North Korea tested a nuke?

[Michael Z]

heard this listening to some liberal moron on the radio at midnight today--MSNBC sent something out at 4:00 A.M.  any details???

There are conflicting reports on the bomb's strength. South Korea is saying it registered the same as a detonation of 550 tons of TNT, while Russia is saying it registered 5000-15000 tons. The Hiroshima bomb was about 15000 just to give you an example. Modern nukes are more powerful though - for example France detonated one in 1996 equivelant to 120000 tons.

There is actually a very good chance that it was either a) a failed detonation, or b) not a nuclear detonation at all, but simply some explosives detonated to give the impression they had set off a nuclear device. But of course it's extremely difficult to say, what with the complete isolation the NK nuclear programme is functioning under (as does everything else related to the loopy Kim Jong-Il regime) and the diversity of opinions on the extent of the blast, but suffice to say it's quite reassuring to see EVERYONE - the US, European countries, China, Russia - agreeing that a nuclear North Korea would be totally unacceptable. It's the first time in a long time I've seen everyone in the Security Council agreeing on something. Quite a welcome change, I have to say.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are. Something tells me, however, that the Chinese government have now reached a point where their relationship with the rest of the world is more important with that of some unpredictable tinpot dictatorship. Besides, South Korea would probably bear the biggest brunt of any mass exodus from NK, and yet they wouldn't exactly shed a tear over that particular regime's demise.

[J. J.]

Not to mention the potential foir NK to strike China.

[Keystone Phil]

Not to mention the potential foir NK to strike China.

That idea is crazy. Why would they attack a very powerful neighbor and ally?

[Citizen James]

Some people are thinking that North Korea faked this with conventional explosives.

Frankly, the idea did cross my mind.  Any way for anyone to independently confirm it?  A slight radioactive signiture of the ground above it or something?

Not to mention the potential foir NK to strike China.

That idea is crazy. Why would they attack a very powerful neighbor and ally?

Well, they could use it as a preventitive threat.  China has a very large land army, and could probably convince the security council to allow them to intervene.  Or just use the Bush docrine and act unilaterally using that possibility as an excuse.

After all, why have a defiant and unstable client state when you can just take it over for yourself.  Is "Kim Il" Korean for "Saddam"?

[John Dibble]

Some people are thinking that North Korea faked this with conventional explosives.

Frankly, the idea did cross my mind.  Any way for anyone to independently confirm it?  A slight radioactive signiture of the ground above it or something?

So far there's none detected AFAIK. Since certain sources are saying that blast was under a kiloton in power it is a possibility. Most nuke tests have been over ten kilotons so it is either the crappiest nuke ever(not surprising from NK either) or was fake.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble,

read a couple of chapters of that book I mentioned yesterday (you should be proud of me, it was the first book outside of Christianity that I have read in 14 years , though I am only a third of the way through it, other than reading children’s books to my kids)...anyways, the book says:

- China spends $100B/year on defense and with the added purchasing power of Chinese goods, it equates to $150B/year.   That is about 5 times the % of GDP that the US spends on defense, and China doesn't have all the foreign commitments the US is burdened with.

- By 2010, China will have as many subs as the entire U.S. Navy.

Those are just a couple of examples I remember.  So why would China spend so much on offensive capability is it didn’t plan on going on the offensive?

[TX_1824]

Japan is sitting on several tons of enriched Uranium, let's see how fast they can change their constitution.

I was thinking the same thing. We might see the re-arming and militarization of Japan to the likes we haven't seen since the 1930's, especially with Shinzo Abe as the new Prime Minister.

[TX_1824]

heard this listening to some liberal moron on the radio at midnight today--MSNBC sent something out at 4:00 A.M.  any details???

There are conflicting reports on the bomb's strength. South Korea is saying it registered the same as a detonation of 550 tons of TNT, while Russia is saying it registered 5000-15000 tons. The Hiroshima bomb was about 15000 just to give you an example. Modern nukes are more powerful though - for example France detonated one in 1996 equivelant to 120000 tons.

There is actually a very good chance that it was either a) a failed detonation, or b) not a nuclear detonation at all, but simply some explosives detonated to give the impression they had set off a nuclear device. But of course it's extremely difficult to say, what with the complete isolation the NK nuclear programme is functioning under (as does everything else related to the loopy Kim Jong-Il regime) and the diversity of opinions on the extent of the blast, but suffice to say it's quite reassuring to see EVERYONE - the US, European countries, China, Russia - agreeing that a nuclear North Korea would be totally unacceptable. It's the first time in a long time I've seen everyone in the Security Council agreeing on something. Quite a welcome change, I have to say.

And they plan to send a strongly worded letter to North Korea asking them to stop with their nuclear program. And if that doesn't work, they'll send another.

[John Dibble]

Those are just a couple of examples I remember.  So why would China spend so much on offensive capability is it didn’t plan on going on the offensive?

The US military has the largest military on the planet, yet we don't necessarily 'plan' to go on the offensive. Not that we don't use our military, but we don't constantly use it in war. There are reasons that a nation would want a large military that don't involve conquest. China will be a superpower, that's for sure, and they'll of course want a superpower level military. I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility that they would use their military to take Taiwan, I just find it unlikely given that it conflicts with the economic interests of certain groups in China.

And while I'm sure the book's author did a lot of research on the subject, keep in mind there are others who do research on it who are of the opposite opinion. Once you finish reading that book I'd recommend finding a credible book espousing the opposite view if you can. It's good to get an understanding of both sides of the issue. Here's something interesting I read in an article(a couple years old I know, but still relevant enough) saying an invasion is unlikely:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And good for you reading something outside of Christianity. I suggest you do it more often, you should find it enjoyable.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And good for you reading something outside of Christianity. I suggest you do it more often, you should find it enjoyable.

Depends on what it is.  This book is more of a long op-ed piece of possible war scenarios.  And obviously I already read a lot of news, opinion, and tech stuff. 

But what I haven't read in 14 years is a novel.  I used to read Tom Clancy before I became a Christian and lost interest in it. 

I have also read only one Christian book outside of the bible because I have I seen how easy it is to blindly adopt wrong opinions.  My pastor reads a book a week, I read a book a decade.

So, even though I read all the time, would you consider me "well read"?

[Joe Republic]

China is urging UN sanctions against North Korea.

Also, seismic recordings in Japan have shown that the blast was anywhere between 550 tons and 15 kilotons.

[John Dibble]

And good for you reading something outside of Christianity. I suggest you do it more often, you should find it enjoyable.

Depends on what it is.  This book is more of a long op-ed piece of possible war scenarios.  And obviously I already read a lot of news, opinion, and tech stuff. 

But what I haven't read in 14 years is a novel.  I used to read Tom Clancy before I became a Christian and lost interest in it. 

I have also read only one Christian book outside of the bible because I have I seen how easy it is to blindly adopt wrong opinions.  My pastor reads a book a week, I read a book a decade.

So, even though I read all the time, would you consider me "well read"?

Well, you're no dummy, that's for sure. You're not well read as far as novels go, but as far as current events go you are. If adopting wrong opinions is a concern of yours, just try to read in balance, which is why I suggest reading an opposite opinion of the book you're reading now.

If you want a series I recommend, I'd try the Sword of Truth series. Even though you're a fundie I don't think you're the type to label anything with 'magic' in it as as evil, so if you like a good fantasy novel it's a pretty good series. It gets a bit obviously preachy starting at the sixth novel, but they're still good overall.

[John Dibble]

Latest update: Japan has decided to prohibit all North Korean ships from entering their ports and a total ban on North Korean imports. North Korean citizens are also banned from comming to Japan, with a few exceptions(possibly refugees and probably diplomats is my guess). Since NK heavily relies on the Japanese import market for selling produce like clams and mushrooms this is bad news for the already impoverished N.Korean economy.

[Beet]

North Korea is f__king up. If they try to make any military moves their nation is finished, even if it has substantial costs.

The administration however needs to drop its objections to one-on-one talks and hold off on the Macau money laundering crap.

[WMS]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really. Now that's a nice way to put it. I suppose that China is opposing this nuke because it would give other nations such as Japan the justification to pull out of the NPT and develop its own nukes, challenging their position as the sole nuclear nation in East Asia. We will have to see the reaction from Beijing in the next few days. I'll see how the Chinese state media says about this.

And to anyone, ANYONE, who tries to politicise this, SHAME on YOU.

(just noticed, this is my 3001st post here)

Well said, especially the part in bold. Cut the political crap over this one.

And Beet, why should we back off on the sanctions over NK's counterfeiting of our currency on a massive scale? If there's one thing the U.S. has really, really, disliked in its history it is the counterfeiting of its currency - remember the origins of the Secret Service? And why should we reward NK for testing a nuke? The money laundering sanctions are the only thing which actually hurts the NK leadership and not the NK populace at large which is why NK wants them removed. Screw that.