PDA

View Full Version : North Korea claims nuclear test



Collider
09-10-2006, 09:21 AM
North Korea claims nuclear test
South Koreans watch television in the wake of North Korea's reported nuclear test
There was concern among South Koreans at the news
North Korea says it has carried out its first test of a nuclear weapon, the state news agency (KCNA) has reported.

It said the underground test, carried out in defiance of international warnings, was a success and had not resulted in any leak of radiation.

The White House said South Korean and US intelligence had detected a seismic event at a suspected test site.

The White House said the reported test was a "provocative act", while China denounced it as "brazen".


N KOREA NUCLEAR PROGRAMME
Believed to have 'handful' of nuclear weapons
But not thought to have any small enough to put in a missile
Could try dropping from airplane, though world watching closely

Q&A: Nuclear stand-off

In an unusually strong statement against its ally, China expressed its "resolute opposition" to the claimed test and said it "defied the universal opposition of international society".

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is in Seoul for a meeting with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, said the test was "unpardonable".

Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said Japan had detected seismic waves, but could not confirm whether they were from a nuclear test.

South Korea said it would "sternly respond".

President Roh has called an emergency meeting of South Korea's National Security Council and put the armed forces on a heightened state of alert.

Seoul also suspended a scheduled aid shipment to North Korea, the state news agency reported.


We expect the UN Security Council to take immediate actions to respond to this unprovoked act
Tony Snow
White House spokesman

Reaction to nuclear test
Full text: N Korea statement

US White House spokesman Tony Snow said: "We expect the UN Security Council to take immediate actions to respond to this unprovoked act."

'Historic event'

When it announced the test, KCNA described it as an "historic event that brought happiness to our military and people".

"The nuclear test will contribute to maintaining peace and stability in the Korean peninsula and surrounding region," KCNA said.


KOREAN NUCLEAR CRISIS
Map
Sept 2005: At first hailed as a breakthrough, North Korea agrees to give up nuclear activities
Next day, N Korea says it will not scrap its activities unless it gets a civilian nuclear reactor
US imposes financial sanctions on N Korea businesses
July 2006: N Korea test-fires seven missiles
UN Security Council votes to impose sanctions over the tests
Oct 2006: N Korea claims to have carried out nuclear test

N Korea's mercurial leader
N Korea nuclear timeline
South Korea's Yonhap news agency reports that the test took place in Gilju in Hamgyong province at 1036 (0136 GMT).

The BBC's Jonathan Marcus says North Korea's claimed test does not necessarily mean it has a fully-fledged nuclear bomb or warhead that it can deliver to a target.

But the demonstration of North Korea's capability is what will shake-up the geo-politics of the region, he says.

Our correspondent says there will now be pressure on the UN Security Council to push for a resolution condemning North Korea and probably demanding a stiff menu of economic sanctions.

The Japanese and South Korean foreign ministers have held a telephone conference call with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss the issue, South Korea's foreign ministry said.

The BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Beijing says China's statement is an indication of how strongly it is angered by North Korea's action, although Beijing will still be loath to support tougher sanctions against Pyongyang.


Dont sound to good does it lol

redbarony
09-10-2006, 11:42 AM
as long as they keep it to themselves,everyone has a right to defend themselves

unless its british law!

Collider
09-10-2006, 12:53 PM
as long as they keep it to themselves,everyone has a right to defend themselves

unless its british law!

Know what you mean,the british and americans are very good at dictating to other countries about this and that but we must be the biggest hypocrites going seeing as us the US etc have nuclear capabilities

stickywicket
09-10-2006, 06:24 PM
so much for the supposed "war on terror", the world just became a much more dangerous place to live. wanna know where some weapons of mass destruction are, Mr Blair and your handler MrBush: North Korea

i provided a link just in case you didnt know.


BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | N Korea 'nuclear test' condemned (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6034873.stm)

anothernoobie
09-10-2006, 06:49 PM
and the good ole U.S of A are the only ones that have used em!

but the rest of the world is supposed to have crazy people, don't make sense to me

stickywicket
11-10-2006, 12:42 PM
as long as they keep it to themselves,everyone has a right to defend themselves
unless its british law!

who are they defending themselves from?

Shipoftheline
11-10-2006, 01:05 PM
I don't mind democratic countries having these kinds of weapons as deterrents but Iran. Pakistan & Korea no chance the first two the more worrying

cfbev
11-10-2006, 01:15 PM
If North and South Korea go at it and it won't take much, then it could affect allot more country's if they resort to nuclear weapons then what :gun:

redbarony
11-10-2006, 01:27 PM
who are they defending themselves from?

you could say that about any country that posess nuclear weapons

its a deterrant and i dont think anyone would actually us them,warfare these days is all about terror and fear,its much easier to bring a country to its knees that way.

Shipoftheline
11-10-2006, 01:41 PM
its a deterrant and i dont think anyone would actually us them

I would think again when it comes to Islamic country's. Remember the leader of Iran recently threatened to wipe Israel off the map

redbarony
11-10-2006, 02:13 PM
and the other way round mate,israel have said the same about the arab countries

its a no win situation

stickywicket
11-10-2006, 02:53 PM
you could say that about any country that posess nuclear weapons
its a deterrant and i dont think anyone would actually us them,warfare these days is all about terror and fear,its much easier to bring a country to its knees that way.

whens the last time you had a look at statistics regarding nuclear capabilities, or other technological capabilities for that matter. it all comes down to the fact that if the US, Britain or Israel feel truely threatened by nuclear technology guess what gonna happen to the aggressor. people still read into this fallacy that if one of these rogue states "get nukes", to put it bluntly that this will somehow put them in a position of power "aint gonna happen". just because the major powers(and i use this term regarding nuclear supremacy) havent used them doesnt mean they wont. Israel has already stated that any nuclear threat to her security will be met with an equal or greater response. (in israeli terms, dont even think about it or we'll kick your ass)

my previous post, which wasnt clear i must admit, was directed more at the hypocrisy of the coalition(uk&us), in that they entered iraq under the pretense of "weapons of mass destruction" rather than saying "o dear we got oil problems an Saddam Hussein just happens to have pissed george bush senior off"

as for defending themselves, thats why i asked who they were defending themselves from. for talks sake say the US wanted to attack them, even if they could develop 10 medium range weapons, what would that achieve the US, UK and Israel could rain nukes on them from now to next week an still have enough left for the rest of the world.

as a bargaining tool ie ill stop doing this if you give me loads of money and more respect through trade etc then theres nothing like a few nukes to get the ball rolling ;)

nukes are about power, it just so happens that the US has got tons more of them than anyone else, not to mention the vast majority of satilletes some of which can do some pretty extrordinary things. IMO noone should have nuclear weapons, as an energy source its second to none but then how many countries would use it solely as an energy source.

Shipoftheline
11-10-2006, 02:56 PM
and the other way round mate,israel have said the same about the arab countries
its a no win situation

When I must have missed something do you have a source ?

redbarony
11-10-2006, 06:15 PM
i dont want to get into an augument over this,but a lot of what others have posted is true,as i said people should have a right to defend themselves from the big sabre rattlers,i think iraq would have been a different ball game had the man with a big moustach been armed with em

you only got to look back to the iran v iraq war to see who the "allies" were backing and now they are part of the axis of evil

i sure the names of the muslim axis of evil are a bit different

its a small world and we are all gonna need to get along or the human race will not progress

Current World Nuclear Arsenals (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. sorry Ship,just got you post

i mean that if israel was attacked they would not hesitate in nuclear response
now thats worrying.

stickywicket
11-10-2006, 07:11 PM
i dont want to get into an augument over this,but a lot of what others have posted is true,as i said people should have a right to defend themselves from the big sabre rattlers,i think iraq would have been a different ball game had the man with a big moustach been armed with em

you only got to look back to the iran v iraq war to see who the "allies" were backing and now they are part of the axis of evil

i sure the names of the muslim axis of evil are a bit different

its a small world and we are all gonna need to get along or the human race will not progress

Current World Nuclear Arsenals (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. sorry Ship,just got you post

i mean that if israel was attacked they would not hesitate in nuclear response
now thats worrying.


no argument, merely a debate, i enjoy other peoples opinions, great mental stimulation and a great way to form your own(am never afraid to admit im wrong lol)
totally agree US are responsible for almost every war in the modern world in one way or another but i feel that the suggestion that the development of nuclear capabilities is a route to defence is questionable. i feel it is a provocative act and more likely to bring whoever is developing them into greater danger of military action. the UN/US are willing to allow many nations a somewhat "free run" but when their actions infringes upon the security of other nations then the likelyhood of a response is great.

redbarony
11-10-2006, 08:16 PM
your right,im to defensive

maybe i need a nuke to feel better!

stickywicket
12-10-2006, 02:14 AM
your right,im to defensive
maybe i need a nuke to feel better!

i have a much better suggestion, kinda shaped like a nuke but much more enjoyable and you light the other end, i love herbs. sigh.

Shipoftheline
12-10-2006, 07:49 AM
sorry Ship,just got you post

i mean that if israel was attacked they would not hesitate in nuclear response
now thats worrying.

So you don't have proof it%u2019s an opinion rather than fact (naughty naughty). The major difference is Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map not once but twice. You can say if they were attacked they would retaliate yes and they would they have the best military in the Middle East because of all the hostile countries around them.

I don%u2019t need to remind you either that Israel is democratic and would only use the nukes as a last resort for obvious reasons something which isn't true about an evil Islamic led country

y2krog2000
12-10-2006, 10:27 AM
A lot of countries have the n-bomb but they dont test them, and if Iremember right the USA and CCCP got destroyed most of their nuclear weapons.
BTW the Israel has the most advanced airforce for delivering nuclear weapons in the world and they are one ofthe few places that stockpiles them, so they would take out any arib countrues if they really wanted to.
Israel and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)

Shipoftheline
12-10-2006, 10:29 AM
A lot of countries have the n-bomb but they dont test them, and if Iremember right the USA and CCCP got destroyed most of their nuclear weapons.
BTW the Israel has the most advanced airforce for delivering nuclear weapons in the world and they are one ofthe few places that stockpiles them, so they would take out any arib countrues if they really wanted to.
Israel and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)


But they have never threatened to wipe another country off the map even though they are constantly under attack

y2krog2000
12-10-2006, 10:38 AM
But they have never threatened to wipe another country off the map even though they are constantly under attack

I know, mabey if they did say that they would wipe a few countries out the muslims would stop attacking Isreal.

jimbob
12-10-2006, 01:02 PM
I don't think it has ever been confirmed that Israel has a nuclear arsenal.

IMO this is down to the 5 original super powers. When I say super powers I mean the countries that had nuclear capabilities when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty went into effect in 1970. The five countries who had nuclear bombs - the US, France, China, Great Britain, and the USSR - agreed to work to reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear arsenals. It has been a long time since the original five nuclear powers have made any progress in negotiating a reduction in their arsenals; in fact the Bush administration is apparently building new lower-yield nukes with conventional uses that could spur a new arms race.

Now, 36 years later, no disarmament talks are taking place between those countries. North Korea has been a "threshold" country since the late 80s. The fall of the Soviet Union eliminated shared security arrangements and prompted North Korea to aggressively pursue a nuclear weapon.

The US tried to enter into an agreement with North Korea to provide reactors for peaceful use in exchange for an end to the weapons program. In 2003, North Korea announced they were leaving the Non-Proliferation Treaty and reconstituting its weapons program, citing US failure to deliver the reactors.

If all of the nuclear powers that are condemning North Korea are serious about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, perhaps they should read and come into compliance with the following section of the treaty they first signed in 1970 and extended in 1995:



Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

As long as one country possesses the ability to annihilate another it is only natural for those without that power to seek it.

y2krog2000
12-10-2006, 05:02 PM
Why would they want to buy so many planes that are designed to fire nuclear weapons if they dont have any.

I think this is some proof. Nuclear Weapons - Israel (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/)

jimbob
12-10-2006, 05:37 PM
y2krog2000:
Why would they want to buy so many planes that are designed to fire nuclear weapons if they dont have any.

I think this is some proof. Nuclear Weapons - Israel

I'm not saying that Israel don't have any nukes, I'm saying that it has not been confirmed, as the website kind of gets at. This website doesn't prove that Israel has nukes, it postulates and estimates that Israel has nukes.

I do believe they have them though, there is just a lack of concrete evidence to state their nuclear capacity.

Regards

J.

stickywicket
13-10-2006, 12:21 AM
I'm not saying that Israel don't have any nukes, I'm saying that it has not been confirmed, as the website kind of gets at. This website doesn't prove that Israel has nukes, it postulates and estimates that Israel has nukes.
I do believe they have them though, there is just a lack of concrete evidence to state their nuclear capacity.
Regards
J.

bar walking up and touching them with your own hands how much evidence do you need, only reason it aint confirmed is cause the powers that be want it that way. believe this guy was into photograpy, Mordechai Vanunu, shame its illegal to take pics in israel, well of nuclear technology anyway.

jimbob
13-10-2006, 01:08 PM
bar walking up and touching them with your own hands how much evidence do you need.

I did state that I believe they have them but, due to lack of confirmed evidence, it's only my opinion.

They are now not sure if it was a nuclear test or at least a successful nuclear test. We'll just need to wait and see if South Korea will pick up any radiation on the sensitive radiation detection equipment they borrowed from Sweden.

Regards

J.

GINGERNUT
15-10-2006, 11:54 AM
big bang just around the corner/trigger happy yanks must have a new toy to unleash

Diablo13
15-10-2006, 06:56 PM
Does'nt this all sound like were going back to the 60's? I think it was the cold war then between the US and USSR to see who would win the pissing contest. The Cuban missile crisis of JFK's day and who had what and where they could stick it? Sounds like a school playground where one kid says if you threaten me I'll get my big brother or dad to sort you out! Has no country matured since then? When only a few countries had nukes you could possibly believe the argument that nukes were a deterrent as they all claimed at the time. Now that so many countries have nuclear capabilities that no longer holds true for me. Somebody mentioned that if 10 nukes were fired at the US it would not destroy the US because it is so big. Thats wrong because a few nukes would destroy government, power supplies, communication, transport and the whole infrastucture of any nation. The US would retalliate, lets say with another 10 nukes. You do not need to obliterate a country to destroy it, you just remove its power base. Radiation is no respecter of geographical boundaries, look at Chernobyl. The whole world would be hit by the fallout, so no one would win anyway.
There is no need for a nuclear wepons nowadays anyway as the EMT bomb is already being tested which would cleanly destroy computer and electricty sources and effectively bring a country to its knees through chaos by destroying its infrastructure, but still leaving the real estate and people intact.
What worries me more than nukes is how so many lunatics like George Bush, Kim IL Sung, Saddam Hussein etc, get into their great positions of power in the first place? Whoever lights the blue touch paper, we are all gonna die. :bomb:

Collider
15-10-2006, 08:45 PM
Well i definetly got a debate going lol

jimbob
16-10-2006, 01:48 PM
Does'nt this all sound like were going back to the 60's? I think it was the cold war then between the US and USSR to see who would win the pissing contest. The Cuban missile crisis of JFK's day and who had what and where they could stick it?

That's what all the fuss is about. The international community is scared this will start another cold war in Asia.

Even though Japan (Which is the only nation to have a nuke used against it) says it will never be involved in a nuclear arms race due to the intimate knowledge of what these nukes can do. If it's surrounding countries start mass producing these WMD's then it would just be a matter of time before Japan joined in.



When only a few countries had nukes you could possibly believe the argument that nukes were a deterrent as they all claimed at the time. Now that so many countries have nuclear capabilities that no longer holds true for me

At this point in time it is still the case. When the cold war was happening only 5 nations (possible 6 is you include Israel) had nuclear capabilities. Since then only Pakistan and India has joined that list. (it's still unconfirmed is NK has that capability now). That's 7 (possibly 9) nations that have nuclear warheads. Still not that much in the grand scheme of things but, I don't think they can ever be classed as a deterrent though. Not now and not back then.

As long as one country possesses the ability to annihilate another it is only natural for those without that power to seek it.


Somebody mentioned that if 10 nukes were fired at the US it would not destroy the US because it is so big. That's wrong because a few nukes would destroy government, power supplies, communication, transport and the whole infrastucture of any nation. The US would retalliate, lets say with another 10 nukes. You do not need to obliterate a country to destroy it, you just remove its power base. Radiation is no respecter of geographical boundaries, look at Chernobyl. The whole world would be hit by the fallout, so no one would win anyway.

The US would retaliate before the nukes got near them. I think it's a program Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Where as they would fire back with equal or greater force.



There is no need for a nuclear weapons nowadays anyway as the EMT bomb is already being tested which would cleanly destroy computer and electricty sources and effectively bring a country to its knees through chaos by destroying its infrastructure, but still leaving the real estate and people intact.

I'm assuming you mean an EMP bomb. These have sort of been in operation since 1945. Nuclear bombs produce an EMP upon detonation.
It was reported that the U.S. dropped a pure EMP on Iraqi TV during the 2003 invasion, but this has not been confirmed.



What worries me more than nukes is how so many lunatics like George Bush, Kim IL Sung, Saddam Hussein etc, get into their great positions of power in the first place? Whoever lights the blue touch paper, we are all gonna die.

I agree to an extent, these leaders worry me even more when they have a big red button in front of them but, what can we do about it ?

Regards

J.

Diablo13
16-10-2006, 09:17 PM
Hi jimbob, nice to know that somebody bothers to read my rather long posts properly, thanks for the compliment.

I stand corrected on the EMP bomb, that is of course what I mean't, getting old you know.

I still can't see the point of nukes as a detterent. Especially because some countries having them, means more countries, understandably, want them. In the desire to obtain nukes there is also a great danger of accidents either in development or testing because people push ahead before they understand the technology or possible consequences.
The only hope we have is if all nuclear weapons were outlawed globally, so that there would no longer be the threat and counter threat that has always been associated with these weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If no one had them the need for other non nuclear countries to obtain them would not be as great, as the perceived threat would be largely removed? The proliferation of the nuclear arms race is self perpetuating, especially in todays climate of global unrest.
That would be the sensible and logical thing to do, rather than continually stopping other countries from joining in. However because it is sensible and logical that means I have as much chance of platting fog as this actually happening. Every government wants peace, just so long as they are in charge and its on their terms. :gun:

Shipoftheline
17-10-2006, 07:43 AM
On a slightly different note I was surprised to hear the Challenger 2 tank was protected agains't EMP

stickywicket
17-10-2006, 05:29 PM
british made old son, british made lol. only thing that kills a challenger is another challenger

"only one loss due to a blue-on-blue incident (friendly fire) in which one Challenger 2 mistakenly shot another, destroying the second tank and killing two crew members."

not only emp this things armoured against everything.

jimbob
31-10-2006, 05:16 PM
Shipoftheline: -
On a slightly different note I was surprised to hear the Challenger 2 tank was protected agains't EMP

In all honesty it's not that hard to protect against an EMP strike in principle. An electro-magnetic shield is all that's needed. It's also called a faraday cage. You'll find a lot of government building will be built in a form of faraday cages, it is a counter-intelligence measure aimed at the prevention of radiation espionage.

At the same time, the challenger 2 tank family is quite impressive. There is a few variants of that tank and it's only the Challenger 2E tank that has the EMP shielding. Unfortunate the version used by the British forces doesn't have this capability. The Challenger 2E is an export version of the tank which went to Oman. The British version does have the ability to brew tea though. In fact every British tank after the 60's can make tea. You got to love British ingenuity and detail to the little things.

Regards

J.