How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

[kimo55]

ok. show of hands.
does this even remotely bother anyone?

North Korea:
"we got nukes. and we will use them."

where dey goin use em?
where would YOU?!

at da obvious targets:
Ay mur ick cun Nuclear Arms Storage facilities.
what datchuh say?
No boddah me cuz we safe heah.

BUT.
(and it's a big but.)
Nanakuli, Waianae... etc... is a major U.S. military Nuclear Warhead arms munitions repository.
This is a very likely target.




what say you?

[1stwahine]

Re: New: Clear to you? warhead: fall down, go boom!

ok. show of hands.
does this even remotely bother anyone?

North Korea:
"we got nukes. and we will use them."

where dey goin use em?
where would YOU?!

at da obvious targets:
Ay mur ick cun Nuclear Arms Storage facilities.
BUT.
(and it's a big but.)
Nanakuli, Waianae... etc... is a major U.S. military Nuclear Warhead arms munitions repository.
This is a very likely target.




what say you?

Stop making the others scared! If it hits, so what. We won't feel a thing! I'll see Heaven Faster...

[helen]

Re: New: Clear to you? warhead: fall down, go boom!

Depends on the number of nuclear warheads that North Korea has. If they got 10 or less warheads I wouldn't be too worried about it.

[kimo55]

Re: New: Clear to you? warhead: fall down, go boom!

Depends on the number of nuclear warheads that North Korea has. If they got 10 or less warheads I wouldn't be too worried about it.

even though NK is assumed to have anywhere between 2 to 15,

all we need is one.


then Henry will not resemble a precious stone as much as sizzlin bacon in da fryer.
We'll experience a few levels of hell slower before we see any heaven faster.

But thanx for da optimism and geography lesson anyway.
denial is still a river in Egypt.

[Miulang]

How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

Maybe the North Korean government is just playing chicken with the US by finally publicly admitting that it has at least one nuclear weapon, hoping it can force the White House into bilateral talks rather than the 6-way talks that were going on, and maybe the majority of Americans are saying, "so what?" , but the people in Hawai'i should be alarmed, very alarmed. It is known that the North Korean missile carrying that payload has a long-enough range that it could theoretically hit either Hawai'i or Alaska.

So since the N. Koreans have a nuclear weapon and we never did find any WMDs in Iraq, why aren't we threatening to invade N. Korea, too? Could it be because The People's Republic and Pakistan are good friends of the N. Korean regime? The best way to disarm the N. Koreans is not through war. Its people are starving to death. Feed the people and the problem with that kooky Kim Il Jung just might take care of itself.

Miulang

http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?...d&c=26,1045299

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

I'm no geopolitical expert, but I would think North Korea would target Seoul or Tokyo first before any USA cities.

[Miulang]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

This could go either in the Iran or N. Korea thread (or a Pakistan thread, which I fear will need to be created soon ), but unbeknownst to all of us loyal, taxpaying Americans, the White House has quietly been going about gathering steam and supporters for the creation of something called a "Modern Pit Facility", which is a place where they would make the plutonium "pits", which are the trigger for nuclear bombs. This plant could produce up to 450 "pits" a year. The government was also considering building smaller pit facilities which could produce 125 or 250 pits per year. Right now, we have a plutonium pit facility at Los Alamos, NM, which has a production rate of 50 pits per year.

According to a 2003 report by the Western States Legal Foundation, Los Alamos Study Group, the government says the pit facilities are necessary to replenish our current nuclear arsenal and to "insure that the US has the ability to build new kinds of nuclear warheads if the government decides they are needed..."

What this report tells me is, even though production at the new pit facility is not scheduled to start until 2011 (the government was only in its initial planning stages for this new pit facility at the time of the report), the Bush Administration had already decided to ramp up the production of nuclear warheads in a time of peace.

So what gives? It's OK for us to be armed to the teeth, but it's not OK for anyone else to have nuclear warheads? Is this how we maintain our superiority over everyone else? Then it's no wonder all these so called "Axis of Evil" countries feel they have a right to defend themselves by acquiring nuclear warheads, too.

Again, history has its precedents in the nuclear buildup that lead to the Cold War. Jeez. I thought as a society we were evolving; instead we're going backwards! Will they put up the Berlin Wall again, too? I'm convinced the United States doesn't want peace in this world; all we know how to do is make war.

Miulang

http://wslfweb.org/docs/mpfinfo.pdf

[helen]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

If we are building new warheads to replace aging warheads and still keep the same number of warheads then this should be okay.

[Miulang]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

If we are building new warheads to replace aging warheads and still keep the same number of warheads then this should be okay.

Warheads don't go "stale" every year; we're currently replacing them at a rate of 50 a year via the Los Alamos site. What the intent is is to build up a bigger arsenal and to have the capacity available for "anytime the government decides we need to have more warheads."

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

When the US and other signers of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty met last year to discuss progress with meeting the accord that was signed over 30 years ago, the US stated that it was in compliance with the terms of the Agreement.

The Western Legal Front produced a report with facts that showed that the US was not meeting the terms of the Agreement. This is very disturbing because it gives countries like Russia even more reason not to believe us.

http://wslfweb.org/docs/uscompliance04.pdf

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

When things get too tense in the Middle East or if an attack on Europe is imminent, the White House has developed a plan to ship nuclear warheads to countries which currently do not have the weapons as a way to weasel around the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

The AFP article below about a Natural Resources Defense Council report says that 180 nuclear warheads we have today in Europe are deployed at air force bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and Britain. 300 of them are still housed in the US and would be delivered by US F-15s and F-16s fighter jets.

"The report also sheds light on a secret 1994 US Air Force document that lists 15 nuclear bombing ranges scattered all over Europe, including one in Suippes, France, despite the fact that France is not part of NATO’s nuclear command structure. Moreover, it lists one such training range in the North African nation of Tunisia that is not a member of Western military alliance at all.
"...[The Report] ...argues that preparations for delivering the 180 nuclear bombs are taking place in peacetime, and “equipping non-nuclear countries with the means to conduct nuclear warfare is inconsistent with today’s international efforts to dissuade other countries from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

“If China deployed nuclear bombs in North Korea, equipped North Korean aircraft with mechanical and electronic devices to deliver the weapons, and trained North Korean pilots to draw up nuclear strike plans, there would be hell to pay, and rightly so,” said Hans Kristensen, the author of the report. “Yet that is precisely what the United States is doing in Europe.” The Defense Department declined to comment on the report, citing its longstanding policy of not publicly discussing deployments of nuclear weapons. "...

Everytime the government "declines" to comment on something, you know it's probably at least 90% true.

"...According to the report, the start of President George W Bush’s first term in office was marked by a quiet withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Greece, a full-fledged NATO ally. In April 2001, US Air Force headquarters in Europe issued a secret order to move 20 nuclear bombs out of Araxos Air Base in Greece to an unknown destination. "...

So we're outsourcing our nuclear weapons so we don't get our hands slapped?Too bad most of the leaders of the "Axis of Evil" and other places that don't believe in our brand of democracy are too smart to fall for that shell game. And so far, Iran, Pakistan and N. Korea have all called our bluff.

Miulang

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...1-2-2005_pg4_1

[scrivener]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

I'm no geopolitical expert, but I would think North Korea would target Seoul or Tokyo first before any USA cities.

I'm with Glen. An attack on the U.S. would not be in North Korea's best interest. Is North Korea likely to use what it has? I say yes--something else we don't hear anything about is that North Koreans are hungry. Hunger breeds desperation, and desperation causes people to do unpredictable things. A hit on someone we care about (Japan or South Korea) would force us to do something.

Even if North Korea doesn't strike, it will use the threat in order to get what it wants, which is not land, power, or anything like that. The nuclear threat is not a military-minded threat. It's a leveraging threat, aimed at getting us to help North Korea with feeding and caring for its people.

[helen]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

Warheads don't go "stale" every year; we're currently replacing them at a rate of 50 a year via the Los Alamos site. What the intent is is to build up a bigger arsenal and to have the capacity available for "anytime the government decides we need to have more warheads."

They don't, but you don't replace all the warheads at one time either.

[Miulang]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

They don't, but you don't replace all the warheads at one time either.

Precisely, Helen, and that's why this plan to create another facility that can produce another 450 plutonium pits annually (if the plant was just operating under normal 8 hour days) doesn't make sense unless it is a definite plan to ramp up nuclear warhead manufacturing. And why would we want to do that if we signed a nuclear nonproliferation agreement? What excuse will we use? That we aren't keeping those weapons for ourselves but are arming every other "friend" of the US with the capability of blowing up the world? That, in itself is a violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

Miulang

[pzarquon]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

An attack on the U.S. would not be in North Korea's best interest.

North Korea is not a country known for reliably acting in its best interests. Mr. Bossman is just a wee bit unstable, and it's frightening to think that there is, in fact, a button somewhere for him to press.