Page 2 says it smells plutonium.

10/9/2006 11:02:22 AM

we need to bomb the shit out their facilities

10/9/2006 11:21:34 AM

Quote :

"we need to bomb nuke the shit out their facilities"

10/9/2006 11:40:27 AM

acceptable correction

10/9/2006 11:44:18 AM

I know next to nothing about North Korea, but do the people of N Korea support what their government is doing? Or are they more cool-headed?

10/9/2006 11:51:19 AM

uh, of course they support their government, or they are dead

its fucking north korea

10/9/2006 11:54:09 AM

The general population is so thoroughly affected by propaganda (and the fact that essentially no outside information enters the country) that they think Kim is doing alright.

I still say we just saturate them with food baskets and pamphlets and watch all of them, the army included, turn on the leadership.

10/9/2006 11:58:06 AM

Quote :

"uh, of course they support their government, or they are dead its fucking north korea "

I realize that much, I guess I was just wondering about the idea of somebody assassinating (I realize we aren't supposed to do that) the top leaders what would the country think? do they truly support Kim or do they only support him because they have to?

10/9/2006 12:01:50 PM

They support him because they've been brainwashed to do so.

I suspect that some delicious biscuits or whatever would un-brainwash them pretty quick, though.

10/9/2006 12:03:18 PM

I like Kim Jong-Il's argument though, being "bullied" by a superpower -- seems tailor-made to justify providing US nukes to Taiwan...

10/9/2006 12:07:44 PM

that would go over well

10/9/2006 12:08:02 PM

A South Korean was jointly appointed by the UN Security Council as Secretary General today to take over for term-limited Kofi Annan.

Needless to say a potential North Korean conflict in the future with a South Korean Secretary General would be interesting as far as how the UN would handle it.

10/9/2006 12:35:35 PM

Also, did TGD just try to spin this as a good thing?

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2006 1:00:17 PM

I'm seriously skeptical about this supposed "nuclear" test.

As someone pointed out eariler, just because a seismic event was recorded in N Korea, doesn't mean the explosion was nuclear. We have detection equipment that KNOWS when a nuclear device is set off on the planet. Such events give off significant gamma and neutron bursts to prove the nuclear reaction. Plus, from all the underground testing we've done, we have extremely accurate data on what an underground nuclear explosion looks like on paper. They're nothing like earthquakes.

If this really was a nuclear device, I think there would be a lot more sources coming forth with evidence to back this up.

10/9/2006 1:01:50 PM

what game is that? ^^

10/9/2006 1:04:24 PM

Defcon. I love that game, tons of fun. Worth the bucks (its not expensive).

10/9/2006 1:05:20 PM

I really think N Korea just wants some attention cause their leader is such an egomaniac.

I think I will send him a 15 dollar thingy of Godiva and a scratch and sniff sticker.

10/9/2006 1:18:20 PM

Quote :

"If this really was a nuclear device, I think there would be a lot more sources coming forth with evidence to back this up."

Or conversely:

If this really wasn't a nuclear device, I think there would be a lot more sources coming forth with evidence to back this up.

So far all I have seen is info to suggest that it was a nuclear device. I'm not saying it was, I'm just taking the other POV.

10/9/2006 1:24:29 PM

No, all we have seen so far is that there was evidence of a seismic event in N Korea.

Seismic Event doesn't equal nuclear explosive.

10/9/2006 1:49:56 PM

no man, this was a test

you can't fake seismic activity

...

yes, it's a real indication of a test

they tested a nuclear weapon, they now have them

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2006 1:51:13 PM

Given the context, it's reasonable to believe that it was most likely NK testing a nuke.

10/9/2006 1:51:25 PM

^^^Ok, strike my last paragraph. Point still stands. Don't try to call it until you have all the reports in.

10/9/2006 1:53:12 PM

you mean reports like they said they tested and a bunch of countries measure a real event that ranges on the the 5-15 kT range

you mean reports like that?

10/9/2006 1:54:41 PM

They tested sie bomb. Another shining moment for the Bush administration. What the fuck can we do about this?

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2006 2:02:11 PM

Ok, so the latest info I read says that the geological community is positive it was an artifical earthquate. Cool beans, something exploded under N Korea.

However, now what are we to believe? This doesn't mean it was a nuclear explosion. Conflicting reports from multiple countries add to the credibility problem:

South Korea: Magnitude 3.58 earthquate equating to 500 tons of TNT.
Russia: 5kt-15kt nuclear explosion.
US: Mag 4.2 earthquake.

Sure, N Korea is claiming a "very, very successful" test, but the did that much after their missle tests failed miserably.

Plus, 500 tons of TNT wouldn't be that tough to bury in a hole and set off. This could be a hoax to get attention.

10/9/2006 2:15:22 PM

500 tons of TNT wouldn't produce a magnitude 3.58-4.2 earthquake.

15,000 tons of TNT would and that would be very tough to hide from spy satellites while you're trucking it all in and putting it in a hole.

10/9/2006 2:22:07 PM

Quote :

"I realize that much, I guess I was just wondering about the idea of somebody assassinating (I realize we aren't supposed to do that) the top leaders what would the country think? do they truly support Kim or do they only support him because they have to?"

They support him because of continuous propaganda and an airtight internal security network. From most reports by defectors, most people in North Korea realize just how crappy their lives are compared to their bretheren in China or South Korea. However, North Korea has such a strong internal security system (children spying on parents, etc.) that it's difficult to organize let alone make a move against the regime.

10/9/2006 3:06:59 PM

I don't think we can easily detect the initial gamma and neutron radiation from a small underground nuclear weapon very easily. The ground does a lot to moderate the radiation. The seismic signal with any venting of radionuclides will give the best indication that this is a weapon. My guess is that the explosion was a dud.

In anycase, the USGS reported the event:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/ustqab.php#details

10/9/2006 3:07:49 PM

I would like to point out that this exact "seismic" event happened in 1997 with Russia.

A magnitude 3.8 earthquake was detected at Novaya Zemlya (the Russian Arctic Nuclear testing site). It was determined that the explosion was a test of a 100-1000 ton yield explosive device or a warhead primer.

Doesn't sound quite like successful nuclear test for N Korea.

Also, in this article, they talk about how EASY it is for them to tell if a nuclear device has been detonated anywhere on the earth. I don't see anyone coming out and saying "Yep, it was definitely nuclear!":
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6391

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2006 4:28:27 PM

I think it is very probable that this WAS a nuclear test. We will know in a few days if we get confirmed radioactivity, which North Korea claims we won't get because there was no radiation leaked.

But, as to this:

Quote :

"15,000 tons of TNT would and that would be very tough to hide from spy satellites while you're trucking it all in and putting it in a hole."

Two things:
(1) very tough != impossible
(2) TNT isn't the only explosive they could have used. Something more high powered wouldn't need 15,000 tons. It would still need a lot, but not as much as TNT.

10/9/2006 4:36:15 PM

I'm not big on our current policy with Iraq and all


but what are you liberals proposing that he do?


cause I'm pretty sure if any action had been taken the same people would be like "OMFG WARMONGER"

so what now?
or is this just another partisan feather in the cap of the left

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2006 4:37:42 PM

Quote :

"Plus, 500 tons of TNT wouldn't be that tough to bury in a hole and set off. This could be a hoax to get attention."

i was responding to this. no doubt you could use other explosives, but TNT was what had been brought up and since nuclear yield is measured in kilo/megatons of TNT, that's why it was easy to get at the 15,000 tons number.

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 4:40 PM. Reason : *]

10/9/2006 4:39:24 PM

Quote :

"cause I'm pretty sure if any action had been taken the same people would be like "OMFG WARMONGER""

They didn't even do that the first time around with Iraq.

They accepted Bush's BS at face value, and went ahead with the war, only to find out later (as many had suspected) that we'd been tricked.

If Bush would have similarly presented evidence of NK's nuke program (which shouldn't have been hard because they told us they were doing it), I can't see people resisting him, just as they didn't for Iraq, initially. And, in the same time period, he still had his 9/11, Spread Em! inertia going.

10/9/2006 4:40:51 PM

Quote :

"I'm not big on our current policy with Iraq and all but what are you liberals proposing that he do? cause I'm pretty sure if any action had been taken the same people would be like "OMFG WARMONGER" so what now? or is this just another partisan feather in the cap of the left "

The argument is that while Bush has been chasing gold pots beyond the rainbow in Iraq, it's created a power vacuum elsewhere that allows maniacs like Kim Jong Il to get a nuclear weapon without fear of reprisal.

10/9/2006 4:43:05 PM

fair assessment


there are some people however who are against any and all action

not saying that they matter in the grand scheme of things

10/9/2006 4:44:04 PM

Yeah those people exist, what do they have to do with the argument though?

10/9/2006 4:47:35 PM

Quote :

"not saying that they matter in the grand scheme of things "

10/9/2006 4:49:18 PM

Ah, that'd do it

10/9/2006 4:52:52 PM

i know we could shoot the slow icbms down but

10/9/2006 4:53:58 PM

slow icbms

mmmk

10/9/2006 5:44:55 PM

^i dont know alot about them but is that oxymoron or soemthings? are they just long range missiles. i just assumed any missile that could reach many continents was a intercontenental ballistic missile.

10/9/2006 5:46:20 PM

icbms travel around 5 miles/second

10/9/2006 5:48:28 PM

did they in the 70s? i thought those were modern icbms like the best we have.

are there missiles that can span the globe that arent icbms? am i missing something?

whatever nkorea has that can reach almost anywhere i heard they are super slow.

10/9/2006 5:52:37 PM

Quote :

"are there missiles that can span the globe that arent icbms"

no, that's the definition of ICBM. intercontinental

Quote :

"whatever nkorea has that can reach almost anywhere i heard they are super slow."

north korea doesnt have a missile that can reach the extreme distances on that map you have. not sure what that is all about

i believe the type Taepodong 1 missile, the one that actually works, has a range of only that inner, dark red circle that covers japan

the Taepodong 2 missile, the one that blew up, was said to have a range of about 5000 miles i believe


[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 6:05 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2006 5:58:58 PM

Quote :

", the Taepodong-2, has an estimated reach from 3,750 kilometers to 15,000 kilometers (2,325 miles to 9,300 miles). "

cnn



would that make it an icbm?

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 6:06 PM. Reason : i]

10/9/2006 6:05:31 PM

its just an estimate. i've seen 3 different estimates. from 8,000-10,000 km

plus it doesnt even work, yet

yes, the Taepodong 2 is an ICBM

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 6:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/9/2006 6:07:58 PM

still no independant confirmation that the blast was nuclear...

I'm still saying they're full of shit. Either it was BS and never an actual nuke, or it was one hell of a Dud.

10/9/2006 9:08:22 PM

if it can make it to another continent (you know... intercontinental) then it is an icbm (intercontinental ballistic missle)

10/9/2006 9:10:34 PM

but i mean i thought there would be some more definate definition. i could stand in egypt and shoot an arrow to saudi arabia does that make it an icbm?

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 9:15 PM. Reason : morroco-spain istanbul-throw a rock down the street ]

10/9/2006 9:14:51 PM

I believe the standard definition of an ICBM is a missle with a range greater than 5000km.

Not all ICBMs can reach all points on the globe.

Generally only countries with viable or shared space programs have access to the technology which allows a rocket to deliver a payload to any point on the globe. This isn't the gospel, but I can only think of one possible exception.

10/9/2006 9:29:04 PM