Walks out, UN goes ahead anyway.
Am I the only one that thinks that people in DPRK (North Korea) are wondering what is going on here, or that they're really REALLY freaking about what's going on?
Seriously, If you watch the UN Security council footage when the DPRK ambassador reads the rejection address, the tambor of his voice (ie the eveness) is way off, and he's fidgeting while he reads... He realises he's been backed into a corner by Il, and that he's facing off against 2 MAJOR trading partners (China and Japan) that aren't happy.... and he's probably better to just cut and run.
Anyone want to take bets on the likelihood that China is going to push KJI out of office? Who's wants in on that action?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
If China wants to do something about this situation, I'm sure the U.S. will be happy to oblige... in fact I hope they do something quickly
i just heard they werent even using enriched uranium on their tests! it was plutonium.
so they arent there yet as far as real nuclear power.
if it wasnt KJI i dont think id have a problem, a country SHOULD be able to use the technology that is nuclear power. i mean imagine the kidn of war the US would have started if as we were developing the ability to harness this new energy the world was tryign to stop us. wed be outraged and not want to back down. wed feel like the world was trying to keep us from progressing.
but since KJI is a madman i say dont let them do anything of the sorts
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
why does using plutonium matter as far as them being a real nuclear power? It's not as if the explosions aren't as powerful. Plutonium can be produced easier than uranium can be enriched. It's actually more difficult to engineer a plutonium weapon than one made with uranium.
well plutonium is used in nuclear weapons too of course and can be as powerfull as 500,000 tons of TNT
however a hydrogen bomb/thermonuclear boms are +1,000 time more powerfull than that. and i believe you need a fission explosion of uranium as part of the process. could be off on that but i thought thats what i read.
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
wasn't the blast estimated as being a very small nuclear explosion (1 kiloton of TNT)
the disturbing thing is that despite the international pressure, they are looking to detonate a second bomb... looks like KJI is an attention whore
seriously tho, if we were in KJI's place we would be doing the same thing.
the technology that is nuclear power/weapons is gigantic and a major milestone in development. we would be PISSED of the world was pressuring us away from developing new advanced technology.
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
Nathaniel O Flaherty wrote:well plutonium is used in nuclear weapons too of course and can be as powerfull as 500,000 tons of TNT
however a hydrogen bomb/thermonuclear boms are +1,000 time more powerfull than that. and i believe you need a fission explosion of uranium as part of the process. could be off on that but i thought thats what i read.
Trident missiles carried by our ballistic missile submarines have plutonium based thermonuclear warheads (H-bombs).
Quote:
W88 warhead:
Contains oralloy (probably in second stage)
Uses PBX-9501 - an HMX-based plastic bonded explosive composition
Probable features:
Beryllium reflected plutonium fissile core for primary
Deuterium-tritium boosted
Lithium-6 (95% enrichment) deuteride fusion fuel
I remembered the special radiation detectors that we had just for the missile compartment. they were different than the ones we used in the reactor compartment/engineroom which were based on uranium which was used to fuel the reactor.
Regardless, even if NK doesn't have the capability to make the most efficient bomb whatever they can make can still do a lot of damage.
NK is the only country to screw up its first atomic bomb. half a kiloton is pathetic for a nuclear bomb.
IMO, I'm happy that they are going to detonate a "nuke" again. That's just one less that they might have to use.
i agree i dont know why we pressure them to stop....but yet we have thousands of nuke war heads ready to go......i mean we might be more responsible with them but we also have used them in war.....why should we tell them no they cant have any if we can have thousands.....
Thanx Charles
^^^^
It's an issue becuase NK is a "rogue state" There is no clearly defined way to send messages to NK or anything that the world can do to make sure that the nukes are not used or transfered improperly. That's why.
It's about global saftey
i think the biggest threat is that they would resell to enemies of the US or our allies.
strategically i heard NK is in a bad spot geographically and could never hit the US with a nuke.
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
Charles (the haha one) wrote:i agree i dont know why we pressure them to stop....but yet we have thousands of nuke war heads ready to go......i mean we might be more responsible with them but we also have used them in war.....why should we tell them no they cant have any if we can have thousands.....
You should spend about a half hour reading about their leader and then you'd have a little bit of fear and understanding in you.
---
seriously i think if it was any other leader id be really sayinng what i have been saying about not pressuring them to stop.
but kim j-i is a freakin maniac.
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
you know this is why I said a long time ago(before we invaded Iraq) - that NK was a far more immenant threat(now as it turns out Iraq wasn't really a threat at all - but I had that wrong back then). Too late now I guess. Now it's time to wait for one of their warheads to end up on the black market. Oh great...
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Again, i think it's just the basic fear of dying and american pussification.
I could care less if they have a nuke, or if they sell it to a rogue state--and i'm even living near their easiest targests in the continental U.S. for them to hit with their dud missile capacity.
Besdies, KIJ is a maniac. True. I don't trust him in power, but then again, i don't trust any of our presidents in power, and you just know that Bush was itchin' to use them on Iraq, but wouldn't because of international and national pressure. And yes, before any of you die-hard republican asslickers say it, i know it's just theory.
Then look at JFK, Cuban missile crisis. it's not like democrats are any better (just for the die-hard democrat felchers out there).
Besdies, we all know that nukes are a political weapon more than anything.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]
Besdies, we all know that nukes are a political weapon more than anything.
X2
Nukes are nothing more than deterrents now. No one has the balls to use them, and by balls, I mean crazy mind.
If anyone would use Nuclear wepons, the entire world would be against them. It doesn't matter who it is.
In addendum:
If you think about it...even if a "rogue state" would sell a nuke to a terrorist organization...you'd still have the fact that said terrorist group would have to hide somewhere. dio you really think with how trigger-happy our government is that they might not enact something to the effect of "if you harbor a known nuclear terrorist group expect your country to be nuked?" I can see that.
Really, i think it's the nuclear powers are afraid of losing their "prestige" to smaller nations. even though we are warty because we know what nukes can do, still, we have a problem with, say, pianostan possesing nuclear capabilites. We don't want them sitting at our table.
I think it's b.s., to be honest. I think that we are afraid of losing prestige, and as such, we indoctrinate the populace to fear this.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]Again, i think it's just the basic fear of dying and american pussification.
Besdies, we all know that nukes are a political weapon more than anything.
"Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it".
Let's review... Saddam was a ruthless, psycho dictator who was thought to be a threat to world peace, all the same rhetoric the political spin doctors are throwing now about KJI. Saddam has this, will do that, poison this water, biohazard food, etc etc... We know it was all crap. Saddam couldn't give a cold to an eskimo, much less destroy the planet.
Now NK is CLAIMING to have a working nuclear bomb. As puny of an explosion as that was for their test, can anyone say with 100% certainty that it's not a conventional bomb that went off? Earlier this year the official projection was that it would take NK a few more years before they'd have a functional nuclear weapon. Maybe they've perfected the flux capacitor and travelled time...
Saddam pretended to have more in his arsenal than he actually did. It was how he protected his country from Iran or any other neighboring country from stepping in and taking over the way the US did. Before we compound our recent mistakes, ask yourself if NK isn't doing the exact same thing. And if we invade NK, are we duplicating the mistake we made in Iraq all over again?
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
John Wilken wrote:[quote=Keeper of the Light™]Again, i think it's just the basic fear of dying and american pussification.
Besdies, we all know that nukes are a political weapon more than anything.
"Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it".
Let's review... Saddam was a ruthless, psycho dictator who was thought to be a threat to world peace, all the same rhetoric the political spin doctors are throwing now about KJI. Saddam has this, will do that, poison this water, biohazard food, etc etc... We know it was all crap. Saddam couldn't give a cold to an eskimo, much less destroy the planet.
Now NK is CLAIMING to have a working nuclear bomb. As puny of an explosion as that was for their test, can anyone say with 100% certainty that it's not a conventional bomb that went off? Earlier this year the official projection was that it would take NK a few more years before they'd have a functional nuclear weapon. Maybe they've perfected the flux capacitor and travelled time...
Saddam pretended to have more in his arsenal than he actually did. It was how he protected his country from Iran or any other neighboring country from stepping in and taking over the way the US did. Before we compound our recent mistakes, ask yourself if NK isn't doing the exact same thing. And if we invade NK, are we duplicating the mistake we made in Iraq all over again?
NK has been claiming to have a nuke for a while now. where is this info that says they were a few years away?
The claims have been verified by other countries as well. When uranium or plutonium fissions they cease to exist and new "daughter" elements are formed. these daughter products have specific isotopes that if detected would be proof that the bomb was in fact, nuclear. Just because it was small doesn't mean it wasnt' nuclear. It seems as if they didn't get the yield they were after. their engineering was probably faulty and caused an incomplete reaction.
the danger with NK isn't with him using the weapons. it's more the selling of the weapons to people who would use them. NK's economy has been surviving because of weapons sales to the highest bidders, money laundering, counterfeitting US dollars and drug trade. I'm sure they could get lots of money for one of these nuclear weapons and whoever they sell them to wouldn't be afraid to use them.
NK is the mose irresponsible country on this planet. They don't care about anything or anyone but themselves. As long as it benefits them then they have no problems with actions that hurt others.
Nobody has mentioned invading NK. and if you haven't noticed, the rest of the world with the exception of countries like Iran and Cuba agree with us.
Your quote about repeating history is one you should also think about. You're old enough to remember some history of NK's actions and tactics. They break agreements at the first chance if it's to their benefit. I don't remember them doing anything that helps anyone but themselves.
they sent spy planes or things of the sort to take air samples over their test site and it confirmed a nuclear reaction occurred.
and just because it was small doesnt mean anything. we dont even know if they MEANT it to be small. how do we know they were trying to test a full strength nuke.
and maybe it wasnt a normal nuke explosion it could be any variety of dirty type bombs. where the actuall blast is MUCH smaller but the nuclear fallout is immense. this is highly bennificial type of bomb because it leaves buildings and things all in tact but kills most all organic life.
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
Nathaniel O Flaherty wrote:they sent spy planes or things of the sort to take air samples over their test site and it confirmed a nuclear reaction occurred.
and just because it was small doesnt mean anything. we dont even know if they MEANT it to be small. how do we know they were trying to test a full strength nuke.
and maybe it wasnt a normal nuke explosion it could be any variety of dirty type bombs. where the actuall blast is MUCH smaller but the nuclear fallout is immense. this is highly bennificial type of bomb because it leaves buildings and things all in tact but kills most all organic life.
right before they performed the test they told china that it was going to be around 10-15k tons. They blast was only half a ton which means that they didn't get the full yield they were expecting probably because of improper engineering or material quality. It's more difficult to make a small yield nuclear weapon than it is to make a larger one.
and dirty bombs aren't meant to kill people. the radiation released is small however the contamination level is high. It's more of a method to produce panic and render an area useless. You might be thinking of a neutron bomb which does as you stated, kills life but doesn't do massive damage to structures. Secondary contamination from a neutron source is short lived also.
Isn't France the only country that actually has a Nuetron Bomb?
PAX
Hahahaha wrote:Isn't France the only country that actually has a Nuetron Bomb?
PAX
The US has made and tested Neutron Bombs. the problem is the materials to make them (tritium, I think) doesn't have along half life. I think the bombs only are useful for about 10 years. If France does have them, they would have to make new ones frequently because the old ones would quickly become useless.
