North Korea "Conducts Nuke Test!"

We are talking about nuking whole areas of NK not about some LGBs killing civilians while wiping out some missiles and artillery pieces.

And remember there are civilian sattellite companies, for example this french one and they are for sure accurate enough to show the ashes of some NK cities.

A large scale nuke strike on NK would be impossible to hide in any way shape or form. Most governments would know about it as it happens and civilian pess would see big mushroom clouds from across the DMZ. Not to mention the stink local nations would kick up over fallout. Any pre emptive tactical nuke strike would cause millions of civilian casualties, and the whole world would watch it on CNN. I dont see that happening, ever. And if its retaliatory then the U.S. can drop a H bomb on Pyonyang and the public probibly wouldn't have much of a problem with it. But first strike, no way.

The last thing we need is Japan developing nuclear weapons. Not that they would be irresponsible with them but the current stance of the world is that the nuclear club is closed. By building nuclear weapons to defend against nuclear weapons only encourages more nuclear proliferation. Also, if nuclear bunker busters are used that will be opening a nuclear pandora's box. Not something that anyone wants. At this point North Korea has maybe 15 nuclear weapons. In the case of war, a raid on North Korean nuclear facilities by special forces followed by a large conventional war might be the route to go.

fylr71 said:

The last thing we need is Japan developing nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

I would wager Japan could put a bomb together in a matter of days if it had to. They have the resources, material and the know how. That's all it takes.

Well I am utterly amazed that any rational person would advocate a nuclear strike on NK at this time, even if they do carry out the test. Lest face it the most pessimistic appraisal only give them 12 warheads (looks like about 10% of the will be used in a test) and it appears they do not have an effective delivery system. This should be milked for all its worth to get SK, Russia and China to lean on this mad mob.

Suggesting a preemptive nuclear strike is just dumb and would be considered a monstrous and indefensible action by most counties (including allies), particularly when the main casualties with NK civilians (sorry they are still human) and it si likely to have a ruinous effect on the environment in SK. In this case economic stanchions properly applied (noting Japanese, SK and Chinese funds are the only thing keeping NK afloat) would do the same job. The country is almost on the rocks in any case.

You nuke them; you are responsible for the deaths. You shut them down economically then their own regime is.

Give Japan and SK a credible ABM system (which will also put pressure on china and a slow resurgent Russia) and seal the place off.

Heres a brilliant scenario, NK Nuke is a dud, and doesn't go off, man it would be Frakking Hilarious

icelord said:

Heres a brilliant scenario, NK Nuke is a dud, and doesn't go off, man it would be Frakking Hilarious

Click to expand...

Yeah, but how do we know? Can US sniffer planes pick it up? Rumours?

Grand Danois said:

Yeah, but how do we know? Can US sniffer planes pick it up? Rumours?

Click to expand...

Mass Executions and a pissed off Kim jong ill on Tv Recruiting Actual Nuclear phsycians, not Uni drop outs

Concerning Japan, and its potential nuclar potential, if we assume that it has never atempted to build a nuclear bomb, it would need several months at least to get aweapon operational. It may have the nuclear grade uranium or plutonium, but to design a trigger mechanism, and several complicated parts of a bomb, it needs specialised tooling and materials, and it takes time to develop those.
Best option, on all levels, have the US deploy tactical nuclear bombs or missiles on its territory, as a deterrent and at the same time build a ABM defense.
As for a NK dude, it can happen. It all depends if the technology is "borrowed"from the chinese, preferably a well proven design, or a local design, in that case it might well not detonate at all, creating a dirty bomb, or detonate with a small yeld. What a show that would be.
.pt

I read an article some month ago about the nuclear capability of the non nuclear but economic strong countrys.
There was written that Japan and Germany are able to produce nuclear weapons within 3 month maybe a little bit faster.
Japan would be faster in developing an ICBM but Germany would be faster in plane delivery system as they are using US B-61 on their Tornados.

For every country with a first rate mechanical economy and own nuclear plants, better nuclear test plants, it is no problem to build nuclear weapons very fast.

.pt said:

Concerning Japan, and its potential nuclar potential, if we assume that it has never atempted to build a nuclear bomb, it would need several months at least to get aweapon operational. It may have the nuclear grade uranium or plutonium, but to design a trigger mechanism, and several complicated parts of a bomb, it needs specialised tooling and materials, and it takes time to develop those.
.pt

Click to expand...

Japan isn't Iraq or Pakistan, which had to build the infrastructure from scratch, using imported hardware. It could (I'm not saying it has - I don't know) have quietly put all the necessary tooling together, done designs, & be ready to start building bombs as soon as the order is given. Japanese industry is perfectly capable of making everything needed.

Waylander said:

I read an article some month ago about the nuclear capability of the non nuclear but economic strong countrys.
There was written that Japan and Germany are able to produce nuclear weapons within 3 month maybe a little bit faster.
Japan would be faster in developing an ICBM but Germany would be faster in plane delivery system as they are using US B-61 on their Tornados.

For every country with a first rate mechanical economy and own nuclear plants, better nuclear test plants, it is no problem to build nuclear weapons very fast.

Click to expand...

I believe you can put Sweden on that list as well.

As for a NK dude, it can happen. It all depends if the technology is "borrowed"from the chinese, preferably a well proven design, or a local design, in that case it might well not detonate at all, creating a dirty bomb, or detonate with a small yeld. What a show that would be.
.pt

Click to expand...

a dirty bomb in cities like seoul or tokyo would still cause alot of casualties because they are densely populated cities.

Anyway you cut it, with Abe as the priminister, I think the trend is for US to let Japan go militant and develop it's own nuke. There is one consideration though.


The same warhawks in the inner Japanese political circles, are also the same people who are very bittered with the US - for dropping nukes on them in the past - I seem to remember to have read that Priminister Abe have said something in the past that it wants Japan to not to "fear americans" and to build a "more assertive and unapologetic Japan".


Is US capable of holding Japan back if it goes rogue? (I certainly doubt us aussie can) We are talking about a country with technological capability that is highly advanced (if not more than US), letting Japan to develop nuclear weapon as counter (or any weapon of mass destruction) is just like letting Germany to rebuild its own army after WWI.

Except, Having developed the nuke, (or any other means of WMD - ABC weapons) what if Japan no longer wants the shackle of US "interference" in it's economy and politics?..Situation could turn around drastically and quickly; and historically, US seems to have a tendency to develop a potential foe to slap itself.

Two wrong doesn't make one right. NK have nuke does not mean Japan must also have nuke. I still think the best course of action, is to increase the depolyment of ABM, and building up the conventional deterent, and tries to have direct talk with NK. Letting Japan (or any other nation) to freely develop nuclear weapon will make our stance on NPT look decidingly double standard.


An interesting blog by the well known writer Francis Fukuyama:
http://the-american-interest.com/contd/?p=571

I´m arguing that Japan has a civilian nuclear capability for many years, and it surely has the means in financial and technical means to achieve a military nuclear capability. So it won´t need that much infrastructure, but, and assuming that nothing, not even feasability studies were ever done (an unlikely assumption, ok), it would surely need more than just 3 months.Same goes to Germany. If every component must be designed and tested inhouse, without using "borrowed" designs, this takes time and money, and its a dificult process. Don´t compare to US or other nuclear powers that have the know-how for 50 years. Or else we would already have dozens and dozens of nuclear capable countries, not to mention ole Northern Kim, that, even with chinese assistance, is getting there very slowly, and not only because of money. Having nuclear grade Uranium is one thing, having a fully operational, and safe weapon is another. Not to mention delivery means, but the Japanese could surely adapt very fast their satelite launchers to achieve ICBM launchers. MIRV might take a little more time.
As for the dirty bomb thing, of course it would still kill many civilians and contaminate heaviliy the immediate target area, but it would be a major flop in military terms, and the risk of retaliation over an almost "dude" bomb is still very big.
.pt

@Grand Denois
Because of this I wrote "...every country with a first rate mechanical economy and own nuclear plants...".

@.pt
Do you compare the technological abilities of NK, China and other developing countries to Germany and Japan?
We have nuclear test centers and reactors for decades. If one of the western developed countries, especially Japan or Germany with their high developed mechanical industry, decide to put all their efforts into developing an own nuclear weapons program, do you think they would not need just some month for some high-tech nukes?
We have all the tech like centrifuges, nuclear test reactors and normal reactors, ultra accurate milling machines, the best alloys, bomb and missile factories, engineers and scientists. One of our Tornado Wings regularly trains with US B-61 bombs, the european space agency has its headquarter in Germany, we are part of the Ariane transport space program, not small parts of the ISS are from Germany. Japan has its own transport rockets for sats.
What else do you need?
The problems of NK and Iran now and of Pakistan and India in the past has been that they were not able to build the accurate machines and produce the quality alloys needed for good nuclear weapons.
Countries like Japan, Germany, Sweden, Australia, etc. have the companies beinjg able to do this in an easy way.
Not to talk of the resources available if some of the biggest economies in the world begin to focus on developing nuclear weapons and transportation systems.

It is not the question of Japan is able to get nuclear weapons in a very short time. The question is, do the want them?

Waylander said:

Countries like Japan, Germany, Sweden, Australia, etc. have the companies beinjg able to do this in an easy way.

Click to expand...

erm Australia?


I know we have plenty of uranium mines, and two test reactors, but I don't think we have the infrastructure or industries to back this up compare to Japan or Germany. First and foremost, we don't have a delivery system currently capable to do intercontinental range, at best, just IRBM range (probably not even that). Second, all the high accuracy machinery and eqiupments for conducting the test and mass producing it, we have to import them. We have a mostly agricultural, mining, tourism, and service (and financial service) oriented economy, I don't think we have heavy industries let alone comparable to Japan or Germany.

Perhaps with the whole expansion of nuclear Power plants currently undergoing a feasibility check in Australia, and its approval given for several stations across the country, we might be able to build one, but without a delievery system as the F-111 would be retired, and as Dioditto said, no Intercontinental ranged...well anything, and it would be pointless, further more, theres no one in the immediate region with a nuke to worry us, although Indo once did try to aquire some, Cuba style

I heard this rumor a while ago (i'm sure all ausies have) that as a condition of the UK using australian test ranges for Nuke tests, was that we got the blueprints for a fission weapon. After lucas heights was operational for long enough, and enough enriched uranium 235/plutonium was harvested, they built it, and took it apart and its in storage. That's how the rumor goes anyway. It would make sence, with the F111 purchase happening at about the same time.

Also even after the pig's retired, if we get TLAM for the collins or the AWD's, that would be an exellent delivery system for a tactical nuke, although the level of minituisation needed for the warhead would be dificult without testing.

Money says its stored at Pine Gap, and be serious here, its not just a NSA facility:alian