Breaking - Artificial Earthquake Detected in North Korea

reply to post by CristobalColonic


That won't happen.
Even if NK tried, the US would just shoot down the incoming nuke.
Someone should tell NK to pick its fights carefully.

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by SloAnPainful

 

Yep.

As did the USA, USSR, Britain, France, China, India, Israel, South Africa and Pakistan.

Or conversely, explain to me why those countries were justified, but NK isn't?

Quite simply NK is an unstable nation with a hard-line paranoid crack pot regime!

The others aren't good but do you really need to have it explained why NK shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by neformore
Why do people who live in nuclear armed countries who are regularly involved in wars and military actions around the world want to protest a country testing a nuclear weapon?

Hypocrisy much?

The way you worded this leads me to believe you believe all citizens of any given country totally agree with what their government does with weapons. Bullcrap, I say. The fact that a government, such as the USA's, produced atomic weapons, or WMDs, does not instantly equal that the civilian population big fat puffy heart's them. I know I certainly do not have any love for nukes, no matter who has them. You have some failed logic there

I'm somewhat hesitant to think NK is going to do anything more than saber-rattle before slinking back under it's rock again. If they do have a couple more tests coming down the pipeline soon, and they are successes, then I might worry. I'm willing to wager a conservative bet that China might have actually had enough of the juvenile tactics from NK, and may potentially intervene militarily this time. Just a hunch.

What a bunch of chest beating, knuckle dragging idiots.

They have millions of people on the brink of starvation...people around the world crying out to be humane and feed them on the resources of others.

...and they do this... not only do they p!ss away money on a nuclear program that could have been used to buy food... they irradiate areas for decades that might have been useful agriculturally to feed their people.

If a man be ignorant, let him be ignorant...or in this case...if a man be arrogant, let him go hungry.

reply to post by spark9576


Damn. I haven't even saved the money to move back home to Texas yet, let alone had time to purchase property there and build my bomb shel--I mean storm shelter.

This is all happening too fast...

Originally posted by SloAnPainful

Okay Nef I'll humor you.

USA: Used a nuke to ensure victory.

USSR: Tested a nuke to show that they had a nuclear weapon

Britain: Got the nukes from USA.

France: ----- Have no knowledge of their nuclear program.

India: Protection

Isreal: Protection

S. Africa: Protection, of course a British colony, they have no fears

Pakistan: They have them because AMERICANS PAID FOR THEM, also they are afraid of India.

That enough for 'ya Nef?

-SAP-

Actually, its more like this

USA - First use designed to prevent an invasion of Japan with a show of power. 2nd use, weapons test.

USSR - Response to US weapons tests

Britian - developed weapons on their own without assistance from the USA after being frozen out by the US at the end of WW2 despite assistance offered on the Manhattan Project. Developed weapons as a declining colonial power determined to keep a presence on the world stage in the face of what was perceived to be a threat from the USSR AND an agressive US foreign policy. Country was for all purposes bankrupt at the time.

France - developed weapons to prevent a repeat of WW2 and also developed weapons as a declining colonial power determined to keep a presence on the world stage. Country was still recovering from WW2 and was, for all purposes, bankrupt at the time.

China - developed weapons in the face of the Sino-Soviet split, ostensibly to prevent a recurrence of WW2 but also to cement status on a world stage. Starving millions present in the country at the time, extremely poor human rights record.

India - developed weapons to show that they were an emerging technological nation in 1974. Starvation and extremely poor living standards all across the country.

Israel - developed weapons as a levelling tool against larger nations around them,to prevent invasion by arab nations.

South Africa. - developed weapons to use against opposing countries and the black populace should the apartheid regime come under threat. Became the only nation to develop the capability and then unilaterally disarm.

Pakistan - developed weapons as an emerging technological nation and in response to India's increasing presence in the region. Unstable regime, starvation, poor living conditions.

My point is that the current nuclear powers are - or were - no better than the NK's when they developed their weapons.

reply to post by neformore


Well your points are valid still N. Korea would rather blow up missles than feed their people.

And again if London was attack who would aide them? America.

I get your points Nef but you can't deny it...They cannot have a bomb...

-SAP-

reply to post by Jeremiah65


Whilst i don not take issue with the contents of your post regarding the situation inside North Korea i have to ask why you think they are not allowed nuclear weapons?

Cast aside any moral arguments, they do not wash in the world of Real Politik. Quite simply, what gives one nation the right to say another nation cannot develop its own nuclear power and nuclear weapons?

Personally i hate nukes and everything that they stand for but nothing changes the fact that North Korea has just as much right to them as we in the UK or elsewhere. Any other position is complete hypocrisy in my opinion.

Looks like the yield was 6-7 KT.
Could do some damage to a city for sure.
Check out this link that gives you the blast radius, fallout and more.....
nuclearsecrecy.com...

Originally posted by rigel4

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by SloAnPainful

 

Yep.

As did the USA, USSR, Britain, France, China, India, Israel, South Africa and Pakistan.

Or conversely, explain to me why those countries were justified, but NK isn't?

Quite simply NK is an unstable nation with a hard-line paranoid crack pot regime!

The others aren't good but do you really need to have it explained why NK shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

You sound like you believe all the anti-NK propoganda, and you're busting someone elses chops about their point of view? Why dont you wake up and go do some REAL research about North Korea. The U.S. of A is allot more oppressive and involved in a hell of allot more atrocities the NK have been involved in.

reply to post by imagineering


Lol, Propaganda? N. Korea is a state where people starve so their military can thrive...

No propaganda there sorry.

-SAP-

Originally posted by imagineering
Looks like the yield was 6-7 KT.
Could do some damage to a city for sure.
Check out this link that gives you the blast radius, fallout and more.....
nuclearsecrecy.com...

That is about half a Hiroshima (what a weird way to describe it!). Poor return on what we as a species could achieve in 1945.

Then again, that is moot point if you happen to be in a city that is hit by such a bomb........

reply to post by neformore


Okay I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with every other nation but Israel.

Call me a "zionist" or wtf you want to call me, fact is every Islamic nation HATES Israel...So they didn't get nukes for protection?

I think it's funny, in a sick way, how everyone points the finger until it the sh** comes around.

Yeah I'm a American and yeah we've done some effed stuff... But what country hasn't?

Like England is innocent.... Puleeze Not hating only explaining.

I think I've made my case clear.

ETA: Off topic my bad.

-SAP-

Originally posted by Dustytoad

Originally posted by zeeon
This might actually be an accident. A nuclear test site is VERY close to where the actual earth quake happened. Roughly 4 miles away from where USGS says the epicenter was. That is WAY to close to home for a test. Even if it was underground.

Maybe something went wrong? Successful test or Nuclear accident this doesn't look good either way.

Article is up on CNN

edit on 11-2-2013 by zeeon because: (no reason given)

Did you just say that what I am calling an underground nuke test was too close to a Nuke test site? You're confusing me a little.. Seems you'd want to test a nuke near or on a nuclear test site..

The road next to the earthquake says nuclear test Rd.. I'm not being snarky Im just confused at what you are saying.

And why are you referring to an accident and an Earthquake?

I'm thinking the US propaganda is getting to some of you guys.

Looks like a successful test to me. An unsuccessful one wouldn't register more than a 1 or 2 mag quake.. An unsuccessful nuke ends up as just a dirty bomb, after a small explosion..

edit on 2/11/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

Well to be honest I just thought that detonating a nuclear weapon only 4 miles away (even underground) from what appears to be the center of the nuke testing facilities is just a tad dangerous. I'm not an expert, and it was breaking news before any articles were out.

I'm not being snarky, but obviously it's an intellectually safe bet to assume they successfully tested a nuclear weapon and didn't have an accident. I was only suggesting that perhaps it would be a bit safer to detonate a nuclear weapon maybe 10+ miles away from the testing facilities, and not 4 miles.

That was my point about the distance. My other point was that if it was indeed a successful test, that now we have a nuclear NK and that's probably not a very good thing, either.

reply to post by zeeon


I understand your point, fact is we (US, NATO whoever) cannot let them do it. Kim Jung Un is a kid (in the eyes of TPTB) and he has no idea of the hell that will come if he keeps up this BS he's pulling...

______________________________________________________________________________________

Someone has to say it and I will...If you disagree then give me a reason why he has that right...

ETA: I'm not trying to be, for lack of a better word, cocky. But there is a lot of anti-American sh** on ATS and it pisses me off. America isn't the best place on this planet, but I can name many countries that owe us...But we don't care. What do we do we PROTECT the world. We are the big brother ( ) and when mfers get into trouble who comes? America. Again I know Haters gonna hate.

-SAP-

North Korea does not have the capacity to be a real threat. They choose America as their "enemy" in order to elevate their own sense of self worth.

reply to post by lucid eyes


Lol Really? 'cause last time I checked Obamer is a liberal...

We laugh at them...Then something bad happens....

ETA: Agreed. I'll wait for fat boy Kim to make his order then we'll put him to bed.

-SAP-

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Rab...they are still using one of the two basic designs. The one being the Uranium Gun Barrel design which has to be a certain length and width.

Basically, chemical explosives are used to compress the Uranium into a critical mass. Either more powerful explosives or better timing of the shock waves would enable a smaller amount of Uranium or a smaller size of the bomb over all.

Is there some other reason that a barrel design, or any other, must be a certain size?

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by imagineering

 

Lol, Propaganda? N. Korea is a state where people starve so their military can thrive...

No propaganda there sorry.

-SAP-

I guarantee that there are more starving here in the USA, and yet our military has the largest defense budget in the world. Your reasoning is bias, the USA has allot more of an oppresive reputation the NK. Ask yourself why is NK starving? Sanctions? By whom?

Pull your head out.