But if you'll excuse me, free-thinking conservatives like myself prefer to wait till we hear it from an unbiased source like Newsmax or the Washington Times. For all I know, North Korea is a conservative wonderland where everybody has guns, fetuses are allowed to live, and gay homos can't marry, but instead have to get their homo joyjoys on the sly in bathroom stalls like the rest of us.

[Finbabble Garp 1]

Them. Like the rest of them.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Them. Like the rest of them.

 

Well done Bruce.

[Finbabble Garp 1]

Well done Bruce.

Finbabble. I have a moustache.