|
CommieGIR posted:They are digging tunnels with nuclear weapons. It all makes sense now. More like digging tunnels as a means to deliver underground nuclear weapons.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:More like digging tunnels as a means to deliver underground nuclear weapons. I know, it was a joke. And they are not doing this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
I think it'd be pretty funny if the North Korean regime went all 'Blazing Saddles' with international diplomcy. 'Give us the grain and energy we ask for or else we'll nuke ourselves, we swear!'
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, because there's a whole bunch of natural and manmade obstacles set up beyond the DMZ proper, the manmade ones specifically designed around It isn't an invasion route, its to move certain people into the country. Stop Clancying poo poo up. Its like pretending u-boats dropping people off at the coast of the US was an attempted invasion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:It isn't an invasion route, its to move certain people into the country. Stop Clancying poo poo up. Some of the tunnels could apparently move 30,000 soldiers per hour with light weapons. It wouldn't be the main route but it's clearly built for more than just trying to sneak a few guys in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Citation? The tunnels can maybe permit 2-3000 people/hour. I toured the third one a few years ago and it's a cramped, claustrophobic, lovely walk for the 500m or whatever exists on the SK side. A lot of the "They can move 30,000 men an hour! With weapons! They have resupply bases in there! There are upwards of 20 tunnels!" stuff you hear is from conservative SK politicians for whom being tough on NK is like being tough on drugs/crime for an American politician.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Onion Knight posted:Citation? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/malcolmmoore/9902611/Inside_North_Koreas_Third_Tunnel_of_Aggression/ With some salt I guess but even 2-3000 people per hours isn't too bad as a diversionary/surprise attack force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:It isn't an invasion route, its to move certain people into the country. Stop Clancying poo poo up. "We're not invading, we're just putting a whole division of hostile people in your country to attack it" Get real. They are meant for invasion, small scale insertion has been accomplished for decades with boats and light aircraft. The fact that they're also useless for a real invasion doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Isn't "too small to really make a difference but too big to ignore" brinksmanship 101 anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
To be honest, having to shovel out 2-3000 corpses an hour out of an improperly shored tunnel does seem like one hell of a chore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
So did nobody care at all about this bomb test or what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:So did nobody care at all about this bomb test or what? It was such a tiny bomb, from such an insignificant nation, that all you can do is look at N. Korea and say "Well aren't you precious! Trying to act like you're in the nuclear club! We can kill you at any time of our choosing and there's nothing you can do about it."
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:So did nobody care at all about this bomb test or what? Them just blowing weak nukes up in underground chambers isn't much of a threat. If they could manage an airburst, we might start to worry that they could actually deliver a bomb somewhere outside their territory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:So did nobody care at all about this bomb test or what? Yeah nobody gives a shot or is impressed and it must drive the Kims mad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
The guys at Arms Control Wonk suggested that it might have been a boosted fission device, and therefore achieved a similar yield to 2013 much more efficiently, and that the intention was to make something small enough and powerful enough to conceivably be a trigger for a miniaturized staged weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:So did nobody care at all about this bomb test or what? Why should they? North Korea had bombs yesterday, they have them today, they will have them tomorrow. Missile tests are what really matters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Usually people get very upset about any of the DPRK's nuke tests. KJU may have needed world powers to come to the table over something. If there's absolutely no concessions made at all it kinda shifts the power dynamic, but it's been shifting ever since KJI died. KJU needs allies if he intends to keep the DPRK going as a cohesive political entity. The world can't just say 'gently caress it' and walk away and North Korea just keeps chugging along, it doesn't work like that. Someone's probably going to have to start doing some propping sooner or later, and if absolutely everyone is unwilling or unable who knows what could happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
I disagree, North Korea is rich in natural resources, has a good geographic location and doesn't cost much to run. It can keep going indefinitely as long as the world politely looks away and some unscrupulous characters exist to purchase those goods. All they need is people to not actively resist their activities and all is well for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Usually people get very upset about any of the DPRK's nuke tests. KJU may have needed world powers to come to the table over something. If there's absolutely no concessions made at all it kinda shifts the power dynamic, but it's been shifting ever since KJI died. It's been shifting for longer than that. KJI milked concessions too frequently and there really haven't been many since the end of the sunshine policy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:The guys at Arms Control Wonk suggested that it might have been a boosted fission device, and therefore achieved a similar yield to 2013 much more efficiently, and that the intention was to make something small enough and powerful enough to conceivably be a trigger for a miniaturized staged weapon. Yeah the issue isn't that it is a fusion device (it isn't) but that a boosted fission warhead makes strategic use of a warhead via missiles much more likely. The bomb in all likelihood very well may look much closer to a modern warhead than a 1940s era one even though it is still quite weak. Any military option against North Korea has been off the table for a while, but it is really off the table when they may now have the ability to actually put a warhead somewhere in the region even if you are talking about a very small yield device. Ultimately, there is always the chance of a coup but in all likelihood the world is going to be stuck with the current government there for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I disagree, North Korea is rich in natural resources, has a good geographic location and doesn't cost much to run. It can keep going indefinitely as long as the world politely looks away and some unscrupulous characters exist to purchase those goods. All they need is people to not actively resist their activities and all is well for them. ayyy lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah the issue isn't that it is a fusion device (it isn't) but that a boosted fission warhead makes strategic use of a warhead via missiles much more likely. The bomb in all likelihood very well may look much closer to a modern warhead than a 1940s era one even though it is still quite weak. Any military option against North Korea has been off the table for a while, but it is really off the table when they may now have the ability to actually put a warhead somewhere in the region even if you are talking about a very small yield device. Honestly, I think the idea of a coup/civil war in a nation with a nuclear arsenal is scarier to me than the idea of the Kim family sticking around for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:The guys at Arms Control Wonk suggested that it might have been a boosted fission device, and therefore achieved a similar yield to 2013 much more efficiently, and that the intention was to make something small enough and powerful enough to conceivably be a trigger for a miniaturized staged weapon. I can't help but suspect it was just the same bomb over again but the engineers were telling Kimmy it was a hydrogen bomb because that's what he asked for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Honestly, I think the idea of a coup/civil war in a nation with a nuclear arsenal is scarier to me than the idea of the Kim family sticking around for the foreseeable future. I think in the case of North Korea, a palace coup than a civil war, but whomever would take over would most likely play more or less the same game they are doing right now. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be that surprised if North Korea has some more missile tests in the near future to more or less project their full capacity. I still don't think they have true ICBM, but even a single/double stage missile armed with a boosted fission warhead is something to ponder (especially if you're Japanese). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Nevertheless, I wouldn't be that surprised if North Korea has some more missile tests in the near future to more or less project their full capacity. I still don't think they have true ICBM, but even a single/double stage missile armed with a boosted fission warhead is something to ponder (especially if you're Japanese). IIRC NK already managed to launch a fridge-sized satellite into orbit, a couple of years ago. The technology required for that is pretty much identical to the one required for ICBMs. (That's why Sputnik I was such a big deal.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think in the case of North Korea, a palace coup than a civil war, but whomever would take over would most likely play more or less the same game they are doing right now. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be that surprised if North Korea has some more missile tests in the near future to more or less project their full capacity. I still don't think they have true ICBM, but even a single/double stage missile armed with a boosted fission warhead is something to ponder (especially if you're Japanese). That would be all fine and dandy if it wasn't for the cult of Kim being necessary to a functioning government. They could install one of his other idiot kids I suppose, but my guess is when/if KJU goes down it'll take the whole country with him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:IIRC NK already managed to launch a fridge-sized satellite into orbit, a couple of years ago. The technology required for that is pretty much identical to the one required for ICBMs. (That's why Sputnik I was such a big deal.) It immediately began tumbling, which was pretty drat funny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:It immediately began tumbling, which was pretty drat funny. Cool, North Korea somehow managed to gently caress up a satellite launch, something which the USSR did with worse technology many decades ago perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
seems kim has a cunning plan. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-nuclear-usa-idUKKCN0UT20K
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
I sorta had this vision of the States saying 'Yeah sure, no more Foal Eagle' to the cheers and triumph of the average Korean elite, only for there to be a sudden silence as the South then immediately signed on for military drills with the new Japanese SDF.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
quote:Asked earlier this week about North Korea's call for a peace treaty, the State Department reiterated its position that it remained open to dialogue with North Korea but said "the onus is on North Korea to take meaningful actions toward denuclearisation and refrain from provocations." Really? 'You first' is our diplomatic stance toward NK? You'd almost think the US was trying to maintain the status quo on the Korean peninsula, nukes and all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
The maintenance of the status quo is a prefectly reasonable position to hold regarding North Korea. The chaos that could be unleashed in the region is not really outweighed by the positives of a reintegrated NK. Most of the human suffering is contained on one side of the border and there is no way to change that without risking a wider problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:The maintenance of the status quo is a prefectly reasonable position to hold regarding North Korea. I disagree. I think nuclear nonproliferation is an overriding concern, and I find it really disturbing when the biggest apparent obstacle to that policy goal is my own country, rather than the putative rogue state.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I disagree. I think nuclear nonproliferation is an overriding concern, and I find it really disturbing when the biggest apparent obstacle to that policy goal is my own country, rather than the putative rogue state. Do you think North Korea is going to do anything other than bluster about its nukes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Do you think North Korea is going to do anything other than bluster about its nukes? I feel like I really shouldn't have to emphasize that nuclear weapons are Serious Business. I know it's fun to joke about how cute and ineffectual Kim et al are, but the fact of the matter is that a nuclear arsenal forces the world to stand up and listen, and risks giving NK the leverage to negotiate on their own terms, as opposed to the early 2000's, when we had the opportunity to dictate terms to them and threw it away. This is ignoring the possibility of a messy regime collapse where a firm chain of ownership for those weapons is not assured.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I disagree. I think nuclear nonproliferation is an overriding concern, and I find it really disturbing when the biggest apparent obstacle to that policy goal is my own country, rather than the putative rogue state. If the Americans leave, there's a better chance that NK get more belligerent than less. (According to the NK scholar posted earlier in the thread.) Currently there is no war on the pennisula, so the American policy is working.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:This is ignoring the possibility of a messy regime collapse where a firm chain of ownership for those weapons is not assured. I wonder just how likely this is? A messy regime change I mean. I also wonder how global warming has affected the DPRK's climate. A couple of bad growing seasons and no way to bargain for aid from a position of strength? Not great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:If the Americans leave, there's a better chance that NK get more belligerent than less. (According to the NK scholar posted earlier in the thread.) This is not a relevant response to anything I've said. Try to stay on topic. e: Full Battle Rattle posted:I wonder just how likely this is? A messy regime change I mean. I honestly don't know. What degree of likelihood do you think would amount to an unacceptable risk?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:This is not a relevant response to anything I've said. Try to stay on topic. How would you have responded differently?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:10
|
|