Airliners.net

It seems like everyday the leader of North Korea is making threats to use his nuclear weapons against the United States and/or its allies so I am curious if the threats have become such that the United States has targeted a portion of their nuclear triad at North Korea in case they are crazy enough to use their nukes. Or is targeting nuclear weapons such that they can be changed quickly and at a moment's notice?

Thanks for your responses.

The US strategic arsenal of ICBM and SLBMs are currently targeted at the Arctic Ocean, I believe. Same with the Russian ICBM and SLBM force, to my knowledge. I am not sure if this is by treaty or mutual agreement. The weapons can be very quickly re-targeted so it's a symbolic gesture. I am sure OPLAN 8010 (the general plan for a nuclear engagement) includes North Korean assets.

United States has targeted a portion of their nuclear triad at North Korea

If the US returns nuclear fire, it could trigger another world war.

If North Korea launches a nuclear missile, the US should be able to detect it with the Sea-based X-band Radar and eliminate the missile before it reaches the United States. Then, the NATO and China together should decide what to the with North Korea.

Just nuking each other would not be a smart move.

Stitch wrote:

The US strategic arsenal of ICBM and SLBMs are currently targeted at the Arctic Ocean, I believe. Same with the Russian ICBM and SLBM force, to my knowledge. I am not sure if this is by treaty or mutual agreement. The weapons can be very quickly re-targeted so it's a symbolic gesture. I am sure OPLAN 8010 (the general plan for a nuclear engagement) includes North Korean assets.

Why the Arctic? Why not into outer space?

TWA772LR wrote:

Stitch wrote:

The US strategic arsenal of ICBM and SLBMs are currently targeted at the Arctic Ocean, I believe. Same with the Russian ICBM and SLBM force, to my knowledge. I am not sure if this is by treaty or mutual agreement. The weapons can be very quickly re-targeted so it's a symbolic gesture. I am sure OPLAN 8010 (the general plan for a nuclear engagement) includes North Korean assets.

Why the Arctic? Why not into outer space?

Presumably because
(a) the rockets are not able to even enter a stable orbit, let alone leave earth and
(b) a detonation high in the atmosphere or just outside of it, up to the van-Allen belt, can cause strong EMP's with potentially much higher damage. Nobody lives in the arctic and the released radiation would still be manageable should someone accidentally pull the trigger on a nuke. Plus you would not cross hostile countries.

Many of the USN Burke-class destroyers, as well as several Japanese ships, all have BMD capabilities with the Aegis system.

johns624 wrote:

Many of the USN Burke-class destroyers, as well as several Japanese ships, all have BMD capabilities with the Aegis system.

Yes, but intercepting a missile still means being close enough to the flight path to reach it, and while testing has been going respectably well with the SM3, a hit is not guaranteed.

The planning for a hypothetical North Korean launch is guaranteed to be more complicated than "shoot it down."

The default response is also not necessarily nuclear. The "launch on warning" policy changed under Clinton, to one of assuming the triad remains viable after an initial attack, especially a limited one. From there, the options include a conventional response or a proportionate response.

Although I don't think a proportionate response is the best option for dealing with a North Korean attack, I also don't think China is anywhere near dumb enough to start a war (or rather join the one the initial attacker started) in response to such action. That would be effectively condoning the attack.

China may see upsides to a troublesome North Korea being a buffer and distraction in the region, but I can't think what upside they would find in expending their own soldiers lives defending a North Korean nuclear massacre.

The policy on targeting was changed by both sides not that long after the Soviet Union ceased to exist. It's actually more symbolic than anything as nuclear weapons can be retargeted within seconds. The old hardware targeting systems no longer exist and the various delivery systems use digital-type guidance that just needs coordinates to be entered into their guidance systems.

It's a much more flexible system that can be used against emerging threats rather than just fixed targeting of assets on the "other side".

Having a default setting of the Antarctic means that should a fault launch happen then there is a less important target selected than some city of millions. ICBMs are ballistic weapons and can't steer or retarget themselves, they just fly a path set by their guidance, so can't enter an orbit or swing away once the propellant is used.

Cruise-type missiles are even more advanced as they can use multiple systems to calculate tracks and guide their flight but again they won't have hard targets locked into their memory. It's as 'simple' as uploading a fresh file then launching at the chosen target if in range.

ICBMs are ballistic because of a treaty signed by the US and Russia. Otherwise by now all warheads would be of the orbital type with the ability to be redirected in flight.

Aesma wrote:

ICBMs are ballistic because of a treaty signed by the US and Russia. Otherwise by now all warheads would be of the orbital type with the ability to be redirected in flight.

ICBMs are ballistic because thats the quickest delivery option - even with a weapon in the perfect orbit at the right time, it would take more time to deorbit that weapon onto a target than it would take for an ICBM to hit its target.

Add to that the fact that every orbital weapon would be tracked to within an inch of its life, and targeted with anti-satellite weapons at the start of any conflict... ICBMs are just easier and "safer"...

I think a preemptive, night time, strike of several EMP cruise missiles (like Boeing's Champ") would possibly render NK useless for a while.

The US response could be: "What? Your communications systems are out? What happened? We have know idea what happened".

So far I haven't seen any member of this community in any of the threads I have studied here on this horrid topic make note of what is a much, much bigger concern for the citizens of the ROK, the citizens of Japan, and even some other nations nearby if a launch goes very wrong and a wrong area gets hit -- gas. A toxic gas attack is on everyone's mind, not nukes. You start on this conversation with anyone that lives in either the ROK or Japan, or even some in China, and it is the threat from gas attacks that worry much, much more than any other weapons system.

By the way, the next biggest worry in this part of the world is what will happen to the Internet systems. The DPRK has invested a lot of time and money in training people to cause terrible harm to such systems. And you can guess that some other nations have done the same.

mpgunner wrote:

I think a preemptive, night time, strike of several EMP cruise missiles (like Boeing's Champ") would possibly render NK useless for a while.

The US response could be: "What? Your communications systems are out? What happened? We have know idea what happened".

and much of the surrounding area, which would wreck South Korea and be an act of war against any other nation in the footprint.

best regards
Thomas

mpgunner wrote:

I think a preemptive, night time, strike of several EMP cruise missiles (like Boeing's Champ") would possibly render NK useless for a while.

The US response could be: "What? Your communications systems are out? What happened? We have know idea what happened".

You're completely forgetting the thousands of conventional artillery howitzers NK has trained on the south.


They can do an awful lot of damage with these crude, non electronic weapons.

No pre-emptive strike. Not necessary and too subject to unpredictable reactions elsewhere. Should North Korea actually attack though I would prefer to see a counter attack so overwhelming (read apocalyptic) that no one would ever dare think to try such a thing again. (hint Iran).

Flaps wrote:

No pre-emptive strike. Not necessary and too subject to unpredictable reactions elsewhere. Should North Korea actually attack though I would prefer to see a counter attack so overwhelming (read apocalyptic) that no one would ever dare think to try such a thing again. (hint Iran).

Pronounced lack of situational understanding.

Ignore the big words from any politician. They invariable are talking to their own constituency.
( This seems to haunt Trump more than anyone else at the moment?)

There are only two nations around that I would deem irresponsible and derided enough
to do a nuclear first strike. ( cue LeMay and doctrine of a successfull and survivable first strike.)

The USA and ( only maybe ) Israel.

For every one else on this globe nukes are "fire insurance".

On the other hand LeMay acolytes seem to have made a comeback on home turf.

WIederling wrote:

Flaps wrote:

No pre-emptive strike. Not necessary and too subject to unpredictable reactions elsewhere. Should North Korea actually attack though I would prefer to see a counter attack so overwhelming (read apocalyptic) that no one would ever dare think to try such a thing again. (hint Iran).

Pronounced lack of situational understanding.

Ignore the big words from any politician. They invariable are talking to their own constituency.
( This seems to haunt Trump more than anyone else at the moment?)

There are only two nations around that I would deem irresponsible and derided enough
to do a nuclear first strike. ( cue LeMay and doctrine of a successfull and survivable first strike.)

The USA and ( only maybe ) Israel.

For every one else on this globe nukes are "fire insurance".

On the other hand LeMay acolytes seem to have made a comeback on home turf.

If there's a single nation on earth that needs nuclear weapons as a deterrence, it's Israel. If Iran develops nuclear capabilities, they would use them against Israel. So we can't let this happen. If the US doesn't stop Iran from developing a nuke, Israel will.

In 1995 (I think), Bill Clinton handed the North Koreans 5 billion dollars and two centrifuges. In 2006 they detonated their first nuclear weapon. In 2013 they miniturized their warheads to they could fit on an ICBM, and in 2017 they have ICBMs capable of reaching North America.

In 2016 Barrack Obama handed the Iranians 1.5 billion dollars in cash. The Iranians are present in North Korea at every weapons tests, and they're sharing technology between each other. I would bet Iran has a functioning nuclear weapon in 5 years or less unless something is done to stop them. And I consider the Iranians even more irresponsible than the North Koreans.

JetBuddy wrote:

If there's a single nation on earth that needs nuclear weapons as a deterrence, it's Israel. If Iran develops nuclear capabilities, they would use them against Israel. So we can't let this happen. If the US doesn't stop Iran from developing a nuke, Israel will.

broken record:
Pronounced lack of situational understanding.

JetBuddy wrote:

If there's a single nation on earth that needs nuclear weapons as a deterrence, it's Israel. If Iran develops nuclear capabilities, they would use them against Israel. So we can't let this happen. If the US doesn't stop Iran from developing a nuke, Israel will.

(we can't let this happen) Who is "we". Why should the United States support the ongoing and continuous Zionist expansion into other people's homelands? As has been the case since the 1890s, the (95% European) Zionists can have peace with the people of the region anytime they want to stop their theft of land and territorial expansion.

Anytime.

JetBuddy wrote:

In 1995 (I think), Bill Clinton handed the North Koreans 5 billion dollars and two centrifuges.

Clinton did not hand the North Koreans 5 billion dollars and two centrifuges; what he did do was get the NKs to suspend their nuke bomb program. He even got them to allow regular inspections of their nuke facilities and place cameras on their shuttered plutonium production facility.

JetBuddy wrote:

In 2006 they detonated their first nuclear weapon.

In 2002 our dimwitted president Bush broke off the ongoing negotiations with NK, and publicly insulted them (a preview of Trump world); so in turn they kicked out the inspectors, broke the locks, turned off the cameras and resumed nuke development. Four years later they succeeded in detonating a device.

JetBuddy wrote:

In 2013 they miniturized their warheads to they could fit on an ICBM

Nonsense.

JetBuddy wrote:

In 2016 Barrack Obama handed the Iranians 1.5 billion dollars in cash.

In 2016 Obama got the Iranians to agree to a suspension of their nuke program in return for suspension of economic sanctions and the return of Iranian money that had been impounded. That agreement still holds today.

JetBuddy wrote:

And I consider the Iranians even more irresponsible than the North Koreans.

LOL

Just a dumb question. Until two weeks back intelligence community was saying DPRK was years away from miniaturizing a nuke. WTF happened?

dtw2hyd wrote:

Just a dumb question. Until two weeks back intelligence community was saying DPRK was years away from miniaturizing a nuke. WTF happened?

My guess is that there was a politically directed change of that assessment, as opposed to a technical re-assessment.
Pompeo is under Trump's control apparently.

A similar thing happened in 2003 when the CIA was adamant that there were no WMDs in Iraq, until enough arm twisting was done to get them to change their minds. Cheney visited CIA Hq in that lobbying effort - the first time the executive branch had ever gone to Langley.

salttee wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Just a dumb question. Until two weeks back intelligence community was saying DPRK was years away from miniaturizing a nuke. WTF happened?

My guess is that there was a politically directed change of that assessment, as opposed to a technical re-assessment.
Pompeo is under Trump's control apparently.

A similar thing happened in 2003 when the CIA was adamant that there were no WMDs in Iraq, until enough arm twisting was done to get them to change their minds. Cheney visited CIA Hq in that lobbying effort - the first time the executive branch had ever gone to Langley.

Edit: It may have been a change in the assessment of whether Iraq was involved in 9-11 or had Al Qaeda ties. It's been a while.

salttee wrote:

In 2016 Obama got the Iranians to agree to a suspension of their nuke program in return for suspension of economic sanctions and the return of Iranian money that had been impounded. That agreement still holds today.

Actually the US immediately worked towards "neutralizing" the agreements by raising roadblocks in other domains
and thus retreating on their commitment while endlessly demanding Iran to unagreed upon further limitations.
( Not clear if this was Obama's doing or pushed by the imbeciles of the GOP. )

moo wrote:

Aesma wrote:

ICBMs are ballistic because of a treaty signed by the US and Russia. Otherwise by now all warheads would be of the orbital type with the ability to be redirected in flight.

ICBMs are ballistic because thats the quickest delivery option - even with a weapon in the perfect orbit at the right time, it would take more time to deorbit that weapon onto a target than it would take for an ICBM to hit its target.

Add to that the fact that every orbital weapon would be tracked to within an inch of its life, and targeted with anti-satellite weapons at the start of any conflict... ICBMs are just easier and "safer"...

I didn't mean warheads would be kept on orbit (although I'm sure some would be) I meant at least part of the missiles would be able to send warheads on orbit, expanding targeting possibilities.

Of course this would have led to yet another arms race, including on the anti-missile/anti-warhead capabilities.

salttee wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

In 2006 they detonated their first nuclear weapon.

In 2002 our dimwitted president Bush broke off the ongoing negotiations with NK, and publicly insulted them (a preview of Trump world); so in turn they kicked out the inspectors, broke the locks, turned off the cameras and resumed nuke development. Four years later they succeeded in detonating a device.

North Korea's nuclear weapons program didn't begin in 2002. That's why the Bush administration took the position it did. There's a plainly obvious lesson from 2002: if your counterpart's objective in a negotiation is simply to buy time, then you must have a point in time where you will cease negotiations. Negotiations are a means, not an end.

salttee wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

In 2013 they miniturized their warheads to they could fit on an ICBM

Nonsense.

Nonsense based on what? Plenty of countries have achieved advanced miniaturized designs with minimal testing.

salttee wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

In 2016 Barrack Obama handed the Iranians 1.5 billion dollars in cash.

In 2016 Obama got the Iranians to agree to a suspension of their nuke program in return for suspension of economic sanctions and the return of Iranian money that had been impounded. That agreement still holds today.

The agreement "holds" because the agreement offered by Obama and Kerry were so conciliatory that Iran could effectively continue it's WMD programs at an R&D level and get a windfall of hard cash and economic benefits. Again, that's the danger of placing negotiations and an agreement as the end rather than the means.

DfwRevolution wrote:

North Korea's nuclear weapons program didn't begin in 2002. That's why the Bush administration took the position it did. There's a plainly obvious lesson from 2002: if your counterpart's objective in a negotiation is simply to buy time, then you must have a point in time where you will cease negotiations. Negotiations are a means, not an end.

Are you under the impression that Bush knew what he was doing and had thought out the consequences of his "axis of evil" accusation? If so, you are in a minority.

salttee wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

In 2013 they miniturized their warheads to they could fit on an ICBM

Nonsense.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Nonsense based on what? Plenty of countries have achieved advanced miniaturized designs with minimal testing.

Nonsense based on a complete lack of evidence to prove the assertion. If you want to make that assertion then you need to provide some citations to prove it. The burden of proof is on you and "Plenty of countries have achieved advanced miniaturized designs" is just nonsense piled on top of nonsense.

JetBuddy wrote:

In 2016 Barrack Obama handed the Iranians 1.5 billion dollars in cash.

In 2016 Obama got the Iranians to agree to a suspension of their nuke program in return for suspension of economic sanctions and the return of Iranian money that had been impounded. That agreement still holds today.

DfwRevolution wrote:

The agreement "holds" because the agreement offered by Obama and Kerry were so conciliatory that Iran could effectively continue it's WMD programs at an R&D level and get a windfall of hard cash and economic benefits. Again, that's the danger of placing negotiations and an agreement as the end rather than the means.

Iran has ended its active nuclear weapon development program, most people see that as a good thing. The money that was returned was their money, are you advocating that we steal their money? You need to give that some thought.

What you also need to give some thought to is the fact that Iran exists, and it has done so as a major power in its region for the last 2,500 years. Iran is not going away even if you don't like them. Take a look at what happened when the US tried to re-arrange Iraq.

I recognize your attitude, I've heard it before. Your kind has done a pretty good job of crippling this country with your losing wars in Vietnam then again in Iraq. The state this country is in now is a direct result of those two lost wars. If you people have your way and get the US into a war with Iran that will be the end of the United States as it has existed for the last 200 years. And that might be enough to bring me to take up arms in defense of my country. But I wouldn't have Iran in my sights.

JetBuddy wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Flaps wrote:

No pre-emptive strike. Not necessary and too subject to unpredictable reactions elsewhere. Should North Korea actually attack though I would prefer to see a counter attack so overwhelming (read apocalyptic) that no one would ever dare think to try such a thing again. (hint Iran).

Pronounced lack of situational understanding.

Ignore the big words from any politician. They invariable are talking to their own constituency.
( This seems to haunt Trump more than anyone else at the moment?)

There are only two nations around that I would deem irresponsible and derided enough
to do a nuclear first strike. ( cue LeMay and doctrine of a successfull and survivable first strike.)

The USA and ( only maybe ) Israel.

For every one else on this globe nukes are "fire insurance".

On the other hand LeMay acolytes seem to have made a comeback on home turf.

If there's a single nation on earth that needs nuclear weapons as a deterrence, it's Israel. If Iran develops nuclear capabilities, they would use them against Israel. So we can't let this happen. If the US doesn't stop Iran from developing a nuke, Israel will.

In 1995 (I think), Bill Clinton handed the North Koreans 5 billion dollars and two centrifuges. In 2006 they detonated their first nuclear weapon. In 2013 they miniturized their warheads to they could fit on an ICBM, and in 2017 they have ICBMs capable of reaching North America.

In 2016 Barrack Obama handed the Iranians 1.5 billion dollars in cash. The Iranians are present in North Korea at every weapons tests, and they're sharing technology between each other. I would bet Iran has a functioning nuclear weapon in 5 years or less unless something is done to stop them. And I consider the Iranians even more irresponsible than the North Koreans.

Israel already has nukes

JetBuddy wrote:

If there's a single nation on earth that needs nuclear weapons as a deterrence, it's Israel.

load of crap. Israel couldn´t be defeated on the hight of arab combat power, there is not even a remotely existential threat to Israel and Israels nuclear weapons are only good to take the enemy down with them, since any tactical use will devastate Israel just as much. Or for first strikes. Different from Iran, where the USA is bound by international law to give them whatever civilian nuclear technology they desire, and like the rest of the west constantly violating that binding international law by not doing so constantly, helping Israel with any nuclear technology is a violation of the NNTP. Countries violating the NNTP have no business binding other nations to it in any case.

Israel is also the country that illegally and clandestinely arrange to get Uranium. It was a US company that conveniently lost about 600 pounds of HEU.....

If Iran develops nuclear capabilities, they would use them against Israel. So we can't let this happen. If the US doesn't stop Iran from developing a nuke, Israel will.

You are making an excellent point FOR Iran developing nukes, but Iranian nukes can´t do anything to Israel that Chemical weapons couldn´t already do for decades. Making an area uninhabitable for people for a long time is actually easier with chemical and biological weapons than doing so with nukes. So your "they would use them against Israel" in completely unfounded nonsense, if destroying Israel was their goal, they could do it today or 10 years ago and they didn´t. Chemical weapons are also a much, much, much lower risk to themselves considering the prevailing winds, that would carry plenty of fallout back to Iran.

"Iran wants to nuke Israel" is simply boundless paranoia and Psychopharmaka can do much more against that threat than doing anything to Iran.

In 2016 Barrack Obama handed the Iranians 1.5 billion dollars in cash.

Iranian money... yes.... you know, they kind stolen by the US government.

I would bet Iran has a functioning nuclear weapon in 5 years or less unless something is done to stop them.

stopping a nation state from developing nuclear weapons, if they chose to do so and consider them crucial to their national security, is a violation of the Non Nuclear Proliferation treaty. You use paranoia to call for actual international crime. How mental is that?

And I consider the Iranians even more irresponsible than the North Koreans.

Of course you do. You just have no credible argument to justify your position.

best regards
Thomas

JetBuddy wrote:

And I consider the Iranians even more irresponsible than the North Koreans.

How did you get to that conclusion ? Total nonsence

Mortyman wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

And I consider the Iranians even more irresponsible than the North Koreans.

How did you get to that conclusion ?

because they are Moslems!

That Jews serve in the Iranian armed forces, in parliament is just a sham, in fact they want to kill them all. And no Iranian Jew would ever say they feel secure and happy in Iran .....

Oh.. wait...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 34931.html

best regards
Thomas

Mortyman wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

And I consider the Iranians even more irresponsible than the North Koreans.

How did you get to that conclusion ? Total nonsence

Because their priority is to wipe Israel off the map. And they keep repeating their intentions to do so.

JetBuddy wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

And I consider the Iranians even more irresponsible than the North Koreans.

How did you get to that conclusion ? Total nonsence

Because their priority is to wipe Israel off the map. And they keep repeating their intentions to do so.

And Israel's priority is to continuously expand into other peoples land.
Israel created the problem and Israel continues to feed the problem. So touche' to that.

Are you Israeli or American?

JetBuddy wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

And I consider the Iranians even more irresponsible than the North Koreans.

How did you get to that conclusion ? Total nonsence

Because their priority is to wipe Israel off the map. And they keep repeating their intentions to do so.

And cover themselves in nuclear fallout?

You should study how prevailing winds work in the Northern hemisphere.

Iranian grumbling and threats against Israel are just windbaggery and should be treated as such. They have no way of carrying them out, and would bring destruction and contamination on themselves without even considering retaliation.

salttee wrote:

And Israel's priority is to continuously expand into other peoples land.
Israel created the problem and Israel continues to feed the problem. So touche' to that.

Are you Israeli or American?

No, I'm not. Now we're going into politics, there's no point in discussing it.

Channex757 wrote:

And cover themselves in nuclear fallout?

You should study how prevailing winds work in the Northern hemisphere.

Iranian grumbling and threats against Israel are just windbaggery and should be treated as such. They have no way of carrying them out, and would bring destruction and contamination on themselves without even considering retaliation.

I'm quite certain Iran would be less worried about nuclear fallout than wiping Israel off the map. The only reason they haven't done it yet is because they don't have the capacity.

JetBuddy wrote:

I'm quite certain Iran would be less worried about nuclear fallout than wiping Israel off the map. The only reason they haven't done it yet is because they don't have the capacity.

Mutually
Assured
Destruction

Blowing someone up is never a good idea if it gets you blown up too, or you end up dying a slow and horrible death from fallout.

It's worked for seventy or more years. Do you think Iran is unaware of this?

JetBuddy wrote:

No, I'm not. Now we're going into politics, there's no point in discussing it.

So you operate with an assumption that 'Iran is crazy', but you won't even discuss it because that would be 'politics'?

That sounds crazy to me.

JetBuddy wrote:

salttee wrote:

And Israel's priority is to continuously expand into other peoples land.
Israel created the problem and Israel continues to feed the problem. So touche' to that.

Are you Israeli or American?

No, I'm not. Now we're going into politics, there's no point in discussing it.

Iran's threats against Israel (and the US, don't forget that) are politics.

Israel response is also politics. Ditto the US.

It's how the right wing gets and keeps power in these three countries.

Iran has in fact backed down a lot on such threats since someone much less right wing has taken the presidency.

Meanwhile the US right and Israeli right have doubled down, to the rest of the world's consternation.

salttee wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

North Korea's nuclear weapons program didn't begin in 2002. That's why the Bush administration took the position it did. There's a plainly obvious lesson from 2002: if your counterpart's objective in a negotiation is simply to buy time, then you must have a point in time where you will cease negotiations. Negotiations are a means, not an end.

Are you under the impression that Bush knew what he was doing and had thought out the consequences of his "axis of evil" accusation? If so, you are in a minority.

Of the three regimes that Bush identified, the remaining two are the two most dangerous regimes in the world. I would say that his premise has been thoroughly vindicated.

salttee wrote:

salttee wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

In 2013 they miniturized their warheads to they could fit on an ICBM

Nonsense.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Nonsense based on what? Plenty of countries have achieved advanced miniaturized designs with minimal testing.

Nonsense based on a complete lack of evidence to prove the assertion. If you want to make that assertion then you need to provide some citations to prove it. The burden of proof is on you and "Plenty of countries have achieved advanced miniaturized designs" is just nonsense piled on top of nonsense.

How preposterous to say "the burden of proof is on you" to provide evidence of something that even our intelligence agencies cannot verify with absolute certainty. All we can do is assess the validity of the claim. That North Korea claims to have miniaturized a nuclear weapon should not be taken as "nonsense" because other countries have developed the capability with less time and fewer resources. It is an entirely achievable capability given their technological maturity. Or, do you think North Korea is somehow more backwards than France in the 1960s or India in the 1990s?

salttee wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

The agreement "holds" because the agreement offered by Obama and Kerry were so conciliatory that Iran could effectively continue it's WMD programs at an R&D level and get a windfall of hard cash and economic benefits. Again, that's the danger of placing negotiations and an agreement as the end rather than the means.

Iran has ended its active nuclear weapon development program, most people see that as a good thing.

Define "ended." The agreement leaves Iran with numerous provisions to conduct WMD research. The key prohibitions on enrichment are also time-limited, and as you note, Iran has been around for "the last 2,500 years." The current regime is willing to use brutal force to maintain power, so it's entirely reasonable to believe the same leadership will be intact when the agreement expires.

salttee wrote:

The money that was returned was their money, are you advocating that we steal their money?

They forfeited that money when their criminal regime took 52 of our citizens hostage for 444 days. Further, they have no entitlement to trade with our businesses and buy our products. That's a privilege reserved for countries who don't vow to facilitate our destruction.

salttee wrote:

What you also need to give some thought to is the fact that Iran exists, and it has done so as a major power in its region for the last 2,500 years. Iran is not going away even if you don't like them. Take a look at what happened when the US tried to re-arrange Iraq.

I recognize your attitude, I've heard it before. Your kind has done a pretty good job of crippling this country with your losing wars in Vietnam then again in Iraq. The state this country is in now is a direct result of those two lost wars. If you people have your way and get the US into a war with Iran that will be the end of the United States as it has existed for the last 200 years. And that might be enough to bring me to take up arms in defense of my country. But I wouldn't have Iran in my sights.

What a bunch of internet bravado nonsense. There's a wide range of options between war with Iran and literally flying them pallets of cash. You're truly bent if you think criticizing the latter justifies making physical threats.

Oh, and late breaking news, North Korea appears to have conducted a nuclear test at 12-noon local time:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-kore ... 1504411685

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes ... #executive

DfwRevolution wrote:

They forfeited that money when their criminal regime took 52 of our citizens hostage for 444 days.

What compensation did the US offer Iran for (alongside the UK) deposing their government and installing a pro-American one in 1953, along with the hundreds of thousands of Shah-ordered murders that occurred thereafter?

Americans needs to stop being so precious about their 1979 embarrassment - it was overdue. Far too many of you argue on these forums as if it was an event that happened in complete isolation...

DfwRevolution wrote:

They forfeited that money when their criminal regime took 52 of our citizens hostage for 444 days.

And we forfeited any possibility of ever having any moral high ground in Iran when we overthrew their elected government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iran ... 7%C3%A9tat

Until the day we face up to our responsibility for having put their nation through civil war and a long period of police state we have no moral ground to stand on in that part of the world.

To top that off, it was our alter ego, the British, who installed the Saud family next door.
And the US has always been a part of that scheme.


Then we shot down their airliner full of people.
Try to imagine what your attitude would be if an Iranian ship shot down an American airliner while being 13 miles off the NY coastline.

We've f#ked up their whole world and we deserve every bit of payback we've gotten.

That's the reality, you should get used to it.

I often wonder why we all can't just get along.

glideslope wrote:

I often wonder why we all can't just get along.

Returning to the topic: The five classical nuclear powers needed a lot of nuclear tests to make their bombs predictable and reliable. Where did North Korea buy that knowledge? (The U.S. Trinity test was the only one before dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but well - these were huge things.)

David

flyingturtle wrote:

glideslope wrote:

I often wonder why we all can't just get along.

Returning to the topic: The five classical nuclear powers needed a lot of nuclear tests to make their bombs predictable and reliable. Where did North Korea buy that knowledge? (The U.S. Trinity test was the only one before dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but well - these were huge things.)

David

The knowledge of how to build a uranium bomb is in the public domain and has been since General Groves decided to publish the initial report on the Manhattan project. But NK undoubtedly has received much technical and logistic support from China. It is very unlikely that NK has developed the metallurgy technology necessary for either their nuke program or their rocket program on their own - among other things.

flyingturtle wrote:

(The U.S. Trinity test was the only one before dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but well - these were huge things.)

The Nagasaki bomb was used operationally without being tested, Trinity validated the Nagasaki bomb design.

Best regards
Thomas

DfwRevolution wrote:

They forfeited that money when their criminal regime took 52 of our citizens hostage for 444 days. Further, they have no entitlement to trade with our businesses and buy our products. That's a privilege reserved for countries who don't vow to facilitate our destruction.

Yet the US is happy to trade with Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from .....The US is so far up their ( you know what ) that the best Camel herder couldn't get you out of there ...

tommy1808 wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

(The U.S. Trinity test was the only one before dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but well - these were huge things.)

The Nagasaki bomb was used operationally without being tested, Trinity validated the Nagasaki bomb design.

Best regards
Thomas

The Hiroshima bomb was used without testing (Uranium gun type).

NLCFFX wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

(The U.S. Trinity test was the only one before dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but well - these were huge things.)

The Nagasaki bomb was used operationally without being tested, Trinity validated the Nagasaki bomb design.

Best regards
Thomas

The Hiroshima bomb was used without testing (Uranium gun type).

Now that was one major typo... but yeah, that is what I meant.

Best regards
Thomas

NK is going to be a nuclear power like India and Pakistan, the difference is whether the world will surrender the South to the North or let the South also go nuclear.
India nor Pakistan has tried to use their nuclear weapons to "take over the other" so MAD is at play, what exactly is NK using nukes for, to defend against the USA?
How many incursions of NK airspace has been done, how many ships and or a/c of the North has the South or the USA sunk / shot down?
At present, if one uses google to identify all the incidents since the armistice you will see that the majority of military action has been by the North on the South, so one side is doing while the other is posturing.
As mentioned by some think tanks, what the USA will do is the key, will NK force them to withdraw their troops from the South resulting in re-unification or the South also going nuclear because they refuse to cave to the demands of the North?
This one will be different, does anyone see the world suddenly deciding to pour funds into the North because they are now a nuclear power?

I have said this before but as much as the the world is focused on NK and the USA, the real issue is China and they are why NK has nukes. Kim knows China would love to be rid of him but the nukes are his ace in the whole against China. The USA would prefer a peaceful democratic society which China would never allow. However China would prefer a peaceful and cowed leadership which Kim is specifically not and never will be.

Think about it, the USA is watching NK (as is Japan and SK etc.) and would have at least some time to react to a missile launch. China does not have this luxury (nor does SK of course. All of China can be hit by NK missiles. China has been known to forcibly "adjust" leadership in the crony nations that they control/influence. Not so with NK. And that is how Kim Jong Un intends to keep it.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Kim knows China would love to be rid of him but the nukes are his ace in the whole against China.

I see no reason to think China would want to get rid of Kim. He's their man, doing their bidding as his family has done for the last 67 years. Their conflict is a parallel to captain Louis Renault from Casablanca. (Mr Kim, I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you, to find out that you've been developing nuclear weapons all along! And right under our noses!!!)

Tugger wrote:

The USA would prefer a peaceful democratic society which China would never allow.

To be honest, if an American supported regime had a border with the Chinese, there would be a parade of idiot missionaries working across that border trying to Christianize the heathen Chinese. There would also be CIA agents working at the demand of far right politicians trying to stir up revolution or at least opposition against the evil menace of Communism.

Then there would be the usual smugglers, drug dealers and various miscreants, which are a fairly suppressed lot in China itself.