North Korea claims success in fifth nuclear test

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37314927

by niccolop • 10 years ago

77 154 10 years ago

bbc.com

dovdov• 10 years ago

"Great." Oh, wait...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-ban...

wkerner• 10 years ago

Don't give Facebook any ideas!

yitchelle• 10 years ago

Wait..That is not news worthy enough for Facebook's algorithm.

btcboss• 10 years ago

Great Job Kim!

verroq2• 10 years ago

Has North Korea become "too big to fail"?

azernik• 10 years ago

Well, that, and that and too strategically important to China to fail. However frustrated the DPRK makes them, they still don't want an American-allied Korea on their border.

gaius5• 10 years ago

Serious question: why? What do they envisage happening in that scenario? Korea invading them seems unlikely, they trade with the US all the time, and there have recently been massive American forces on their border in Afghanistan with noone batting an eyelid.

ivanhoe• 10 years ago

that and 10+ million N. Korean refugees crossing the border...

puranjay2• 10 years ago

More like "failed too much to be allowed to fail completely"

NK is such a failed state that we keep on propping up its failed regime because no one knows what to do with its 25M citizens

hkjgkjy• 10 years ago

Is there any way the world could become more peaceful, and we could get rid of the seemingly eternal gun-pointing happening between the USA (+ NATO), China, Russia etc? Curious to hear what possible steps can be taken to calm the worlds warmongerers down further. What are possibilities for the future.

forgetsusername2• 10 years ago

is there any way the world could become more peaceful

The world is becoming more peaceful.

And in theory, nuclear weapons make the world more so, which is why these countries pursue them. Despite what the mainstream news likes to report, there's a microscopic probability that the DPRK would attempt to use a nuke offensively.

pearjuice• 10 years ago

[citation needed]

goodcanadian4• 10 years ago

Despite what the mainstream news likes to report, there's a microscopic probability that the DPRK would attempt to use a nuke offensively.

I would like to believe that, but I'm not so sure I do. There have been plenty of people in history who have advocated a nuclear first strike: MacArthur and 'Che' Guevara being two examples. I don't feel that Kim Jong Un or the North Korean government are particularly rational.

puranjay2• 10 years ago

Probability of nuclear war before nuclear weapons were invented: 0

Probability of nuclear war after nuclear weapons were invented: > 0

No matter what you say, fact remains that by simply developing nuclear weapons, we've dramatically increased the chances of a nuclear war in the future.

tsylba3• 10 years ago

Yes, those regimes - as Iran's - are looking for the nuclear weapon to protect themselves, as we do. That's not really fair to prevent other countries to gain access to it just because we disagree with their political views. In no way can we pretend our perspective to be "enlighten" by fair principles.

As sadly as it sound, the H-bomb seems to promote peace through the status-quo : developped country (eg. USA, UK, France, ..) send troops but wheres there is no nuclear threats. Damocles Swords like that (nuclear / bio weapons) prevents us to go to traditional war against each others. Without them, we will end fighting each others, with fists and stones if needed.

It might be due to the lack of this equlibrium weapons that terrorism arise : they can't fight traditionally on their land, neither can't they protect their ideology, so they aims at our weakest part.

* Oh and, as a side note, it only seems to prevents physical war. Nowadays we fight and kill rather through our economy than our bullets.

collyw• 10 years ago

Thats the theory with American gun laws isn't it? Yet they seem to have more gun violence than far stricter countries.

tim3332• 10 years ago

There's some evidence if you read Pinker's stuff that the world is becoming more peaceful so we can keep doing what we're doing.

See also

The Decline of War - We are experiencing one of the least discussed, yet most remarkable cultural shifts of all time: war, one of our species’ most abiding and defining social practices, is at its lowest ebb ever

https://medium.com/@angushervey/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5b...

lloeki2• 10 years ago

More generally, violence at large is declining (although perception of it keeps on increasing, possibly because of easier information sharing, or possibly because of a growing intolerance about it)

https://youtu.be/sjT4HlNJNgI

mikeash• 10 years ago

My worry is that median violence is down but in exchange for a small chance of destroying civilization each year. An average decline in war plus a (say) 1% chance of a global nuclear exchange per year is not a good situation in the long run, but would look great up until you hit that 1%.

lkozma• 10 years ago

Also obligatory to mention NN Taleb's rebuttal of this thesis, and the back and forth between them that followed.

spuz• 10 years ago

This video has a great explanation of what a nuclear war would do to the planet and the people on it, how such a scenario might take place (in all likelihood, during peaceful times it would be entirely accidental), plus what you can do about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug-DJtvHFE0

gaius5• 10 years ago

Jeremy Corbyn has stated that his policy is for the UK to leave NATO and that this will bring about World Peace.

tsylba3• 10 years ago

When you look at the top five weapons exporter in the world [1], then at the United Nation Security Council permanent members [2], you'll understand there is no easy solution to that problem as it is, politically at least.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_larges...

[2] http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/

tl;dr those who protect peace also nurture war.

jonnycowboy• 10 years ago

correction - those who PROJECT peace also nurture war.

GunboatDiplomat5• 10 years ago

No nuclear weapons makes the horrible possible again. Remember WWI, WWII? Those were possible because no one was worried about their entire nation being levelled in minutes. Nuclear weapons constrain the actions of their possessors to a degree that global war between large (read: nuclear) powers is almost impossible. Without nuclear weapons, I doubt we have an over 70 year period of more or less peace between the great powers.

When was the last time that happened before nuclear weapons? I can't think of a time without going back at least a millenium.

digi_owl2• 10 years ago

Nah. WW1 happened because nobody in charge had any clue how effective their new guns were. WW2 was payback for hurt pride from WW1.

And the cold war peace have not been that much different from the colonial times.

just_observing• 10 years ago

"While private gunrunners continue to thrive, the world's biggest arms suppliers are the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, and China. They are also the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council."

Yuro Orlov: "I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of those men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss, the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year, sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So, you call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."

Lord of War. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295

koolba• 10 years ago

Is there any way the world could become more peaceful, and we could get rid of the seemingly eternal gun-pointing happening between the USA (+ NATO), China, Russia etc? Curious to hear what possible steps can be taken to calm the worlds warmongerers down further. What are possibilities for the future.

The continuous gun pointing has been some of the safest times in all of human history. Sure it's probably bad for your nerves if you think about the reasoning behind how it all works, but I'd much rather have this than go back to actually using conventional weapons on a regular basis.

jcranmer• 10 years ago

We have gone 71 years without wars between great powers. While I am not a walking encyclopedia of wars, that is to my knowledge without precedent in the last millenium. Certainly, as far as I can reliably trace great powers (to the Thirty Years' War), it's the longest gap, the second-longest being between the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878 and World War I (36 years), and the third-longest being the gap between Russo-Turkish war of 1828-1829 and the Crimean War of 1853-1856 (24 years). That change, largely precipitated by MAD, is nothing to sniff at.

butler14• 10 years ago

probably worthwhile the world powers reminding themselves that policies of nuclear deterrence rely entirely on rational agents

cmdkeen• 10 years ago

The DPRK can be thought of as rational in that they follow reason and logic, it may not be the same reason and logic that other world leaders and states follow but that doesn't mean that it isn't there and isn't possible for Western strategists to try and factor that in.

your_ai_manager• 10 years ago

I would agree that normally governments make geopolitical decisions in a rational ways. But due to governments being emergent systems you have rare events in which individual incentives can line up to make irrational decisions happen. Look at what happened with the Brexit vote for example.

lordnacho• 10 years ago

What's not rational about it? The chances of an externally forced regime change in DPRK just went down by a lot, which is exactly what the regime wanted.

Sure they will say some aggressive things from time to time, but it's entirely rational for them to remind everyone that they have these nukes and are willing to use them.

misja111• 10 years ago

It can be rational to appear irrational. It is a tactic that is widely used by extortionists; as an extortionist you want to impose as much fear as possible on your opponent that you will execute your threat. And if you're unpredictable that threat looks more scary so your victim might be more willing to pay.

GunboatDiplomat5• 10 years ago

See Richard Nixon's Madman Theory.

I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, "for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry—and he has his hand on the nuclear button" and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.

easuter2• 10 years ago

As much as you may think the DPRK leadership is irrational, I'm sure they understand the concept of MAD very well.

If they do try to launch a nuclear attack (or even a conventional one), they will forfeit the cushy setup they've created for themselves.

sidcool2• 10 years ago

Today is the Foundation Day of DPRK. Probably their version of fireworks.

faragon2• 10 years ago

The end for this could come with voluntary incorporation of North Korea as a Chinese new province.

indubitably• 10 years ago

Why would NK do that?

faragon2• 10 years ago

Because of the need.

s_q_b7• 10 years ago

This is not a bad idea in spirit. However, one seldom mentioned fact is that anti-Han sentiment runs very deep in both Koreas.

Transforming North Korea into a true vassal state of China may be the solution, but there will need to be a serious governmental transition in North Korea first.

s_q_b7• 10 years ago

If the United States' military posture was not so depleted at this point, I would say that it is time to seriously consider a conventional first strike.

Right now, North Korea cannot deliver a nuclear payload anywhere. It's one thing to create a nuclear test device, but it's another matter entirely to miniaturize it for delivery.

However, if allowed to progress unimpeded, North Korea will soon have missile technology that can reach Japan consistently. Around the same time, their miniaturization project will likely be complete. At that point, other nations will lose the option of intervention.

North Korea's government is simply... unstable, in both senses of the word. There is simply no other way to put it. The more closely one examines the country, the more disturbing the picture becomes.

They cannot be allowed to have a permanent nuclear deterrent.

gaius5• 10 years ago

I would say that it is time to seriously consider a conventional first strike.

NK has its estimated 10000 conventional artillery pieces in range of Seoul - they will pound it to rubble the old-fashioned way. You can (theoretically) intercept a single ballistic missile, but there is no defence against a mass artillery bombardment.

taneq• 10 years ago

Sure there is: Conventional artillery is slow. It'll pound Seoul into rubble given time but if they actually tried it, after the first 30 minutes, one of the superpowers would glass them.

Edit: Hmm. You lot make some good points about just how many 'small' hits they could pull off, assuming that each gun emplacement has ammo etc. so I did a bit more research. Seoul Capital Area has an area of ~11,000 kilometers square[0]. Assume a generous affected blast area of roughly a hectare per shell (we're talking about shelling a population center here so you don't have to level every building to have a serious impact) and that's 1.1 million shells (if they're firing with uniform distribution, which they won't be) to seriously damage the city. Assuming a normal distribution where they all aim haphazardly for the CBD and let fly, it's even worse, call it 500k shells at a guess.

10k emplacements, if they have 50 shells each, will deliver this in (as per post below) 8.3 minutes. So yeah, even if it can't "pound Seoul into rubble" it would be a highly undesirable outcome for the South Korean people.

I take it back. Conventional artillery isn't slow if you have enough of it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul_Capital_Area

s_q_b7• 10 years ago

It's interesting. I had written up a few potential objections that I ended up cutting from my post. This was one of them:

"The first objection is that South Korea is right there, and thus is conceivably within range of a nuclear strike. In particular Seoul is directly next to the border with the North. However, there are already more than two thousand North Korean heavy artillery pieces ready to shell the metropolis at any time.

The damage to Seoul is going to be significant under any military intervention scenario. But if action is not taken, the threat from North Korea will become permanent."

bitL• 10 years ago

This is precisely the reason why NK still does exist (alongside being used by China as a buffer).

JoeAltmaier3• 10 years ago

Suspicious this is like the 'missile gap'.

67726e2• 10 years ago

If we're assuming a first-strike, how about we assume our military planners are also competent enough to deal with NK artillery?

GunboatDiplomat5• 10 years ago

Well, the US and ROK would establish air superiority more or less instantly. And air power combined with counter-battery radar means that the North Korean artillery would be degraded with extreme rapidity. Plus, I'm sure the US and ROK forces are aware of a large number of the North Korean artillery positions already, and those would be among the first targets in any conflict.

coldtea4• 10 years ago

North Korea's government is simply... unstable, in both senses of the word.

Not so sure.

Never had a problem with North Korea here in Europe. Of course we're far away, but other governments also far away have indeed dropped nuclear bombs (and at Japan which you're concerned about), and have started wars all over the planet, including meddling in Korean affairs, and sponsoring some dictatorships around the world.

Heck, a far away government once ruled both Koreas as a colony they called Indochina, and another one gathered European citizens to go fight against Koreans in the fifties...

So not so sure why countries that actually did that shit should have the moral high ground or be considered less dangerous UN-wise than countries that merely want to protect their actual borders and haven't harmed anybody yet.

s_q_b7• 10 years ago

...

First, North Korea is not a nation defending borders. It is a personal fiefdom that deserves neither the name "nation" nor the respect it entails.

Second, past colonialism does not establish a moral equivalency with the mass-scale starvation, systemic imprisonment, and wholesale torture occurring right now in North Korea. This is an unfortunately common trope trotted out by countless dictatorships over the years. See And you are lynching negroes!"[0]

Third, even assuming for the sake of argument that those events were every bit as terrible as the current nightmare in North Korea, the events which you reference occurred in the past. The North Korean government is committing atrocities now.

We can't do anything about the past. But we can damn sure do something about the future.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

refurb• 10 years ago

Heck, a far away government once ruled both Koreas as a colony they called Indochina

I've never heard of Indochina referring to anything but SE Asia which is far away from Korea. What am I missing?

SCHiM• 10 years ago

There are also credible reports of genocide. That'd be reason enough don't you think?

bhickey2• 10 years ago

What about the artillery that the DPRK has trained on Seoul? A conventional strike means the complete destruction of a city of 10m.

On top of that, where does a conventional strike leave China? Any intervention that isn't Chinese led will necessarily renew PRC support for Kim.

finid3• 10 years ago

They cannot be allowed to have a permanent nuclear deterrent.

Why not?

Your reasoning and posture is precisely why the North Koreans are justified in seeking nuclear weapons. They have a right to it.

AnimalMuppet4• 10 years ago

Maybe for the same reason that the US restricts felons' access to guns?

cmdrfred• 10 years ago

If the United States' military posture was not so depleted at this point,

Compared to whom?[0][1][2] We are first or second in most measures of military strength globally. We currently likely have the most powerful military ever to exist in human history.[3]

[0]http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp

[1]http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-aircraft-carriers.asp

[2]http://www.globalfirepower.com/active-military-manpower.asp

[3]http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

throwaway2016a10• 10 years ago

Exactly! We could realistically decrease our military funding by the 20% Gary Johnson has suggested and STILL be the largest and strongest in most measures.

The only place we are weak is that we are stretched thin. But we did that to ourselves through interventionist policies.

throwaway2016a10• 10 years ago

First, that is not the US's decision to make. This whole idea of the US being the world police is absurd at face value, there are many other countries in this world and just about all of them are more threatened and geographically closer to North Korea.

At the very least South Korea needs to be involved. A strike against North Korea will put South Korea immediately into an expensive all out war even if they didn't start it. Second, even if the US military was "still" mighty[1] we would need the blessing of Russia and China or at least their promise not to retaliate and start World War III.

To the person who said...

There are also credible reports of genocide. That'd be reason enough don't you think?

NO! Many times no! This is one of the reasons the world hates us. We think it is our position to unilaterally police everyone in the world. Everyone should universally decry genocide, absolutely and aggressively. But we are citizens of the world not dictators. We should not be pre-emptively striking. We should not be sending money and weapons to other countries (or at least only send them to one side of the fight for god sake so we don't have two sides fighting each-other with our own weapons!). Every time we have been interventionists either overtly or covertly it has caused unintended consequences and often disastrous ones. When will we learn that it hurts more than helps?

* I say this as a born American.

[1] We spent more on our military than any other country by a huge margin. I really don't understand

s_q_b7• 10 years ago

Every time we have been interventionists either overtly or covertly it has caused unintended consequences and often disastrous ones. When will we learn that it hurts more than helps?

That is patently false. The United States alone has a long history of successful humanitarian intervention, beginning with Tripoli and running through World Wars I and II. Even within our lifetimes, there was the NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I believe you may be looking at this through a post 9-11 lens, which is causing you to place too much emphasis on blowback. Obviously Operation AJAX, the alliance with Baathists, and funding of the mujahideen in Afghanistan had significant negative unintended consequences.

However, that is by no means an ironclad rule. For further information I'd suggest A Problem from Hell by Samantha Power and Freedom's Battle by Gary Bass.

stupidcar• 10 years ago

This isn't about the US acting as the "world police", intervening in some conflict in which its interests aren't threatened in order to protect some supposed moral order. North Korea has made explicit threats against the US and its allies, and is pursuing a nuclear programme with the purpose of being able to carry them out.

Every nation has an inviolable right to defence under international law, and North Korea has explicitly threatened the US, and its allies, continually and belligerently, for years. A country does not have to sit around and wait for its enemies to strike before it acts.

Even Russia, one of North Korea's allies, has warned it that its continued threats of nuclear strikes put it at risk of creating a legal basis for an attack by the US and South Korea: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/08/russia-warns-n...

blahi4• 10 years ago

his is one of the reasons the world hates us. We think it is our position to unilaterally police everyone in the world.

You are being incredibly naive. The US is the de facto hegemon on Earth. We have been living in Pax Americana for close to 100 years and knew about it for around 70. All pretenses fell around 30 years ago.

When it comes to military power, the US is in a league of its own with one empty league between it and everybody else. The US is an empire (and the mightiest one yet) and will act like that until it isn't capable to do so any more. Historically, that's around 100 more years but I'm not sure history is predictive here.

morsch• 10 years ago

What's your estimate of the death toll of the path you're advocating? Not just the first strike, but the ensuing carnage...

My first thought when I read the news was that the current way of dealing with NK -- condemnation, shunning, embargoes -- seems to be a dead end. What is it even accomplishing anymore? Escalating seems to be a path to hell, for everyone involved. What else is there besides appeasement? I hasten to add that I don't know enough about the various international relationships involved to really have a solid opinion.

throwaway2016a10• 10 years ago

What is your evidence that "my" path ensures carnage? There is certainly a chance. And that chance is certainly less than 100%. The chance of carnage if we attack first IS 100%.

I don't think the sanctions, embargoes, and shunning are working either. But those first two hurt the people who are already too weak to revolt not the dictator. And the third one is just posturing.

I don't know the answer. I just know that attacking preemptively has proven to create power vacuums, solidify international public opinion against the US, and cost thousands of lives. Not just American soldiers but civilians too.

But some off the top of my head suggestions...

- Propaganda war

- Let another country like South Korea take the lead (and support them of course)

- Do nothing. If (granted a big if) North Korea is not suicidal. They are just saber rattling and don't pose a real threat.

But I hope that all the smart people in our state department are collectively smarter than me.

kbart• 10 years ago

Such attitude is precisely why countries that are not in favor of USA (Nort Korea, Iran etc.) are actively seeking nuclear weapons -- currently it's the only deterrence from carpet bombing your "democracy" in.

anupshinde• 10 years ago

What you are asking is to proactively affirming national security interests. Every nation has the right to place their national security first, including NK (if it can be called a sovereign nation) . But there is a point where the larger nations end up bullying just because they can do that.

North Korea's government is simply... unstable, in both senses of the word. They cannot be allowed to have a permanent nuclear deterrent.

Yeah yeah, that has been said about quite a few countries in the past. Based on what - flawed mathematical models? The sole purpose of those was to create new war grounds. If the country has such great prediction powers, let's first use it in economics.

I don't mean to support North Korea here. It might be an irresponsible, undemocratic state. But non-proliferation cannot be done by saying "I'll keep my gun but you are not allowed to keep yours because I think you are an irresponsible unstable person". Whereas history since WWII clearly shows who has been the trigger-happy entity.

Someone• 10 years ago

"Right now, North Korea cannot deliver a nuclear payload anywhere."

Are you sure? It is only 35 miles or so from the North/South Korea border to Seoul. That border is well-defended, but I'm not sure South Korea would gamble on being able to stop a single nuclear missile (or even a device fired from a gun) in a barrage of smaller ones.

JoeAltmaier3• 10 years ago

Nuclear weapons are so extremely damaging, it doesn't require precision in the delivery system.

Tie one to a horse and send it over the border. Put it in a Volkswagen and put it in gear, send it over the border. Mail a package. Put it in a speedboat, duct-tape the throttle and jump out.

pushamaku• 10 years ago

This is exactly how they want the populous to think. Therein the propaganda. I'm calling it now. When the proverbial shit hits the fan, and it will, you'll be begging to change your stance.

yongjik• 10 years ago

Then I invite you to examine the country closer. Like, really closer. How about moving to Seoul and live within an artillery range of North Korea. I mean, other than atrocious air quality, it's a decent city with good night life and streets that are so safe that you can walk around in 2 am.

It's amazing how much sacrifice people are prepared to make for the good of mankind, when it's someone else's lives...

Not to mention there's no guarantee that the "liberation" of North Korea will improve the lives of North Koreans. One word: Iraq.

tomelders• 10 years ago

China needs to put this particular Genie back in it's bottle. Having a mad dog on a leash is a reckless and juvenile diplomatic strategy and we're starting to see that China doesn't have as much control over NK as it pretends to.

yclept• 10 years ago

Do you not think China is helping NK develop their ballistic missiles and nuclear technology?

hga3• 10 years ago

One way or another that's pretty well established, when the Khan network fell apart after Gaddafi saw the light after Saddam's capture and surrendered his WMD program to us (and note how we rewarded him...), a key artifact was the plans for a Chinese designed highly enriched uranium implosion device, down to the factory floor level of detail, like apply this much torque to this nut, and use this kind of thread locker (e.g. Loctite in the US).

Maybe the PRC counterintelligence guys screwed up, but....

bcg1• 10 years ago

Common sense (which probably is not worth much when it comes to international relations) suggests that without China's aid DPRK would quickly collapse.

Presumably China does not want to see this happen because re-unification with South Korea would be a possible outcome (although I suspect the South Korean economy would have trouble absorbing the North Korean population without significant aid from the US and "international community"), and that would put a strong US ally right on China's border.

In my mind the only peaceful resolution to this situation is a diplomatic agreement with China, which would seem to be exceedingly difficult to achieve without a massive effort on the part of the US. Unfortunately, given the level of rancor and demagoguery against China that is showing itself in US politics at the moment, not to mention provocative actions such as the TPP and Abe's desire to change Japan's constitution to arm itself, the aforementioned peaceful outcome seems unlikely to me.

vocatus_gate4• 10 years ago

I'm working on a research base in Antarctica and we have one of the very few Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) detectors in the Southern hemisphere on our station. It's pretty interesting how fast the detection network can sense and locate a nuclear blast above a certain yield. North Korea is frequently discussed when referencing the effectiveness of the system.

sidcool2• 10 years ago

That's a cool job! How's a typical day for you?

vocatus_gate4• 10 years ago

Pretty varied! I'm the station's network engineer but because of how small it is, we spend a lot of time wearing different hats. I'm also assigned to the Glacier Search and Rescue team, the firefighting SCBA team, and the trauma team. About 60% of my time is spent doing IT work.

asimuvPR2• 10 years ago

Do you keep a blog?

kzisme• 10 years ago

Also interested in reading about your experiences!

vocatus_gate4• 10 years ago

I don't but I do post some pictures with detailed descriptions to an Imgur album here: http://imgur.com/a/ijX9Q

colanderman• 10 years ago

You're not going to tell us whether you detected anything related to this blast? :)

rejectedstone• 10 years ago

https://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/press-releases/2016/ctbto...

chaz6• 10 years ago

That sounds quite interesting, I did some searching and came across this document which describes CTBT https://elliott.gwu.edu/sites/elliott.gwu.edu/files/download...

bobedybobbob• 10 years ago

I'm all for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons but also find it amazing what their scientists can do working with such limited resources.

throw2016• 10 years ago

The US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons casually and rationalized it like all other things later. This was a crime against humanity and nothing can change that. It an act of barbarism and savagery unprecedented in human history. Why the second one?

And to confirm its absolute disregard for human life since then has proceeded to stir up trouble in dozens of other countries and destroyed millions of lives in pursuit of its own financial interests, the latest victims being Iraq, Libya, Syria and with Iran in crosshairs.

Entire regions some just coming out of hundreds of years of destructive colonialism found themselves head first in old world politics of violence and self interest couched in the modern language of human rights, democracy and peace.

That's a tally easily of hundreds of millions of lives in disarray or extinguished just from the latest meddling in the middle east purely because of financial interests. But yet all these blatant crimes against humanity for some reason are all ok. Because?

Nobody's human rights have been protected, democracy has not been advanced, but 'interests have been secured' on the back of entirely fictional narratives and fabrciated intentions. This is mind boggling.

This is perhaps the same kind of self serving rationalization and reckless disregard for human life that advocates first strike against North Korea. If these are the good guys who are the bad guys?

crispyambulance• 10 years ago

I can't help but detect a weird affectation (a combination of proud and pushy) in the voice of the newscaster. I don't know Korean or any Asian language, so I can't tell, is that a normal newscaster voice for North and South Korea?

shafiqissani• 10 years ago

At this point it is hard to believe this is not US agenda.

AnimalMuppet4• 10 years ago

What rational basis do you have for claiming that?

GarrisonPrime• 10 years ago

A forecast:

(1) NK eventually attacks a sovereign nation. Most likely, their nukes will be used as a threat to back up their aggressive actions rather than being actually used.

(2) China, at first perhaps tentative and apologetic, eventually joins in with strong anti-NK policies and pressure.

(3) NK doubles down, building up its offensive capabilities and maybe launching more attacks.

(4) Very sad day for the innocent North Koreans living under the regime. The US, or China, or the UN, or all of the above smash NK into the dirt.

(5) Profit.

verroq2• 10 years ago

More like

(1) Continued rattling and blackmail for international aid

(2) Eventually becoming a nuclear state that nobody wants to touch cementing itself in perpetuity

s_q_b7• 10 years ago

Since the comparison between North Korea and other dictatorships keeps arising, I feel compelled to note that North Korea is truly an edge case.

Nothing in Western democracies, Middle Eastern theocracies, or even African dictatorships comes close to the horror that is North Korea. They torture people for entertainment, without even a pretext. They kidnap children to serve as sex slaves for their leadership. They starve families to the point that parents beat their own children over single grains of rice.

North Korea is such an extreme outlier that no other extant nation compares.

North Korea claims success in fifth nuclear test

Related Stories