Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military Politics

North Korea Conducts Third Nuclear Test 270

Posted by timothy
from the practice-makes-perfect dept.
First time accepted submitter WolfeCanada writes "North Korea apparently conducted a widely anticipated nuclear test Tuesday, strongly indicated by an 'explosion-like' earthquake that monitoring agencies around the globe said appeared to be unnatural." North Korea has confirmed the test, according to the Washington Post, in an article that touches on its political context. Among other things, the Post notes that this "is the first under new North Korean leader Kim Jong Eun and the clearest sign that the third-generation leader, like his father and grandfather, prefers to confront the United States and its allies rather than make peace with them." Adds reader eldavojohn "KCNA news claims that the test was safe and cited the threat of the U.S. for conducting the test, saying 'The test was carried out as part of practical measure of counteraction to defend the country's security and sovereignty in the face of the ferocious hostile act of the U.S. which wantonly violated the DPRK's legitimate right to launch satellite for peaceful purposes.' RT is posting a feed of the many condemnations from governments and organizations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

North Korea Conducts Third Nuclear Test

Comments Filter:
  • Making Peace? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    By which you mean inviting in our economic hit men and accepting loans?

    • Re:Making Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:55AM (#42870527)

      By which you mean inviting in our economic hit men and accepting loans?

      OK, what possible harm can these "economic hit men" do? It is not like it is possible to make the economic situation in North Korea any worse than it already is.

      • Re:Making Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MozeeToby (1163751) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:02AM (#42870607)

        They could dump a bunch of cheap consumer goods on the public, connect everyone to the internet, make sure everyone is fat and happy. Then, after that is the situation for... oh 2 years, they could make real demands from the NK government. A well fed, well informed population who is used to having what they want is not going to stand for going back to the way things were, not abruptly at least.

        • Honestly, this is not a bad idea. The sanctions can work if the population sees real effects of the governments actions.
        • By what definition would this be harm?
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            They could dump a bunch of cheap consumer goods on the public, connect everyone to the internet, make sure everyone is fat and happy. Then, after that is the situation for... oh 2 years, they could make real demands from the NK government. A well fed, well informed population who is used to having what they want is not going to stand for going back to the way things were, not abruptly at least.

            By what definition would this be harm?

            By the conventional standard that condemns such actions as "Western imperiali

          • Well, from the standpoint of the average NK citizen, it would probably lead to a long and bloody revolution against a government which has shown to have no issue doing absolutely horrid things for it's own ends. That may, or may not, be preferable to the current situation, depending on A) who wins, B) how quickly, and C) just how far said government is willing to go to preserve itself.

            More importantly, the harm to the NK power holders is obvious, which is exactly why those power holders do what they can to

          • Probably by Kim Jong Un's definition.
        • Or maybe the government would sell that food and cheap goods and use the extra money to build more weapons. It's not like that kind of thing hasn't been tried before.....
      • Re:Making Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by theVarangian (1948970) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:17AM (#42870753)

        By which you mean inviting in our economic hit men and accepting loans?

        OK, what possible harm can these "economic hit men" do? It is not like it is possible to make the economic situation in North Korea any worse than it already is.

        North Korea will not be economically reformed unless the northern reigime collapses and the country is re-united wiht South Korea. That would create a united Korea in the same position as Germany after the curtainwent down, spending a huge amount of it's GDP rebuilding half the country from nothing. The 'economic hit-men' would probably mostly be South Korean industrialists and bankers who would migrate a lot of jobs up north to take advantage of the cheap labour creating social strife down south as a large number of southerners alluvasudden would find themselves unemployed and having to compete for jobs with northerners willing to accept a way lower standardof living. Judging from the German experience there would also be a feeding frenzy as anything of any value in the north is would be privatized with the resultant corruption and nepotism as the governing political parties try to ensure that anything of value ends up in the hands of party loyalists or it's cheif financial supporters. One thing is for sure, a re-unification would take the wind out of the sails of Korea's economy for at least two decedes.

        • +1 Insightful. No Mod Points. Apparently riding the troll like a rented mule is frowned upon in this establishment.
        • Re:Making Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:44AM (#42871027)

          Just like it ruined Germany.

          Oh wait....

          • Re:Making Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by femtobyte (710429) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @02:10PM (#42873427)

            Keep in mind, German unification wasn't exactly an example of Helpless Commies rushing to the loving embrace of Unfettered Capitalism. The West German state already had strong worker protections, unionization, a fairly egalitarian public sector --- in other words, many of the "good parts" of Communism (without the authoritarian central planning bureaucracy), so East Germany wasn't thrown headfirst into the vortex of capitalist exploitation. Countries that follow the US "economic hit men" trajectory for economic development tend to end up quite differently from Germany's slow-but-steady absorption of the lagging East into a functional social-democratic society. The US prefers to mold countries more like Mexico --- a few mega-billionaires scattered between swathes of massive poverty in a privatized state, providing a pool of profitably cheap labor and extractable resources for Western investors. Korean unification guided by South Korean industrialists and Wall Street investors is likely to me much more "Mexico" than "Germany" twenty years down the road.

            • by couchslug (175151)

              Modern Germany would be regarded as "Socialist As Fuck" by many Americans if they bothered to learn anything about it.

              BTW it was a pleasure to defend West Germany during the Cold War.

              The US concept of economic assistance is no longer a Marshall Plan. Those ideas are long dead along with ideals of "statesmanship" , while the business elites which run the US are pure predators and enemies of their own public.

              Of course they'll loot everyone else.

        • Re:Making Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by the gnat (153162) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:47AM (#42871071)

          One thing is for sure, a re-unification would take the wind out of the sails of Korea's economy for at least two decedes.

          Perhaps, but Germany's economy today is one of the strongest in Europe, and the East Germans aren't worse off then they were under Communist rule (and my guess is in purely economic terms they are significantly better off). Among other things, they're actually allowed to leave the country if they don't like it - surely that counts for something.

          • Re:Making Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by tsj5j (1159013) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @11:50AM (#42871811)

            One thing is for sure, a re-unification would take the wind out of the sails of Korea's economy for at least two decedes.

            Perhaps, but Germany's economy today is one of the strongest in Europe, and the East Germans aren't worse off then they were under Communist rule (and my guess is in purely economic terms they are significantly better off). Among other things, they're actually allowed to leave the country if they don't like it - surely that counts for something.

            I would also like to remind that the gap between East and West Germany is not even remotely close to that of the gap between North and South Korea.
            Neither was the East as brainwashed, poor and so disconnected from the times as the North.

            The North lacks electricity, education, basic necessities, and is essentially frozen at the point of the split, aka 1960s-style living.
            Just think how different your town/city/country was 40 years ago, and how long it'd take (even on an accelerated path) to reach the present.

            • by the gnat (153162)

              Just think how different your town/city/country was 40 years ago, and how long it'd take (even on an accelerated path) to reach the present.

              Well, I'm an American, so it wouldn't actually be that difficult. I take your point about NK being far more backwards than East Germany was, and I agree that fixing their economy would be a total clusterfuck. I was mainly objecting to the idea that German re-unification was so awful - it's just not a very good comparison, and the East Germans at least did very well in

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by sqrt(2) (786011)

            It counts for something, but not a whole lot. I'm "free" to leave the USA, but only insofar as I am not actively forbidden from leaving. In practice I don't have the freedom to leave any more than a NK citizen has the freedom to leave their country. I certainly enjoy more freedom and comfort while I'm hear, the borders I'm allowed to roam within are vaster, but actually leaving isn't an option even if I am technically "free" to do so. Almost all humans exist in this state. Freedom of movement is largely a m

            • Re:Making Peace? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @02:37PM (#42873765)

              There's a difference between, "I can't just up and leave the USA and go to Canada, because the Canadian government won't let me stay," and "I can't just up and leave North Korea, because the North Korean government won't let me leave."

            • Re:Making Peace? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by radtea (464814) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @06:07PM (#42875861)

              Freedom of movement is largely a matter of philosophical and academic concern since most people lack the material wealth necessary to exercise that freedom to any meaningful degree.

              I was going to mod you "Funny" because this is so hilariously stupid, but thought I'd reply instead, and point out that fully 1/3 of the population of Canada was born elsewhere, and the US isn't that far behind in this regard.

              Want to tell me again how 30% of the population here isn't "really free" by some stupid definition of 'free' you just pulled out of your butt? Or that the greater part of the rest of us couldn't change nations just as easily? "Minor practical barriers" are in a different category from "illegal under the laws of the nation I am currently living in."

              "Free" does not mean "effortless", which seems to be the construction you are putting on the term.

        • by jythie (914043)
          I am not sure reunification would be the only path the could take. I could see NK taking a page or two out of China and Russia's playbook by privatizing industries internally then opening up trade. NK has a slave workforce that makes china look enlighted, thus thus could probably get a lot of initial captial through being able to undercut labor costs right off the bat.
        • by khallow (566160)

          One thing is for sure, a re-unification would take the wind out of the sails of Korea's economy for at least two decedes.

          Germany didn't see a similar drop in its economy. To the contrary, it's done very well compared to the rest of the EU.

          • Re:Making Peace? (Score:5, Informative)

            by alexander_686 (957440) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @11:59AM (#42871935)

            No - Germany did see a drop for 2 decades.

            Is Germany one of the strongest economies in Europe today? Yes. Was West Germany one of the strongest economies in Europe just before integration? IIRC the growth in GNP drastically slowed. Were a lot of jobs created by building new infrastructure? Yes – but Germany had to take out a lot of loans to do that. (fortunately they took out the loans at the right time and paid them off.) The general consensus is that West Germany would be further ahead of where it is today if it did not have to integrate East Germany. (We are ignoring the cost of maintaining the cold war)

            During integration Germany was kind of like Kobe Bryant playing basketball with 20 bound ankle weights – off the peak game but still impressive.

          • Re:Making Peace? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @12:51PM (#42872527)

            Germany did see a drop in its economy. Hauling the East on board took a giant's effort and they were "lucky" enough to be one of the strongest economies on this planet so they could pull that off. That doesn't mean that everything in the East was "bad" or outdated, but a lot of corruption was going on as well, leading to a big loss where actually competitive companies were sold off cheaply and the state being stuck with the duds. Crime and unemployment are currently a serious problem in the East (with unemployment rates as high as 20-25%), and it's not really likely that this is going to change soon.

            If anyone, it wasn't the population that really won in the unification. It was mostly a win for big business. Sadly, that doesn't automatically translate into a windfall for Germany's economy. It mostly means that the country is now forced to deal with a lot of unemployed people while the assets of the East were squandered to "friends" of the government that was in charge back then.

        • Re:Making Peace? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @11:13AM (#42871383)
          Someone else had already addressed the comparison to the German economy (hint, reunification took the wind out of the sails of the German economy for considerably less than two decades). I was going to address several points to what you said. However, ultimately the gap between the economic situation in North and South Korea is so much greater than what existed between East and West Germany that it is hard to say how the Korea experience would compare to that of Germany.
          That being said, my point remains, no matter how much like carrion crows "Western" (most likely South Korean) industrialists might be if allowed to intervene in North Korea, it is hard to imagine them making things worse than they already are.
        • by swarsron (612788)

          That would create a united Korea in the same position as Germany after the curtainwent down, spending a huge amount of it's GDP rebuilding half the country from nothing.

          They wouldn't be nearly in the same position as Germany was after the reunification. The DDR can't be compared to NK at all. The DDR had quite a few problems but they were not even close to the problems NK has. As a starter nobody starved to death in the DDR.

        • by nbert (785663)
          I don't agree that Korea would be in the same position as Germany. A Korean reunification would be far more challenging for a number of reasons. First of all the population ratio is more in favor of the north (2:1 compared to 3.5:1 in Germany). It's also noteworthy that East Germany was an industrialized country with educated workforce and a functioning agricultural sector. The GDR wasn't great but compared to North Korea it was highly developed and the standard of living was at least similar to that of th
  • by Anonymous Coward

    They just demonstrated the intended payload of that "satellite".

    • Yeah. In other news, Elon Musk just announced that he's decided to develop a nuclear warhead. Not that he particularly wants one, but he gets a kick out of sending Instagram photos of the stuff he does to Kim Jong Un.
  • Heh (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by benjfowler (239527)

    I guess North Korea is what happens when an entire country gets Assburgers Syndrome

  • "Wantonly violated?" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scotts13 (1371443) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:03AM (#42870613)

    "...wantonly violated the DPRK's legitimate right to launch satellite for peaceful purposes"

    I'm sorry, I must have missed where we were shooting down their satellites. What the hell are they talking about?

    • by Albanach (527650)

      I think they may be linking the launch of an unmanned US military shuttle shortly before the North Korean satellite launch and the fact their satellite unexpectedly (to them at least) failed to make a stable orbit.

      • and the fact their satellite unexpectedly (to them at least) failed to make a stable orbit.

        Huh? The orbit is stable and quite an impressive example of slewing elevation during launch.

        "Spinning in an orbit" != "unstable orbit"

    • Both Japan and the US are on record as saying they wouldn't hesitate to shoot down anything NK launches, and have had UNSC resolutions assed that bans NK from launching anything at all. I don't personally agree with the UN being able to ban a country from having a space program (I'm making no comment as to whether NK have a legitimate program tho).

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:22AM (#42870803)

      "...wantonly violated the DPRK's legitimate right to launch satellite for peaceful purposes"

      I'm sorry, I must have missed where we were shooting down their satellites. What the hell are they talking about?

      I trust you're being sarcastic, but for completeness, they are talking about United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 [wikipedia.org] which states that "North Korea must 'not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile', 'suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme' and 'abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner'".

      By voting for this resolution, the United States (and China and 13 other countries) are "wantonly violat[ing] the DPRK's legitimate right to launch satellite for peaceful purposes".

      Sort of like how United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 [wikipedia.org] violates Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear technologies.

    • Here's the deal. They do have a "legitimate right" to launch satellites. However, all their "satellite" launches under the previous Kim's government were fairly transparent attempts to test ICBMs. UN sanctions do not give them the right to test ICBMs. So what they do is insist that they are launching satellites and use that as an ICBM test. They may have actually gotten a satellite into orbit on the most recent launch, a first for the country, but everybody knows that the real purpose is to test more po
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ShanghaiBill (739463) *

      I'm sorry, I must have missed where we were shooting down their satellites.

      What makes you so sure that we didn't shoot it down?

    • by guttentag (313541) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @11:12AM (#42871371) Journal
      When North Korea makes announcements it often comes off sounding schizophrenic. Before the "satellite" launch, it announced that it was merely a peaceful satellite. After the launch, it bluntly announced that it was actually a cover for an ICBM test to help it one day deliver a nuclear weapon to the U.S. Now it's back to calling it a peaceful satellite. I suspect three possibilities:
      • when you are as accustomed to crafting a manufactured reality as North Korea is, it's easy to lose track of what you claimed before. I have found that one of the most effective ways to catch a person lying is to ask for details until the person contradicts himself, indicating that rather than remembering what actually happened, he lost track of what lies he fabricated earlier. That may be what we are seeing here from the propaganda machine.
      • North Korea's propaganda machine changes the message as often as necessary to suit its needs of the moment. Think of Orwell's 1984, where "The Party" would say it was at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia, and this had always been the state of things, except Winston knew that four years ago it was not the case. And by the end of the book it switches back again, with the people accepting that it had always been that way. When it suits North Korea's purposes to tell its people that it is making scientific progress, it is launching a satellite. When it suits The Party's purposes to show that it is standing up to its "evil" sworn enemy (the U.S.), it is an ICBM test. When they have no data from their "satellite" to show, they claim the U.S. shot it down, which conditions people to be more accepting of an ICBM test in the future.
      • North Korean leadership is far from monolithic. There was actually speculation that the young new leader did not want to escalate tensions with the rest of the world, having been educated in Switzerland. However he might have to bow to the pressure of the military that was already in power. So analysts were waiting to see if he would truly depart from the confrontational stance his father took. If there were still any lingering doubts, this test shows that he is either unwilling or unable to deviate from that course. The changing messages from the propaganda machine may be an indication of internal conflicts: one group tells the propaganda machine to announce it has peaceful intentions, while the other bluntly announces it is preparing to nuke the U.S. The more extreme the contradictions, the more likely it is that you have two factions fighting over the same mouthpiece.
      • by Bomazi (1875554)

        Rocket technology is dual-use, it can be used to deliver warheads or launch satellites. It is quite reasonable to be interested in both applications. Just because they are emphasizing one or the other depending of the circumstances doesn't mean there is a contradiction.

  • The scary part... (Score:5, Informative)

    by jacknifetoaswan (2618987) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:07AM (#42870639)

    The scariest part about this whole test scenario is that while the induced earthquake was only a 4.9 on the Richter Scale (the previous was 4.5), that means the new bomb has released four times the energy of the last bomb. Further, they're focusing on miniaturization of the physics package, which allows them to mount the warhead on a missile. If they're ever able to engineer (or buy) a working delivery mechanism, South Korea, Japan, and even US interests, are at risk of nuclear escalation and bombardment.

    I know South Korea is actively pursuing upgrading their AEGIS Destroyers with the US Navy's Ballistic Missile Defense technology, and Japan already has it, but this is a really scary scenario.

    • 12.6 times more energy.
    • by TheNinjaroach (878876) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:35AM (#42870927)

      the induced earthquake was only a 4.9 on the Richter Scale (the previous was 4.5), that means the new bomb has released four times the energy of the last bomb.

      No, it means the earthquake had four times the energy as the last artificial earthquake. As far as I know, there's not a 1:1 relationship between the power in the bomb and the power of the earthquake it creates.

      • Re:The scary part... (Score:5, Informative)

        by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:51AM (#42871121) Homepage

        As far as I know, there's not a 1:1 relationship between the power in the bomb and the power of the earthquake it creates.

        There isn't. It depends on the type of rock, the local seismic conditions, and how well the weapons energy couples to the local rock (which depends on test chamber geometry, the presence or absence of stemming, etc...). Predicting yield from earthquake strength is a very inexact science. (Heck, even determining the exact Richter measurement involves a certain amount of assumptions and black art.)

        • by cffrost (885375)

          As far as I know, there's not a 1:1 relationship between the power in the bomb and the power of the earthquake it creates.

          There isn't. It depends on the type of rock, the local seismic conditions, and how well the weapons energy couples to the local rock (which depends on test chamber geometry, the presence or absence of stemming, etc...). Predicting yield from earthquake strength is a very inexact science. (Heck, even determining the exact Richter measurement involves a certain amount of assumptions and black art.)

          What is "stemming" in this context?

          • Re:The scary part... (Score:5, Informative)

            by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @12:05PM (#42871993) Homepage

            Sorry, I forget the audience I'm writing for sometimes... :)

            "Stemming" is the process of filling in the borehole used to reach the test location/chamber and emplace the test device. This prevents the release of radiation from the test, this both protects the environment (of concern to the Atmospheric Test Ban signatories) and denies exterior observers access to the bomb's waste products (which can be examined to determine the bombs yield, composition, and design).

      • by Hentes (2461350)

        But the energy of the earthquake is still a lower boundary for the energy of the bomb.

    • by FirstOne (193462)

      If they're ever able to engineer (or buy) a working delivery mechanism, South Korea, Japan, and even US interests,are at risk of nuclear escalation and bombardment."

      It's not the threat of bombardment that worries me, it's the threat of an EMP attack [washingtontimes.com] you should be worried about..

      The loss of our grid infrastructure would inevitably lead to multiple Fukishima like meltdowns in the USA.

    • The scariest part about this whole test scenario is that while the induced earthquake was only a 4.9 on the Richter Scale (the previous was 4.5), that means the new bomb has released four times the energy of the last bomb.

      Cargo cult commenting at it's finest... while "four times the energy" certainly sounds scary - looking at the actual numbers means they've likely developed a 10kt bomb. Dangerous, but pretty puny so far as strategic weapons go. 10k is pretty useless for anything but holding un-reinforce

  • by acidfast7 (551610) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:10AM (#42870671)
    they hardly have any infrastructure or resources and somehow manage to both demand foreign aid (and have it delivered) and stay relevant on a global stage (well above where they should be based on peaceful accomplishments). Well played DPRK, my hat is off to you!
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They used slave labor to purchase nuclear weapons technology from a Dutch-trained Pakistani physicists in the 1970's. This isn't home grown technology.

  • Kinda scary... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by holiggan (522846)

    ... to see some countries still stuck in the "cold war" mindset. Worse, to see some countries trapped in the "middle ages" mindset...

  • For them to launch something.. in the name of whatever (satellite, defense, radio broadcast, telecom., etc), and have it fail and rain debris over a populated area of some other country.. Then the shit will hit the fan.. I doubt even China would sit by idly while shit rains down on them (and if it ends up being radioactive in any way, it would be even worse).

    Posturing only goes so far, and then someone will steamroll through..

  • Look at Iraq - would America really have invaded if they honestly believed that nuclear retaliation was a real option ? By having nukes (and being moderately batshit insane), Kim ensures that he can run his dictatorship without outside interference.

  • What ferocious act is NK claiming the US did against it? Are they claiming we shot down their satellite?

  • Because certainly he must realize the severity of retaliation that would occur if he were to actually make an aggressive move against another nation.

    And given that... is it really so naive to think that they really just wanted to launch peaceful satellites? Although I know that the recent nuclear testing doesn't exactly help their case in that regard, it's easily conceivable that it is naught more than posturing... an attempt (not necessarily an effective one) to try to intimidate other countries into letting them practice what they wanted to do.

    Like I said... if their underlying intent were genuinely to launch an ICBM against another country, I'm pretty sure that the nation's leader realizes that there won't be a nation left for him to lead afterwards. Doesn't it then follow that, by course of the instinct for one's own survival, that he might, just might, actually be telling the truth?

    • by matty619 (630957)

      I really wonder if any other nuclear nation has the stones to launch a retaliatory nuclear response if PRNK were to nuke another country?

    • And given that... is it really so naive to think that they really just wanted to launch peaceful satellites?

      Yes. They have every reason to want to build a strike capability against the United States, for all the same reasons the USSR and China wanted to.

    • by Psyborgue (699890)
      They stopped denying the "peaceful satellites" line the other week. North Korea’s National Defence Commission said: "We are not disguising the fact that the various satellites and long-range rockets that we will fire and the high-level nuclear test we will carry out are targeted at the United States." It doesn't get much clearer than that. Why do they do it? It's very simple, and very rational. They behave badly and naive bleeding-heart parties on the world stage give them humanitarian aid and sh
  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @01:45PM (#42873135) Homepage

    How much TNT did it take to simulate this nuclear test?

    What is the evidence that North Korea set off a nuclear bomb? There was an earthquake, and we theorize it was caused by an explosion that was "6 to 7 kilotons." That is entirely feasible to do with conventional explosives. There have been accidents with coal trains and ships colliding that have produced explosions equivalent to over 2 kilotons. Doesn't this seem more likely? Or is there some evidence that this really was nuclear?

    How is it that Iran can't get enough centrifuges to make a nuclear bomb, but North Korea can? Iran is much more advanced as far as I know. (Please reply and enlighten me if I am wrong here). If they really do have a nuclear weapon in NK, it seems most likely that they bought old soviet surplus or got it from China.

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...