Hopefully without derailing the thread, the problem with your analogy is that somebody stupid gave the kid in a high chair a gun (nukes). Everybody else at the table may be responsible owners. The child isn't.
North Korea test nukes
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
As far as we can tell doesn't the kid have a stack of blocks in the shape of a nuke?
I'm not pretending I know anything at all about what's going on. Current Events are not really my thing. But it seems like the lack of concern this issue has caused leads me to suspect that N. Korea is trying to bluff themselves out of the corner they've dug themselves into. They may have nukes, as I'm aware they went to great extent trying to figure it out, but every test or missile firing test that we are aware of have had disappointing results.
North Korea can't nuke the US, but plenty of US allies are within firing range. Japan. S Korea, obv.
I believe North Korea can make crude nukes (by today's standards) but are lacking in long range delivery and miniturization (making said bombs small enough to actually fit on a missile but still be useful).
We know they are capable of detonating a bomb which has the power of a nuclear weapon. We know they have the fuel needed for a nuclear weapon. We have not yet seen direct evidence of a nuclear test, but all the signs are there that they do have them, and they do work.
They are relatively low yield compared to advanced nuclear technology held by the US, china, and others.
We suspect, but do not know, that their technology isn't advanced enough to fit, size and weight, into one of their ballistic missiles, which we do believe are now capable of just barely reaching LA.
So while it is possible that they have a nuclear warhead that fits onto a ballistic missile that hits LA, it is very, very unlikely.
However they probably could launch their current nuclear warheads and hit Japan, Guam, and South Korea.
They could not follow it up with much more than conventional firepower though. They have enough material to build a handful of warheads, but again these are very low yield warheads. Probably comparable to our bunker buster nukes, certainly nowhere near the bombs we dropped on Japan. So they could pick-mark South Korea, and kill millions depending on where they aim, but they couldn't decimate South Korea with nuclear weapons, nevermind annihilate them the way we could.
Their conventional firepower is sufficient to do significant damage to South Korea.
And their nuclear weapons will only get better.
I think they honestly believe that now that they have nuclear weapons they belong at the big boy table, despite the fact that the weapons pose little to no risk since our missile intercept systems currently surrounding them are sufficient to stop a large percentage of any missiles they send out, nevermind the slow ballistic missiles they have.
They are relatively low yield compared to advanced nuclear technology held by the US, china, and others.
We suspect, but do not know, that their technology isn't advanced enough to fit, size and weight, into one of their ballistic missiles, which we do believe are now capable of just barely reaching LA.
So while it is possible that they have a nuclear warhead that fits onto a ballistic missile that hits LA, it is very, very unlikely.
However they probably could launch their current nuclear warheads and hit Japan, Guam, and South Korea.
They could not follow it up with much more than conventional firepower though. They have enough material to build a handful of warheads, but again these are very low yield warheads. Probably comparable to our bunker buster nukes, certainly nowhere near the bombs we dropped on Japan. So they could pick-mark South Korea, and kill millions depending on where they aim, but they couldn't decimate South Korea with nuclear weapons, nevermind annihilate them the way we could.
Their conventional firepower is sufficient to do significant damage to South Korea.
And their nuclear weapons will only get better.
I think they honestly believe that now that they have nuclear weapons they belong at the big boy table, despite the fact that the weapons pose little to no risk since our missile intercept systems currently surrounding them are sufficient to stop a large percentage of any missiles they send out, nevermind the slow ballistic missiles they have.
I am a bit surprised that we don't use NK missile tests as a test for our naval ballistic missile interception systems. You know, once it hits international waters, take the joker out.
Since the missiles have a flag then in international waters an attack on them counts as an attack on the nation itself. We can't attack them just because they are in international waters unless they are clearly a threat to us without essentially "taking the first shot". It would be no differs than attacking the missile while it was still on the ground inside their borders.
You need to pay a bit more attention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_North_Korean_nuclear_test That was in February, less than two months ago.
From the link:
So yes, they have nukes, it's not just potential. Even if their missiles can't make it to the USA, it's still extremely bad for Japan or S. Korea.
The "nukes" they claim to have have not been detonated in a manner which conclusively proves they were nuclear explosions. They don't detonate them above ground, and the underground tests appear to be so well sealed that no byproducts are released into the atmosphere for sampling planes to detect.
The explosions are in the kiloton range, and kinetic signature is within what a nuclear test would be, but there is a remote possibility that these are conventional explosions intended to give the impression they have working nuclear weapons.
But we cannot say with certainty that these explosions are actually nuclear.
Also, we measure our nuclear weapons in Megatons. Our smaller nuclear bombs, used for very difficult bunker busting, are in the hundreds of kilotons.
Yes, little boy and fat man were much, much smaller, but even they were 2-3 times bigger than the explosion north korea set off.
They still killed 10s of thousands of people each, and had extremely serious consequences. Even the "small" nukes are horrific in their power.
But non-nuclear explosions have been devastating throughout history. The Halifax Explosion of 1918 being the largest Non-nuclear explosion up to that date was "only" 2.9 kilotons and killed 2000 and injured 9000, plus basically leveling most of the city.
This is the picture (from wiki) of the result of "only" 2.9 kilotons:
DO NOT MINIMIZE THE THREAT HERE! Even small nukes like NK probably has are holy shit scary in their destructive power.
I don't honestly care if one of N.Korea's has only the capability of killing a single human being. That's still too many in my opinion. Japan and S.Korea being within close firing range of these lunatics is scary. You could say it's not the easiest thing to be on bad terms with a country so close to your own, but it seems like N.Korea is on bad terms with just about everyone. China seems to like them, probably cause they like N.Korea's spunk and they share a disdain for the US. Just drone the son of a bitch and be done with it.
stineman, I think you're going wrong somewhere. Yes, the three superpowers have bombs in the (hundreds of) megaton ranges, and the NK's are in the kilotons.
However, saying they're "nowhere near" Little Boy and Fat Man is almost certainly wrong. You didn't make those two that size because shits and giggles -they were pretty much the smallest they could make them at the time. It's hard making a nuclear bomb smaller and still go off - the smaller the blast you want, the less fuel you need - but with less fuel, it's harder to get to critical mass, since you need to apply ever more pressure to get those atoms close enough together.
Modern miniaturisation has helped, but still - making a bomb somewhere between 5 and 50 kT is easier than making a bomb much smaller (or you'd see them be used since they wouldn't be WMDs anymore - the nuclear briefcase doesn't exist yet*). Little Boy was 16 kT, Fat Man was 21 kT.
Even assuming NK's atomic bombs are around 5kT (unlikely, probably slightly larger), that's enough to obliterate the entire city center of LA. Americans these days lve a lot closer together than Japanese during WWII - higher population density equals higher possible body count. It's not impossible that, if NK were to launch a bomb at LA, they could take out 50.000 to 100.000 people.
More plausibly, they could nuke Tokyo with 2 or 3 such "small" bombs and get the casualty numbers into the high hundred thousands or low millions.
There's a reason no-one attacks Israel and why Pakistan and India have more-or-less settled into a Cold War over Kashmir once they both had the bomb. Even without MAD, no matter who started it, either would be assured to be devastated. "Not enough bombs to destroy the other" doesn't mean "not enough bombs to seriously cripple the other".
*while the smallest nuclear explosions, in the '60s, were around 15-20 tons (no kilo there), they're not fit for missile launch
However, saying they're "nowhere near" Little Boy and Fat Man is almost certainly wrong. You didn't make those two that size because shits and giggles -they were pretty much the smallest they could make them at the time. It's hard making a nuclear bomb smaller and still go off - the smaller the blast you want, the less fuel you need - but with less fuel, it's harder to get to critical mass, since you need to apply ever more pressure to get those atoms close enough together.
Modern miniaturisation has helped, but still - making a bomb somewhere between 5 and 50 kT is easier than making a bomb much smaller (or you'd see them be used since they wouldn't be WMDs anymore - the nuclear briefcase doesn't exist yet*). Little Boy was 16 kT, Fat Man was 21 kT.
Even assuming NK's atomic bombs are around 5kT (unlikely, probably slightly larger), that's enough to obliterate the entire city center of LA. Americans these days lve a lot closer together than Japanese during WWII - higher population density equals higher possible body count. It's not impossible that, if NK were to launch a bomb at LA, they could take out 50.000 to 100.000 people.
More plausibly, they could nuke Tokyo with 2 or 3 such "small" bombs and get the casualty numbers into the high hundred thousands or low millions.
There's a reason no-one attacks Israel and why Pakistan and India have more-or-less settled into a Cold War over Kashmir once they both had the bomb. Even without MAD, no matter who started it, either would be assured to be devastated. "Not enough bombs to destroy the other" doesn't mean "not enough bombs to seriously cripple the other".
*while the smallest nuclear explosions, in the '60s, were around 15-20 tons (no kilo there), they're not fit for missile launch
So, here's my deal. Nuclear weapons have a huge amount of power in a small package. They are scary not just because of the initial effect, but the radioactive effect that kills within weeks and months and years and decades.
But they are merely bombs.
North Korea has hundreds of times more destructive power in conventional weapons than it currently has in nuclear weapons.
Yes, a single nuclear weapon will destroy a much larger portion of Seoul than their biggest conventional weapon, but they have enough conventional weapons to completely eradicate Seoul.
They don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy Seoul as completely as they could with their conventional weapons.
A nuclear weapon is nothing to sneeze at. And they will only get better and better, they certainly have enough fuel for larger weapons.
But I think people can't help but hear "nuclear weapon" and think, "they can destroy a whole city in one go"
They can't. Yes, they can kill hundreds of thousands with the right placement and timing, but shouldn't we be looking at the whole picture, rather flying off the handle just because they can now harness atomic energy in their explosions?[DOUBLEPOST=1365696393][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, for those unaware, do a news search for north Korea's gulag system.
Horrifying.
But they are merely bombs.
North Korea has hundreds of times more destructive power in conventional weapons than it currently has in nuclear weapons.
Yes, a single nuclear weapon will destroy a much larger portion of Seoul than their biggest conventional weapon, but they have enough conventional weapons to completely eradicate Seoul.
They don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy Seoul as completely as they could with their conventional weapons.
A nuclear weapon is nothing to sneeze at. And they will only get better and better, they certainly have enough fuel for larger weapons.
But I think people can't help but hear "nuclear weapon" and think, "they can destroy a whole city in one go"
They can't. Yes, they can kill hundreds of thousands with the right placement and timing, but shouldn't we be looking at the whole picture, rather flying off the handle just because they can now harness atomic energy in their explosions?[DOUBLEPOST=1365696393][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, for those unaware, do a news search for north Korea's gulag system.
Horrifying.
Turns out Metro sucks for launching missiles: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...rean-missile-test-delayed-by-windows-8.html:p
Server error
I'm going to steal this and post it in so many places....
Me too...
It just works on so many levels.
To Obama haters, it'll send them into a frenzy of flame and bile. Saying how it should be Obama's picture etc etc etc
To Obama supporters, it'll send them into a frenzy of circle jerking, covering the land in jizz.
Bah.
Should be Nixon. Dubya in Cheney and Rumsfeld and so many others from the Nixon and Ford admins.
- Status