[Robin_K2]

I'm worried. I'm kind of really, really worried.

Thoughts?

[Juggernaut76]

The pic is a joke but we have to play the cards right not because of nukes but just because of the north bombing the south.

[andrat2000]

I'm worried. I'm kind of really, really worried.

Thoughts?

North Korea had a moratorium about their nuclear weapon development between 1999 -  2005, because they were allowed directly to negotiate with the US. While they were short before an agreement that North Korea abondon it's nuclear weapon program, the negotiation stopped because the US didn't agree to pay 1 Billion $ each year to North Korea.
So the development and testing continued.

You know who was US president 1999 and who was US president 2005? Which party they belonged to. Even this was blackmail you could have it cheaper than it will become now. Say thank you to GOP and their presidents.

[bignatslover]

I'm worried. I'm kind of really, really worried.

I am too, because North Korea's recent hydrogen bomb is designed to have a 100-kiloton explosive power compared to the 10-kiloton bombs the US dropped on Japan in 1945.

The unknown poker hand in all of this belongs to China.  I have to think that China has a plan to stop any loaded ICBMs that North Korea would ever launch.  A modern version of Reagan's SDI/Star Wars, perhaps?

[andrat2000]

I'm worried. I'm kind of really, really worried.

I am too, because North Korea's recent hydrogen bomb is designed to have a 100-kiloton explosive power compared to the 10-kiloton bombs the US dropped on Japan in 1945.

The unknown poker hand in all of this belongs to China.  I have to think that China has a plan to stop any loaded ICBMs that North Korea would ever launch.  A modern version of Reagan's SDI/Star Wars, perhaps?

There are different systems to stop a rocket. The problem is a starting rocket first needs to be recognized. This might take some seconds - 10 -20 seconds. Now a decision need to be taken etc.
So a starting rocket in times of peace are not really to be prevented. A ballistic rocket burning end in 150-400 km height and it goes up to 1200 km and has a maximum speed of 25,000 km/h after burning end or before it comes back into atmosphere. Well basically a bit faster on the return. Before it explodes the velocity is around 4,000 km/h - 14,000 km/h. They can explode in any height. Eg. in Japan it was between 500-600 meter. Even for China it would be a diffucult task to take down such a rocket when in progress of starting. Or even trying to use a patriot missiles to attack the nuclear war head, when it comes down. They only achieve Mach 3-5 which is around 4000-6000 km/h and have bad reach like between 15-150 km.

Better talk and don't play hardliner ... the earlier the better. The best time was missed 12 years ago and before during the precidency of Georg W. Bush. He was instead busy with Iraq and Afghanistan etc.

[TheZookie007]

The way I see it, Kim Jong-Un has no benefit in using nuclear weapons in anger. It won't give North Korea more land. It won't allow him to oppress his people any more than they already are being oppressed. So he would derive no personal or even political benefit if he were to nuke (say) Tokyo or Seoul.

Another thing: the only country on earth to use nuclear weapons in anger is the same country which has amassed the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. Yet somehow we think that this same country is the only one who is allowed to have them, or who will use them "wisely" or "better" than this Asian chap. It smacks of paternalistic imperialism to think that way, in a manner of speaking.

It's easy for me to say, I know, because I am currently nowhere within the range of his putative ICBM arsenal, but between that and the fact that the American military high command knows that any orders from their current C-in-C to deploy nukes would probably be illegal, ignorable, or would have to be verified from a more trusted source*, I am hoping for the best.   


* when Nixon's paranoia started going haywire, his Secys. of Defense and State had a failsafe in place

[andrat2000]

The way I see it, Kim Jong-Un has no benefit in using nuclear weapons in anger. It won't give North Korea more land. It won't allow him to oppress his people any more than they already are being oppressed. So he would derive no personal or even political benefit if he were to nuke (say) Tokyo or Seoul.

Another thing: the only country on earth to use nuclear weapons in anger is the same country which has amassed the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. Yet somehow we think that this same country is the only one who is allowed to have them, or who will use them "wisely" or "better" than this Asian chap. It smacks of paternalistic imperialism to think that way, in a manner of speaking.

It's easy for me to say, I know, because I am currently nowhere within the range of his putative ICBM arsenal, but between that and the fact that the American military high command knows that any orders from their current C-in-C to deploy nukes would probably be illegal, ignorable, or would have to be verified from a more trusted source*, I am hoping for the best.   


* when Nixon's paranoia started going haywire, his Secys. of Defense and State had a failsafe in place

I am within reach, which is from Italy through Germany, through UK/Ireland. The only thing his missiles would unarmed go that far. On the other hand I don't fear him, I fear Trumpel (and some of his military). Even I have a bad opinion of Putin, but I believe his view and that of China is more realistic towards North Korea right now. Putin knows in which situation North Korea is. He is in a similar one and he often shows similar behaviour and strategies like Kim Jong Un.

[solvegas]

The way I see it, Kim Jong-Un has no benefit in using nuclear weapons in anger. It won't give North Korea more land. It won't allow him to oppress his people any more than they already are being oppressed. So he would derive no personal or even political benefit if he were to nuke (say) Tokyo or Seoul.

Another thing: the only country on earth to use nuclear weapons in anger is the same country which has amassed the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. Yet somehow we think that this same country is the only one who is allowed to have them, or who will use them "wisely" or "better" than this Asian chap. It smacks of paternalistic imperialism to think that way, in a manner of speaking.

It's easy for me to say, I know, because I am currently nowhere within the range of his putative ICBM arsenal, but between that and the fact that the American military high command knows that any orders from their current C-in-C to deploy nukes would probably be illegal, ignorable, or would have to be verified from a more trusted source*, I am hoping for the best.   


* when Nixon's paranoia started going haywire, his Secys. of Defense and State had a failsafe in place

Check your facts. Russia has the single largest nuclear stockpile as of now and the Russians surpassed the United States way back in the 1970's.

[andrat2000]

The way I see it, Kim Jong-Un has no benefit in using nuclear weapons in anger. It won't give North Korea more land. It won't allow him to oppress his people any more than they already are being oppressed. So he would derive no personal or even political benefit if he were to nuke (say) Tokyo or Seoul.

Another thing: the only country on earth to use nuclear weapons in anger is the same country which has amassed the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. Yet somehow we think that this same country is the only one who is allowed to have them, or who will use them "wisely" or "better" than this Asian chap. It smacks of paternalistic imperialism to think that way, in a manner of speaking.

It's easy for me to say, I know, because I am currently nowhere within the range of his putative ICBM arsenal, but between that and the fact that the American military high command knows that any orders from their current C-in-C to deploy nukes would probably be illegal, ignorable, or would have to be verified from a more trusted source*, I am hoping for the best.   


* when Nixon's paranoia started going haywire, his Secys. of Defense and State had a failsafe in place

Check your facts. Russia has the single largest nuclear stockpile as of now and the Russians surpassed the United States way back in the 1970's.

In number of nuclear weapons it is quite similar since 2002 sometimes Russia has more sometimes the US.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg

Both sides still have too much overkill capability. A German theologican Uta Johanna Ingrid Ranke-Heinemann in 1981 in a speech asked where to get the 100 billion people to get them all killed by nuclear weapons. Because this was the overkill potential back then ...

[TheZookie007]

Both sides still have too much overkill capability. A German theologican Uta Johanna Ingrid Ranke-Heinemann in 1981 in a speech asked where to get the 100 billion people to get them all killed by nuclear weapons. Because this was the overkill potential back then ...

Very few terms have as apt an acronym as "Mutually Assured Destruction".

[rtpoe]

The way I see it, having nukes gets you into the Secret Club of World Powers. The permanent members of the UN Security Council? The first six nations to have nukes.... In addition to having the weapons that make you a Force To Be Reckoned With, the whole development process requires a scientific and technological infrastructure that kind of means you have to be at least a mid-sized player on the global stage. The problem is that all these new countries who want nukes don't see the other side of the coin (or they just don't give a fuck) - any nation who uses one in anger will instantly become a pariah, even if they aren't immediately bombed into rubble in retaliation. So for most nations, it's simply not a worthwhile effort to get them. The global web of alliances and treaties built up in the post-WWII era has pretty much held.

It's only these rogue states that for whatever reason *can't* offer their people another way to the adult's table that are trying to get nukes, in the hopes they can bully their way into respectability.

Unfortunately, the President of the US is someone just like them....

We all (regardless of political affiliation) pray that it never comes to this, but in my sick imagination, I can hear someone crying, (clickit)

[Robin_K2]

This is an interesting discussion but, since I started it, I'd like to clarify my concern.

History and reasons and blame -- all important. But I'm left with today, and my fear of nuclear war in Korea, or near there, or here, or anywhere between. It would certainly embrace the world; Sagan warned of a "nuclear winter."

[andrat2000]

This is an interesting discussion but, since I started it, I'd like to clarify my concern.

History and reasons and blame -- all important. But I'm left with today, and my fear of nuclear war in Korea, or near there, or here, or anywhere between. It would certainly embrace the world; Sagan warned of a "nuclear winter."

History and the knowledge who did what and when and got blamed for it is the only way to solve it TODAY.