/* */

PDA

View Full Version : North Korean Nuclear Bomb



Thinker
04-15-2009, 01:52 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6089247.ece

Unless the USA give him money and says nice things about him, Kim Jong Il is going to produce a nuclear bomb and although he might not use it he will probably sell on the technology to anyone prepared to pay. Should he be stopped, by force if need be?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
alcurad
04-15-2009, 02:19 PM
he won't be able to do much with it, they don't have any sort of functioning delivery vehicle to speak of, nor is there much danger in the tech spreading, there's too many controls for that to happen, unless he's giving it to China for whatever reason.
most countries could start their own nuclear weapons programs, the R&D costs comparatively less nowadays, but the only major hurdle is the material, not tech/theory.
tight sanctions would most likely take care of that, otherwise, a lot of talking, some carrots for good behavior, and probably the despot's death would solve most of the situation.
a re-unified Korea should be a viable goal, much safer for the world that way, probably any overly aggressive measures-read US interference-would set that back farther than it already is.
Reply

The_Prince
04-15-2009, 02:56 PM
good.
Reply

Zafran
04-15-2009, 03:12 PM
salaam

We all knew this was going to happen - nuclear weapons seem to be easy to get for nations.

Its pity about the biggest arms dealer of all has no sanctions but on itself.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
GreyKode
04-15-2009, 03:13 PM
going to produce a nuclear bomb and although he might not use it he will probably sell on the technology to anyone prepared to pay. Should he be stopped, by force if need be?
Are you sure? I mean, who told you? Are you just guessing?
What about israel? I too guess they might be prepared to actually use them.
Reply

Fishman
04-15-2009, 03:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
good.
:sl:
Why? NK is the worst example of a tyranny in the modern world. Kim Jong forces his people to worship him as a god, and anybody that disobeys him is sent to a concentration camp. He is like The Pharaoh.

But it seems that anything is okay as long as it gets on America's nerves... :skeleton:
:w:
Reply

alcurad
04-15-2009, 03:17 PM
^the US is not our 'real' enemy at that.
Reply

Woodrow
04-15-2009, 03:50 PM
An old ditty I remember from the 1950s

"Ashes to ashes
Dust to Dust
If the A-Bomb don't get you,
the strontium must."


I wonder if any national leaders ever give any thought over the education, health care and poverty relief that could be done in their country with the money they waste to feed pet nukes?

Kind of shows just how little Kim Jong cares about his people in the NK. Let the NK enjoy the same world prestige the nukes have brought the USA and the same deterioration the wasted cost for a nuclear arsenal has brought upon many Americans who now live far below the poverty level because of a perceived need to feed nukes.

Nukes are a cruel slave master, a country that tries to own them becomes enslaved by them.

If you hate the people of a country, give the country nukes. There is no need to fear any country that has nukes, they have condemned themselves to national poverty and reap hatred from the rest of the world.

time we stopped trying to protect the NK from the stupidity of owning nukes. I say let them go ahead and destroy their own country with the arrogance and national egomania that comes from being a nuke owner.
Reply

Keltoi
04-15-2009, 04:26 PM
The primary threat is the selling of nuclear technology and information that would lead to other countries, mainly Iran, to furthering their own nuclear ambitions. I read a report recently that stated Iran had agents in NK to observe the latest failed launch.
Reply

Woodrow
04-15-2009, 05:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The primary threat is the selling of nuclear technology and information that would lead to other countries, mainly Iran, to furthering their own nuclear ambitions. I read a report recently that stated Iran had agents in NK to observe the latest failed launch.
I wonder if that is as much of a problem as we think it is. The technology is almost public information these days. Or I should say the obsolete, ineffective technology is. Looking at NK's launch record, maybe we should encourage all nuke wannabes to buy from NK.
Reply

Amadeus85
04-15-2009, 06:58 PM
The worst thing is what happens with the North Korean citizens. It saddens me that a stupid idelogy can make people suffer so bad.
Reply

Woodrow
04-15-2009, 07:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Amadeus85
The worst thing is what happens with the North Korean citizens. It saddens me that a stupid idelogy can make people suffer so bad.

The real cost, and the losers, because of Nuclear Technology. How many illnesses could have been treated, Homeless people sheltered, Schools built and hungry fed with the money wasted to promote a despots concept of superiority.

While the people suffer Kim Jong gets to pat himself on the back because he has the Wahoo to stand up to the Americans, who don't really give a cat's meow about him or his ignorance.
Reply

Keltoi
04-15-2009, 07:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I wonder if that is as much of a problem as we think it is. The technology is almost public information these days. Or I should say the obsolete, ineffective technology is. Looking at NK's launch record, maybe we should encourage all nuke wannabes to buy from NK.
The problem for NK is rocket technology. I agree the information is out there for basic rocket technology. NK can pummel SK all day long with their short-range rockets. The problem is long-range rockets carrying a nuclear payload with complicated guidance systems. That technology is hard to get and even harder to implement. NK or Iran would bid very high for that kind of knowledge.
Reply

burdenofbeing
04-16-2009, 06:45 AM
When can a country be permitted to have a nuclear bomb?
Reply

Thinker
04-16-2009, 10:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by GreyKode
Are you sure? I mean, who told you? Are you just guessing?
What about israel? I too guess they might be prepared to actually use them.
I may be wrong but I believe they sold some stuff or tried to sell some in the past.

Isreal or anybody else the more who have it the more chance one of them will use it and then there's the crazy factor i.e. nations run by crazy people.
Reply

Thinker
04-16-2009, 10:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
time we stopped trying to protect the NK from the stupidity of owning nukes. I say let them go ahead and destroy their own country with the arrogance and national egomania that comes from being a nuke owner.
The problem is condemning a nation of people because of the lunacy of one man. The level of (mind) control he has over his people is incredible. There was a documentary of TV a couple of weeks ago about NK’s stripping naked to cross an icy river to escape into China. The reason they gave was starvation and by that I mean members of their family had actually starved to death. One girl who had escaped saved enough money to get her sister out. The sister was in her mid teens and had been living in some sort of orphanage/commune. She got her sister into China and the kid was so brainwashed she insisted or being smuggled back into NK because she couldn’t betray the 'dear leader'! I’ve said it several times that I am constantly amazed at how easy it is to convince human beings of anything.
Reply

crayon
04-16-2009, 10:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by burdenofbeing
When can a country be permitted to have a nuclear bomb?
When the U.S. likes them.
Reply

aamirsaab
04-16-2009, 11:26 AM
:sl:

How to stop kim jong from using/building a nuclear bomb - my 10 step plan

1) Send in a team of crack commandoes - like twelve of them (He-man alone would suffice but he's fat and old now since he whooped skeletor and shoved him into the nether-dimension) into kim jong's crib. Raid it. Smash some stuff - his vases and x box will do (no need to go overboard).

2) Arrest kim jong (with neccessary force i.e batons to the leg, head and back - in that order), shoot a few bullets into the wall. Chuck a grenade into the fridge. MTV style cuts between the action and have the camera man taking all the footage (for documentary purposes).

3) Get Michael bay to direct it.

4) Leave in a helicopter with kim jong in custody (blind folded and gagged - get a close up of this!).

5) Shoot at kim jong's men from the gattling gun attached shouting as you do it (make sure you get a POV from the gattling gun and do close ups of the baddies). Once they're all dead, shout out an appropriate one liner such as ''yippie kie yay kimosabe'' or ''astah la vista''.

6) Stop by guantanamo and drop Kim in one of the empty cages (he'll never get out since the place is closed now). Again, utter another one-liner. Close up of kim jong, battered and bruised.

7) Leave gauntanamo

8) and open a cold one.

9) Drink.

10) Burp.
Reply

Danah
04-16-2009, 11:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
When the U.S. likes them.
^ which will never happened :rollseyes


Its really funny!! the way some countries are permitted to have nuclear weapons while others not...
Reply

alcurad
04-17-2009, 12:29 AM
hmm, true, nuclear armed Israel is more of a concern at that.
Reply

Joe98
04-17-2009, 01:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by alcurad
hmm, true, nuclear armed Israel is more of a concern at that.

A nuclear armed Israel has never used a nuclear weapon.

A nuclear armed Iran is not trustworthy. They might well fire a nuclear weapon at Europe.

A nuclear armed North Korea would sail a cargo ship into a harbour and then detonate the nuclear bomb on board.

Despite all the conflicts in the last 60 years, nobody has used a nuclear bomb ever in history! ( the Japanese cities were hit by atomic bomgs)
-
Reply

alcurad
04-17-2009, 01:35 AM
if no one ever used an nuclear bomb except the US then the US is only country that should disarm, no?
the rest is propaganda, Israel has been engaged in conflicts for the last 60 years, while Iran never attacked anyone of itself since it's inception.
Israel is as likely to use a nuke as NK is given the 'right' circumstances.
Reply

Vito
04-17-2009, 01:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
A nuclear armed Israel has never used a nuclear weapon.

A nuclear armed Iran is not trustworthy. They might well fire a nuclear weapon at Europe.

A nuclear armed North Korea would sail a cargo ship into a harbour and then detonate the nuclear bomb on board.

Despite all the conflicts in the last 60 years, nobody has used a nuclear bomb ever in history! ( the Japanese cities were hit by atomic bomgs)
-
Isn't an atomic bomb a nuclear bomb? And besides, I would consider anyone with a nuke a threat whether they've used one before or not.. I don't see how that helps exactly.
Reply

burdenofbeing
04-17-2009, 01:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98

A nuclear armed Iran is not trustworthy. They might well fire a nuclear weapon at Europe.
what makes you think that?

and, I'm afraid to ask, were you born in 1998?
Reply

Joe98
04-17-2009, 06:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by burdenofbeing
what makes you think that?

Due to the actions and words of Iranian governments



format_quote Originally Posted by burdenofbeing
and, I'm afraid to ask, were you born in 1998?

No- thats when I first logged onto the internet :D


-
Reply

burdenofbeing
04-17-2009, 06:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
Due to the actions and words of Iranian governments
That's pretty vague of you.

Actions and words of Iranian governments are not worse than their westerner adversaries. I wonder what would US say if russia told them to remove all their nuclear weapons and stop whatever military stuff they are working on.

Besides, Iran doesn't really want a nuclear weapon anyway. They just want to save face, (because of the accusations, and threats) and use nuclear energy.
Reply

Joe98
04-17-2009, 06:54 AM
Right through the Cold War, Russia and the USA remined "cold enemies".

From time to time a diplomat would be expelled from one country or the other but in all that time the embassies remained open.

If Iran wanted to close the US embassy in Tehran, they could have closed it and sent the Americans home.

Instead, all the Americans were held prisoner for more than a year.

Iranians have not condemned the act.Today, the Iranians celebrate the anniversary of the day the US embassy was stormed.

The US closed the Iranian embassy in Washington, but did not take anybody prisoner.

Iran is not trustworthy.
-
Reply

Woodrow
04-17-2009, 06:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
nobody has used a nuclear bomb ever in history! ( the Japanese cities were hit by atomic bomgs)
-
You are correct. Technically the atomic bombs were not thermo-nuclear bombs.

In fact they were quite minuscule in comparison of the true thermo-nuclear devices the smallest of which are several thousand times more powerfull then the most powerful atomic bomb possible.

I don't think any surface testing of thermonuclear devices have been done since Eniwetok and Bimini after which it was decided they were much too dangerous to even test detonate. Definitely not toys and make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a child's firecracker. I remember viewing films of the Eniwetok test. Unbelievable. A blast nearly 10,000 times hotter then the surface of the sun and shock waves felt thousands of miles away from the blast, seismic activity recorded for nearly 6 months. An entire Island nearly the size of the UK vaporized and only a gigantic crater deep in the Pacific remains of where the island was. A quantity of sea water equal to the Caspian sea turned to super heated steam in less then one second. Japanese fishing boats 3,000 miles away covered with radioactive ash. weather patterns altered for several years world wide.

I wonder if today's National leaders and military leaders would think twice about wanting nukes if they ever saw one detonated? I doubt if anybody will ever see one in peacetime as to detonate would be world suicide. No person in his right mind would even suggest the surface testing of one.

Stupid for anybody to want a weapon that can only be used for suicide.
Reply

Thinker
04-17-2009, 10:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by burdenofbeing
Posted by Joe98

A nuclear armed Iran is not trustworthy. They might well fire a nuclear weapon at Europe.


what makes you think that?

and, I'm afraid to ask, were you born in 1998?
Of course none of us really know but I get the distinct feeling that the structure of Government and associated controls in Iran is a little nebulous. We all know about the checks and balances in place in the US before the final button is pushed but if Iran had the bomb who would have the key?

In the case of North Korea I suspect that Kim would have the key and if he decided to press the button nobody would stop him.
Reply

burdenofbeing
04-17-2009, 11:54 AM
As far as I know about Korea I agree. It's pretty much a thralldom.
About Iran, not so much. It's really a very democratic country, where people matter a lot.

There is this video of bruce bueno de mesquita on ted, where he predicts the future of iran. Even though the scientific nature of it is vague, the information about iran may prove useful to you.

At any rate, it should be obvious that trying to force authority unnecessarily tends to backfire, and cause stress. Especially when the recepient is proud. A parent daring his teenager son to do things he hasn't even contemplated yet, usually results in his contemplation and execution of the said action.

I just hope it won't be the case with Iran.
Reply

Thinker
04-17-2009, 12:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by burdenofbeing
About Iran, not so much. It's really a very democratic country, where people matter a lot.
Iran is an enigma. The highest authority there appears to be the Ayatollah, (who is not elected by the people); the Ayatollah controls who can stand for election and who can not; the President is ‘elected’ but is elected from a list approved by the Ayatollah; there appears to be more than one army and nobody seems to know who is in charge of them; the country appears to be governed by Sharia law with criminals released from prison after the memorise the Qu’ran and then given jobs as religious police, and I see on TV every other woman has had her nose done and wears her scarf loosely on her head and sporting a pair of designer sun glasses.

There is nothing about Iran that gives me any confidence that anyone is in control.
Reply

alcurad
04-17-2009, 07:07 PM
Iran is going to implode soon enough, the government there is still based on an archaic model that doesn't work anymore in our times.
but on the other hand they're not trying to get nukes. the people who believed in Iraq's WMD's are probably the same ones who believe in Iran's nukes. it is more or less a pressure tactic.
there should be a nuclear-weapons free middle east, that way we can insure that the only country there that actually has them will not.
Reply

aadil77
04-17-2009, 07:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I don't think any surface testing of thermonuclear devices have been done since Eniwetok and Bimini after which it was decided they were much too dangerous to even test detonate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

This thing was the biggest ever tested at 50 megatons. Its fireball had a radius of 4.6km and it was felt 1000km away. lol crazy russians :skeleton:
Reply

Thinker
04-17-2009, 07:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by alcurad
they're not trying to get nukes.
Stand up all those who believe Iran's pursuit of nuclear fusion is because they want to produce electricity and save the world from polluting fossil fuels!!
Reply

alcurad
04-17-2009, 08:13 PM
rather they had the reactor for a very long time, and selling their fossil fuels is a more economically viable/beneficial choice than using it up on their own.
they don't have the tech to produce a functioning reactor, let alone handle a nuke and hide it.
if they get it, the gulf countries-atleast KSA- will, not to mention the sanctions they have now will quintuple, not a very good policy, the IAEA has already said they don't have them, just like with Iraq, it was right last time, not to mention it doesn't have much incentive to lie for the Iranians' sake.
Reply

Woodrow
04-17-2009, 08:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
You are correct. Technically the atomic bombs were not thermo-nuclear bombs.

In fact they were quite minuscule in comparison of the true thermo-nuclear devices the smallest of which are several thousand times more powerfull then the most powerful atomic bomb possible.

I don't think any surface testing of thermonuclear devices have been done since Eniwetok and Bimini after which it was decided they were much too dangerous to even test detonate. Definitely not toys and make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a child's firecracker. I remember viewing films of the Eniwetok test. Unbelievable. A blast nearly 10,000 times hotter then the surface of the sun and shock waves felt thousands of miles away from the blast, seismic activity recorded for nearly 6 months. An entire Island nearly the size of the UK vaporized and only a gigantic crater deep in the Pacific remains of where the island was. A quantity of sea water equal to the Caspian sea turned to super heated steam in less then one second. Japanese fishing boats 3,000 miles away covered with radioactive ash. weather patterns altered for several years world wide.

I wonder if today's National leaders and military leaders would think twice about wanting nukes if they ever saw one detonated? I doubt if anybody will ever see one in peacetime as to detonate would be world suicide. No person in his right mind would even suggest the surface testing of one.

Stupid for anybody to want a weapon that can only be used for suicide.

OOps I just noticed I got my islands mixed up. Bimini is the island Adam Clayton Powell had a very controversial home on. The test site was Bikini Atoll.
Reply

alcurad
04-17-2009, 08:49 PM
^lol at name :), it's where the swimsuit got it's name according to wiki, poor people.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-29-2009, 11:38 PM
  2. Replies: 59
    Last Post: 04-21-2007, 11:39 PM
  3. Replies: 97
    Last Post: 10-14-2006, 01:11 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-30-2006, 12:59 AM
  5. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-11-2006, 06:50 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!