North Korea Conducts Third Nuclear Test 270
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."
Making Peace? (Score:2, Interesting)
By which you mean inviting in our economic hit men and accepting loans?
Re:Making Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
This would work... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By the conventional standard that condemns such actions as "Western imperiali
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Making Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Making Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like it ruined Germany.
Oh wait....
Re:Making Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
And, IIRC, East Germany was about 1/4 the size of Germnay. North Korea is 1/3.
From what I have read, the reintegration of N. Korea is going to be a bigger deal then East Germany.
Re:It's different! (Score:4, Informative)
And, IIRC, East Germany was about 1/4 the size of Germany. North Korea is 1/3.
East Germany was about 108000 km2 and West Germany was about 248000 km2. Population in the east was around 16 million and in the west it was around 63 million. In the east, per capita GDP was about half what it was in the west.
North Korea is about 128000 km2 and South Korea is about 100000 km2. Population in the north is about 24 million. Population in the south is about 50 million. In the north, per capita GDP is less that a tenth of what it is in the south.
From what I have read, the reintegration of N. Korea is going to be a bigger deal then East Germany.
It certainly seems that way.
Re:Making Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Peaceful Satellite? (Score:2, Insightful)
They just demonstrated the intended payload of that "satellite".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"Wantonly violated?" (Score:5, Interesting)
"...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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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"
Re: (Score:3)
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).
Re:"Wantonly violated?" (Score:4, Informative)
"...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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you so sure that we didn't shoot it down?
Because these guys [satobs.org] have observed [satobs.org] and photographed it.
Re:"Wantonly violated?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I recall correctly, the reason they gave for the malfunction was tampering or destruction by westerners. That's not an admission of culpability, that's passing the blame to create a people more ingrained to hate westerners.
The scary part... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I was really confused where the claim "4 times" came from, I'm guessing now, but let it be said the original claim is based on so many erroneous assumptions it really doesn't matter.
First of all, "Richter scale" has not been used in most of the world for decades. Everybody uses Moment Magnitude scale nowadays, and the quoted values are the Moment Magnitudes. Also, USGS almost immediately re-classified the latest as M5.1 as more information came in from seismic stations.
The Moment Magnitude scale is still lo
Re:The scary part... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
But the energy of the earthquake is still a lower boundary for the energy of the bomb.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Had I said it was something to ignore, you'd have a point. Instead, I did what you failed to do - I placed the yield in context rather than simply pronouncing it 'scary'.
Did you even read my reply?
Spinning facts and
Re: (Score:2)
All I know is that after the Soviet Union fell, there were a lot of scientists and engineers looking for work. It's not inconceivable that a significant number of these people defected to any number of hostile states, bringing their knowledge of weapons, delivery systems, etc.
Now, granted, North Korea is kinda like the kid down the street that tries hard, postures, but never really developed any muscles, but regardless, they've got some amount of technology that could be transferred to a terrorist network
I'm actually quite impressed with the DPRK... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Canadians
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking Australian Cane Toad bombardment.
Kinda scary... (Score:2, Insightful)
... to see some countries still stuck in the "cold war" mindset. Worse, to see some countries trapped in the "middle ages" mindset...
Re: (Score:2)
i think your use of "stuck" and "trapped" demonstrate a good bit of ignorance
Actually, they're very appropriate for this context, since North Koreans are simply not allowed to leave their country - unlike the citizens of nearly every other country in the modern world. They're also not allowed to do a lot of other things we - socialist Europe included - take for granted, but the use of force to keep people in the country is nearly unique. They are serfs in every way that matters.
Re: (Score:2)
The DPRK aren't "communist" in any ideological sense of the word. They are a totalitarian autocracy keeping the citizens in a state of primitive servitude. Which funnily enough is exactly where communism tends to lead in the real world. I mean think about it - step 1) give us all your stuff, step 2) we'll redistribute it. Is anyone even slightly surprised that it never gets past step 1.
I'm just waiting... (Score:2)
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..
I can almost see their point... (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
What ferocious act is NK claiming the US did against it? Are they claiming we shot down their satellite?
You have to ask.... is NK's leader suicidal? (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I really wonder if any other nuclear nation has the stones to launch a retaliatory nuclear response if PRNK were to nuke another country?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of nuclear test was this? (Score:3)
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.
Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit (Score:4, Insightful)
But China will never abandon North Korea, unless NK attacks China directly. They'll continue to support them in any way possible, within reason, to ensure the communist stronghold on the peninsula. Further, the entire world will continue to provide support to NK via humanitarian aid and appeasement, as long as the North signs a piece of paper that says they won't do anything. We've been through this for decades, with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.
Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit (Score:5, Insightful)
We've been through this for decades, with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.
The leaders of two of these countries (Iraq and Libya) gave up their WMDs. They are both now dead. If we want the leaders of rogue nations to give up their nukes, maybe should stop killing them when they do.
Re: (Score:3)
If we want the leaders of rogue nations to give up their nukes, maybe should stop killing them when they do.
We didn't kill Qaddafi, the Libyan rebels did, and that was after he had threatened to exterminate them like "cockroaches" (his word, not mine). I'm not happy with the way it ended - I would have preferred a trip to The Hague and a small jail cell for the rest of his life - but his death was not a foregone conclusion, and it was certainly not precipitated by his abandonment of WMDs. All of these des
Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not getting killed because they had WMDs, they are getting killed because they were fuckheads. They had WMDs also because they were fuckheads.
If they want to stop getting killed, perhaps they should stop being fuckheads?
Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not getting killed because they had WMDs, they are getting killed because they were fuckheads. They had WMDs also because they were fuckheads.
If they want to stop getting killed, perhaps they should stop being fuckheads?
Actually, since we are usually responsible for putting them in power and selling them the weapons, I think the real fuckheads are closer to home.
Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why the US is so adimiment about countries it doesn't like not having nukes.. not because there is any belief that rouge nations will go around attacking people, but because (naturally) we want to be in as strong of a position as possible and others as weak as possible, so anything that means we can not unilaterally push them around is something we want to prevent.
Re: (Score:2)
It's very rare that any country, nowadays, is able to exert enough might to push another country around, simply because the internet and on-demand information delivery makes it too costly for a free society to exert its will at ease. In the days of slow news delivery, and frankly, a much more conservative news industry, the US would have been able to exert pressure covertly, but today, any leak of information regarding drone usage, incursions to a foreign country, or other punitive measures, will be met wi
Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Riiight. The US has been invading or otherwise compromising countries' sovereignty right and left for the last forty years. Iraq and Afghanistan are just two big, recent, ongoing examples.
Regardless of whether you think it's justified or not (and some are pretty hard to justify, such as Iran in the 70s), the OP is spot on - if you're a country the US doesn't like your choice is pretty much between developing nukes and doing whatever the US tells you to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit (Score:4, Insightful)
There is still no evidence that Saddam gave up his chemical weapons. Just because they weren't found in Iraq, doesn't mean they were destroyed. It's very likely that they were transferred to another insane state. Iran comes to mind immediately. Besides, he had the opportunity, actually, many opportunities, in the lead-up to the invasion, to present evidence that his weapons had been destroyed, allow independent investigators to inspect his facilities, and make nice with the world at large. He, instead, chose to posture and puff his chest out in defiance.
Anything that happened to Saddam was his own doing.
Re:Even China is getting tired of their shit (Score:4, Informative)
There is still no evidence that Saddam gave up his chemical weapons. Just because they weren't found in Iraq, doesn't mean they were destroyed. It's very likely that they were transferred to another insane state. Iran comes to mind immediately. Besides, he had the opportunity, actually, many opportunities, in the lead-up to the invasion, to present evidence that his weapons had been destroyed, allow independent investigators to inspect his facilities, and make nice with the world at large. He, instead, chose to posture and puff his chest out in defiance.
Anything that happened to Saddam was his own doing.
Spoken like someone that does not understand mid-east politics. Of course Iraq had chemical weapons at some point. Before 1990 Iraq had chemical weapons with the intent to USE them on Iran. They were at war for 8 years [wikipedia.org]. Chemical weapons were used multiple times. Iran has the capability of making their own chemical weapons. There are many far worse groups that could have this stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's very likely that they were transferred to another insane state. Iran comes to mind immediately.
Then you are ignorant of the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s. That was the reason for Gadaffi developing chemical weapons in the first place. To use agaist Iran. If he still had them in the period before GWII, the very last place he'd have sent them would be Iran.
The mostly likely thing he would have done is to bury them in the desert. That's what he did with his air force fighters after all. But given that they still haven't been found, the chance of them still existing at the time of GWII are negligible.
For su
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just that the Chinese prefer having an ally (no matter how crazy and tyrannical) to a U.S. puppet on their border. They're not idiots, and they really, really, don't want to be forced to deal with the humanitarian disaster that a N. Korean collapse would create.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the humanitarian disaster that is most of mainland China???
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What the article is not able to articulate is the "wink wink nudge nudge" the Chinese Foreign Minister was gesturing at the NK Ambassador.
Make no mistake at all. China is 100% all for NK having nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think NK wont turn into a US puppet state anyways, only now with nukes?
Can you give an example of a realistic scenario in which that might occur?
I wonder (Score:2)
They seem to do this whenever they feel "threatened", which is whenever someone says something mean apparently.
So, we just keep saying mean things to them and they'll keep blowing up their nuclear stock underground. They have to run out eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
China likes NK just the way they are. It scares China's neighbors, specifically Japan. This will make Japan come hat in hand to China asking that they please keep the pit bull leashed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Double? Not really but since our last nuclear test was in 1992, I suggest that we start up testing again. Nothing bootstraps an economy like large weapons projects however I submit that Nevada is not really suitable for this anymore. First, The Mortgage Crisis has left most of Nevada more barren and empty than before, so if you set off a Nuke there, would anybody notice? Second is potential fallout to Utah and points East of the Test area.
Now, I propose at least one new test area, frankly we really need
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isn't about whether they can completely disable a country, rather, it's about them being able to impact a country in a profound enough way to change their way of life, or cause enough harm to make them fear you. I assume, since you're on Slashdot, that you've seen Iron Man 2, specifically, the line that MIckey Rourke delivers to RDJ - "If you can make God bleed, people will stop believing in Him."
That's really what they're after, as well as all other terrorist countries and organizations. Look a