North Korea Nuclear Test: Strong or Weak?
How real/immediate is North Korea’s nuclear threat? While the rest of the media is getting into the blame game, the CNN has carried an interesting Associated Press report about how dangerous or immediate are the consequences of this nuclear test.
“North Korea may have the bomb. But the twin complexities of developing nuclear warheads from a successful test explosion and the ways of delivering them means the country may be years away from posing an atomic threat to the rest of the world.
“Ahead of Monday’s reported explosion, former U.N. nuclear inspector David Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, speculated that the test bomb would have a yield three to four times weaker than the bombs that destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II because of the North Koreans’ lack of ability to produce a stronger weapon.
“Indirectly confirming Albright’s comments on Monday, both Russian and South Korean officials said seismic measurements showed the blast was far weaker than those dropped on the two Japanese cities.
“The amount of plutonium or enriched uranium at the North’s disposal for the fissile core of warheads is unknown. But estimates put it as enough for no more than 13 weapons, compared to the thousands of warheads the United States has at its disposal.
“And Pyongyang’s ability to deliver such warheads is also in doubt.”
And now the world leaders should be discussing how best to tackle the situation, and not aggravating it some by reckless action.
33 Responses to “North Korea Nuclear Test: Strong or Weak?”
If they expected 10-12 months before N korea was going to test a nuke after its claim it was going too, can we really rely on a statement of several years before it is able to send that bomb with ICBM technology. The only reason it took us so long to develop the capabilities was because we were the pioneer developer of nuclear weapons. Look at the time russia took test to weaponry compared to us. I think N korea could be 2-4 years away if not months honestly.
That being said, i believe the bush administration has one last shot to fix the problem started by clinton and came to fruition under bush. Bush has a chance to once again gain support of americans to resolve an issue that dangerously threatens our saftey.
Also take into consideration that they dont need to develop missle technology to harm us. they already sell weapons to Iran and Syria, and we all remember the schematics for a “dirty bomb” suitcase back in 2004. So all they have to do is sell this new discovery of nuclear explosion to Iran or Syria, incorporate the weapon into the “dirty bomb” and boom isreal or us has a big mushroom cloud on the horizon.
Bush has 1 shot to fix this threat, and with his past track record i fear for the worst.
thank you,
randal
Randal a “dirty bomb” has nothing to do with nuclear fission, it’s not a nuclear bomb at all, simply packing a regular bomb with radioactive material in an attempt to cause radiation sickness in people. For all practical purposes the threat from “dirty bombs” is minimal as most of the casualties would actually be in the initial blast. Effectively it would just hamper emergency response and require expensive clean up. I’m not sure whether a real nuclear weapon could be made suit case size (especially with such primitive technology). Also, the US is the only country that made “good” ICBM technology. ICBM is way more advanced and complicated than even fusion bombs. North Korea has also spent extensive research trying to make single inter-continental missles and failed thus far.
Er I lied a bit because I conflated two things. Normally ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missle) automatically means it has MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) i.e. one missle splits up into many warheads. Technically this isn’t true, when I said ICBM I meant MIRV ICBM.
Thank you for setting me stright. So i suppose the nuclear program of North Korea’s might not be that great of threat, but it will go to futher the nuclear program of Iran thanks to the close relationship we foced them to have. So what do we do? assess that is not taht important now and deal with it 5 years down the road? thats what clinton did his last term and bush has done. And if they stil cant use it as a tactical weapon (using tactical simply as a way to utilize the explosion in a military action) then we still have a chance to stop it from getting there.
So my original point holds some water. Bush has 1 shot to fix the “sins” of clinton and his own administration by letting North Korea obtain the nuke. It is stupid to strike a country that has nuclear weapons that are able to perform in the battlefield, so we cant let North Korea get to this point of no return. If we truely want a non-nuclear world then its up to those countries that wish for a world like that to protect the path the world must take to get there.
sorry for the banter and confusion ahead of time
thankyou,
randal
Randal in all of the rhetoric surrounding North Korea and Iran this is the main real reason why we don’t want countries to have the bomb. Most of the nuclear powers want to stop proliferation not because they are genuinely worried about an attack against a city, but because it would remove most of their capability to invade a nuclear country. The supreme irony is that the more likely we are to invade a country, the more it encourages them to try to get a nuclear weapon so we cannot. Once you get that power it totally changes the diplomatic calculus, so there’s no reason to not develop the bomb and our policies fail to recognize this. Unfortunately I don’t see any way to get around this unless we want to just start a war with any country developing the bomb or completely cut them off from the world. The only countries where diplomacy successfully stopped development (South Africa and Libya) it was due to the fact they didn’t have the infrastructure and money required to complete it.
By the way, North Korea probably definitely has the capability to use it “tactically” and attack any operating base that threatened them, so that ship has probably already sailed.
Hmmmmm, not much thought from you lefties on this one, I see. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to bring some ideas to the table.
And if I fish around on this “moderate” website, how much Foley will I find? A lot, I bet. Not a good sign, gang.
Mikkel, its funny that you explain the reason behind stoping proliferation of nuclear energy. Its funny because quite recently because i get bored alot i have played Empire Earth, the first not the second. I love the game but once you get into the atomic age, if u let your oponents to live long, you have lost all possibility of invading their area to destroy them because all they do is use nukes for defense. Its insane how realistic that is because also using a nuker to bomb a city is utterly worthless with, well nvm becuase no one has great missle defense in the real world. Maybe Americans should play Empire Earth and see how easy it is to be nuked without some sort of defense system, and how hard it is to attack a country which has the bomb.
Marquis, foley is a horrible person no matter what his political party may be. I mean was he running on the logic of, “oh i can create laws against sex ofenders…I am one!” ive seen hypocrits but ive never seen it to this extent.
I personally hated clinton for what he did in office but honestly i thought impeachment was all that was necessary, what he did didnt warrent expolsion from office, and what congress did for once was the right thing. and foley for this, well foley for this just needs to find a hole and crawl into it because no matter what party he is, hes a freaking sick person.
Back to Mikkel, so what can we possibly do to get around this obsticle of a unstable man with nuclear weapons that are “tactical”?
Time Article #1
Time Article #2
First article, read the 5th full paragraph and tell me what we could have done to prevent them from testing it?
Second Article, read the 4th paragraph and tell me what we could have done on Oct. 3rd when they announce they will test in teh future unless…. also this proposition has been on the table for years, but because of bush’s ego he would never return to diplomacy.
So what can we do now to make sure they dont use that in the region? well considering time proposes that they are doing this so that they can be heard and respected, i think its about time we did that and atleast gave them our ear internationally. The fact is now he has become a threat to allies of ours because of our incompetent administration. China, Russia and South Korea, all landed with north korea, have been supporting a 1 on 1 diplomatic solution right along with north korea, but we never listened to them, now they are at the mercy of an unstable with a nuke.
so how about we stop this ego trip and attempt to talk them into nuclear dissarment, because that is the only course we can hope for because as mikkel points out, invasion is almost destroyed.
thank you,
randal
Randal:
One good sign is that China actually seems quite a bit agitated by this development. They are the biggest economic supporter of N Korea, so before we start rattling the sabers we should explore how far China is willing to go to remedy this situation.
Kevin H:
One good sign is that China actually seems quite a bit agitated by this development. They are the biggest economic supporter of N Korea, so before we start rattling the sabers we should explore how far China is willing to go to remedy this situation.
This is my point exactly tho. Why did japan bomb america? because we were cutting off oil supply and they were being choked to death practically. China has a large control over the oil North korea gets. If china were to impose sanctions limiting and bleeding the unstable leader dry of oil, well he might be crazy enough to use one of his weapons on china i mean its bad for anyone. Im not serious when i say i dont have to worry about it because they dont have any capabilities to get it over here. Man they can give it to iran and syria and then its americans who are on the list for its usage. A way to make North Korea disarm itself is the best we can hope for after today. Face it, they are the kid who forced themselves into the club of nuclear weapons, and if the worst is be expected, then i am sure to hear of Iran getting one too.
these are blanketed statements yes i know that, but i can see no good in allowing this to get to where it has goten, and i see no quick way to resolve the threat that North Korea now poses.
thank you,
randal
Hmmmmm, not much thought from you lefties on this one, I see. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to bring some ideas to the table.
Blah blah blah. It’s your mans’ turn up to the plate. Trash talk all you want, you guys are toast. Our guys will do what they do when thet get some juice. The difference between the new congress and the current clownshow will ensure you guys will walk the desert for another 40 years.
And if I fish around on this “moderate” website, how much Foley will I find? A lot, I bet. Not a good sign, gang.
Yep, not a good sign. For you! If you fish around you will find whatever fits your preconcieved notions.
Which is why you will spend the next 40 years hating everybody.
Enjoy.
BTW vis-a-vis Korea, the cats out of the bag. We bomb em and Soul will get rocket attacks that make Lebanon/Isreal look like a fireworks outing.
This one is Chinas little pet, only they can handle it. King George has made sure we aren’t even players.
Look for Japan to rearm and seek nukes. And they can friken afford to make em.
Thats what happens when you wont talk to anybody you dont like.
Didnt work in 5th grade, doesnt work now.
Interesting comments from guy at CNS news. Audio at Hot Air.
Some NK expert on CNN advised forcing China to take a bigger role in this mess by threatening to help Japan develop nukes of their own. So far they’ve been useless as a partner in stabilizing regional/global events.
Under the treaty that prohibits japan a standing army taht they signed with us at the end of WWII, can they even arm up without being in violation of this treaty? or has that treaty been disreguarded and i just happen to miss it?
Randal- I believe you are right, but that probably could be circumvented. Haven’t we violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty by agreeing to help India develop its nuclear weapons program? I’m sure we fear a nuclear North Korea more than the resurrection of the Empire of Japan. It would be interesting to see how they deal with the issue. I’m not suggesting that this is the course the Bush administration is planning on following, but it makes more sense to me than trying to get anything done with the six-party talks.
The Japanese are actually prohibited from having a military in their constitution. However the new Prime Minister is a proponent of changing the constitution to allow this. I am not sure about the popular support for this, since they get a pretty good deal with the US protecting them more or less free of charge, however considering our current engagements they might figure they can’t count on us any longer.
Tommy I listened to the HotAir thing, sounds like whomever put together and signed off on the Clinton deal were all freakin morons. I still have yet to hear any good ideas about how to actually stop someone (say…Iran) from acquiring a bomb though.
Yesterday I was watching the CNN and a former US ambassador to China made a few interesting points. The most important was that China privately conveyed to the US administration that North Korea was paranoid about the imminent American attack.
So no amount of convincing from China would help,said China. That is why until the bomb was exploded the North Korean dictator was constantly harping on the theme that the USA must talk to them, possibly to assure that their country would not be violated as in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan.
But then there are people who go on believing that threats and bullying can help, until their bluff is called off.
The USA has a number of brilliant experts and sane advisers on international affairs. Why have they been all shoved aside? Isn’t it time to listen to them?
Interesting point- In my opinion, we should listen to any and all sane ideas that will return stability to the region. But that doesn’t mean that we will. If he labelled NK part of the axis of evil, Bush may have been hoping to effect regime change after dealing with Iraq.
From what I have read, he knew almost nothing about foreign policy, and had to be tutored by Condi about North Korea. According to “State of Denial” he asked her why he should care about North Korea.
I have tried to look at it from their perspective, but didn’t know that NK had communicated this to the Chinese. Almost every foreign policy expert (except neocons) has urged direct talks. We keep hearing how crazy and dangerous he is, and that talking has done no good before this.
The Japanese public will, by and large, not have a problem with such a change.
Because a lot of the “brilliant experts” are the exact same clowns who got us into this mess in the first place.
Wanna know where Jimmy Carter’s priorities lie, for instance?
A comment on LGF that quotes an interview with Carter says it all says it all. I especially like the part where Carter says [in regards to Kim Jong-Il]:“When I arrived though, he treated me with great deference. He was obviously very grateful that I had come. So far as I know then and now, he was completely truthful with me.”
Someone else called Carter something along the lines of the epitome of “sanctimonious evil.” Sounds about right.
Someone else called Carter something along the lines of the epitome of “sanctimonious evil.” Sounds about right.
Keep on yappin. Your selling the hate real good.
Not
I am not referring to the “experts” who frequently make a splash in the media or are being talked about in the blogs.
I am talking about the people who are seriously and academically inclined. Who may or may not have served the USA as diplomats. Then there are organisations devoted to serious study of international relations and the concerned countries.
All these people/organisations have to be tapped, invited, encouraged to speak out their minds. In the present chaotic state of debate and discussion, these bright and brilliant people shy away because they are not street fighters.
And they probably fear that if they speak what they believe in no one would listen to them or, worse, they may even come to harm by the powers that be.
So Tommy there is no dearth of brilliant experts. But it depends whom you consider as “experts”. Ans also whether in this climate of “shock and awe” they would like to join the discussion at all.
Swaraaj,
To which experts and organizations are you referrring (this isn’t sarcasm, it’s a sincere question).
Tommy- Many moderates believe that the tendency to label some leaders good and some evil paints the world in unrealistic shades of black and white. In today’s diplomatic corps its very simple we talk to our friends who are “good” and ignore our enemies, who are “evil”. Meanwhile the hostilities continue to build, and we actually learn very little about the countries we are “against”. I don’t find Bush’s policy of isolation and humiliation in order to bring rogue nations to their knees, particularly productive. He has created an atmosphere of great national insecurity. Why? So he can appear as the beacon of strength and power in an insecure world.
Our other leaders have negotiated with our enemies throughout history, and it has not undermined our position as a superpower, but rather reinforced it. That is the reason that even Jim Baker who was in both Reagan and Bush’s (GW’s father) cabinets advocates diplomacy-not as an appeasing action, but to ease hostilities and to better know our enemies.
I think you can go too far in either direction: isolating enemies by not talking to them is risky in many cases, but so is talking to them when they are completely duplicitous (can someone explain what the point of talking is if we can’t believe anything that is said?) Someone earlier mentioned that Bush expects Iran to take its biggest card off the table before he will agree to talks. Maybe so, but on the other hand, Iran expects us to talk to them under the conditions that the biggest card is to stay in their hands no matter what.
I don’t pretend to have the answers in the NK and Iran case, but my take on both is simply that sometimes there are no good options.
CS- But do you think the present strategy is working? If not, wouldn’t it seem wiser to try something new? I think during the Cold War we often negotiated with powers that we knew were being duplicitous with us, but it was still important to have the contact. Gov. Bill Richardson has some interesting comments on this strategy on the MSNBC site (video interview). His point is that direct talks need not be seen as caving in to an enemy-you can also deliver your own message more effectively than in multiparty talks.
Kim,
I think the biggest problem that has led to inadequate progress with the six party talks is that we haven’t been able to get everyone on the same page. One option, as you suggest, would be to abandon that process and talk directly, but I’d suggest that it would be better if we could get the five parties to apply uniform pressure. The problem is that we are often at cross purposes with the other 5, and I don’t think anything is going to work unless we can rectify that.
CS- I agree with your point. China has been reluctant to come on board with us-they are afraid that stiff sanctions against NK will result in mass exodus of refugees crossing into China. South Korea also appears to oppose the hard line we have taken. Part of diplomacy is getting the other parties on board. If all feel they are facing a nuclear threat, we ought to be able to make some headway. We can certainly consider rearming Japan or using economic pressures on China to get them more in line-or we can adjust our policy line a bit.
If the talks are totally dysfunctional, we can abandon them in favor of two-party talks combined with whatever sanctions we can apply. I just feel that this has been allowed to fester-maybe because we are so distracted by our problems in the ME. There is a good article on ModerateVoters.org on the results of our Axis of Evil policy–sorry I am such a loser with links!
Kim,
To post a link in your comment:
Whatever. Jimmy Carter handed Iran to the mullahs (once famously referring to Khomenei as a “fellow man of faith”), he handed nuclear reactors (which were utterly useless to North Korea) to Kim Jong-Il, he has been more than a little cozy with too many left-wing Communist dictators, like Fidel, over the years, and his only “achievement” has been The Camp David Accords, which as Robert Spencer points out, have been violated by Egypt over the years in almost every single way. (The real reason there hasn’t been any further war between Egypt and Israel is Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, not Jimmuh’s stupid deal which forced the Israelis to concede too much unnecessarily to the Egyptians.)
CS and anyone else, try this link for Arms experts, it’s a little hitech but a good one.
Arms wonk
CS Thanks for the links lesson! I’ll try!