BREAKING NEWS: North Korea claims nuclear test!

[CrONoS]

I think that their nuclear test and research are a way to keep us away from their principal and secret activity, and certainly the most dangerous one; creating a powerful and gigantic army of clones.....
billions of clones invading the worlds...

[DRoseDARs]

Nay, they're working on an earthquake machine. Nuke tests are the perfect cover, especially in the tectonically hyperactive region of a convergent zone. I hear there's rumors on the Internets...

[Drake Tungsten]

Doubtful. The Sea of Japan isn't particularly techtonically active, especially when compared with the rest of Japan

[DRoseDARs]

But the USGS clearly proved that North Korea's second nuclear test occured off the east coast of Japan, as I've already stipulated. Or are you calling the most respected geological service in the world a bunch of liars?

[DRoseDARs]

Kirk would b*tch-slap you for your hatred of America.

[Proteus_MST]

As for the radioactivity:

How much measurable radioactivity is expected above the ground if you conduct an underground nuke test?

[BeBMan]

Dunno, but I read too that finding these radioactive particles iwould be the only way to be really sure if it was nuclear or not.

Otoh, it would probably stupid for politics just to assume the best case (that it wasn't) while there's no decisive proof.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Doubtful. The Sea of Japan isn't particularly techtonically active, especially when compared with the rest of Japan

Dovetailing on that, the Korean peninsula doesn't really get earthquakes.

[LordShiva]

Underground tests don't release radioactivity that can be detected above ground.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Underground tests don't release radioactivity that can be detected above ground.

I suspected such a thing.
So the absence of radiation in NK probably doesn´t give any clue that no nuclear test has taken place

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


He has spent the last few years solidifying his control over the military, and any General who took over would lack the cult of personality created by the Kim family. Possible but not probable.

I was not so much thinking in terms of a military takeover. I was thinking if Kimmie starts the war, this has to alienate the generals, who I assume are at least halfway sane. Then, when Gen Park (or whomever) finds his division in a bad place, he is that much more eager to surrender than he would have been had the war started under conditions where Kims policies made more sense to his generals.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Q Cubed


Entirely possible, but lacking any solid sort of intelligence (worse than what we had with Iraq), we could also assume that we'd be welcomed in P'yongyang as liberators with flower garlands and a mass card-shuffling demonstration in the grand stadia.

Im not saying that we should count on anything. Im merely indicating some advantages to letting Kimmie get in the first shot.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


MOst of the air power can or would come from bases elsewhere in the Pacific region, or from Carriers.

whats your point? Are you trying to make the case for US withdrawl from the peninsula?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Its totally unrealisitc to think masses of artillery in rugged terrain could be wipped out in just a few hours by anything less than WMD's. At the same time, I doubt NK would have the stores of munitions close to the border sufficient to carry out a barrage for days on end.

I wouldnt expect the artillery to all be wiped out, but I would think youd try to destroy some, damage and degrade others, suppress the rate of fire, damage ammo stockpiles, interfere with resupply, etc, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Simple, give the little bastard as little as possible for peace. Its called "tribute."

No one wants war, and the countries that would bear the cost of a catastrophic collapse of NK are not willing to bear that cost. That means an impasse, short and simple. So if no one is really willing to bear the cost of a war or regime collapse, then what the **** is the point of not breaking a deal? Ideological purity? Our moral sanctity? Yeah, fine, whatever, but those things don't mean **** in the real world.

The wold is not made up of fine, clean choices, only gray or costly ones.

1. Its not clear to me what the Chinese cost-benefit ratio is. They DONT want Nkor to collapse, but they also dont like being humiliated, they dont want a nuclear arms race in east asia, they want to show theyre a responsible power capable of establishing some degree of order in their reason. At some point they have to weigh that against the large, but finite cost of a collapse - a collapse that may well occur eventually anyway, and not necessarily less catastrophically.

2. The other reason not to make a deal is to avoid setting a precedent of rewarding this kind of behavior.