North Korea Vows to Use Nuclear Weapons if Attacked

#26
#26
Burhead said:
All talk, regimes like North Korea care about only one thing and that is self-preservation. Still if we get involved in Korea again its going to bloody and I doubt we'll have the stomach to fight such a war. If you thought Iraq was bad wait till you see what would happen in a new Korean war. Even there was a war the Chinese would likely enter again, they don't want a united Korea with a Western democracy on its border.
Click to expand...

That self preservation begins and ends at the top.
 
#27
#27
MontereyVol said:
What if it only had the power of a dirty bomb? Some people are not quite convinced they can even detonate an actual A bomb just yet?
Click to expand...

is this really possible? i've heard this before and don't get it. is it really that hard to produce nukes in 2010?
 
#28
#28
droski said:
is this really possible? i've heard this before and don't get it. is it really that hard to produce nukes in 2010?
Click to expand...

Depends on the reports you choose to believe? NK detonated a Nuke underground a few years ago that some claim could not have had the potential to be a full size A bomb. Others claim (Russia) say it wasn't a nuke at all but a whole bunch of bombs ignited at once, there is no radiation from the site at all.

Its difficult to get the equipment to develop nukes, the info on how to build them is there for all to see. What NK did was start building their own equipment (such as the centrifuges) and then sold it to other countries (ie Iran, Syria, Malaysia, etc). Some say NK got the first centrifuges from China and reverse engineered them. Others think they got them from Clinton.
 
#29
#29
MontereyVol said:
What if it only had the power of a dirty bomb? Some people are not quite convinced they can even detonate an actual A bomb just yet?

When firing at a naval fleet or at a target far off like Japan they would probably need a half way decent guidance system.

But your right, close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
Click to expand...

There weapon would be plutonium, right? It's possible that they could have detonation problems. If they had a uranium weapon, I would expect that they would have no problems with detonation, but with plutonium, it's definitely possible. In their most recent tests, the yield was beyond "dirty bomb" scale, but they may not be getting full detonation yet (the yield didn't seem to indicate full-scale detonation).

Edit: Interesting what you said about the Russian take on it - I have wondered the same. I'm assuming that our initial detection was purely seismic...but there are other means that should give more info about the nature of the detonation.

IF it were at the level of a dirty bomb, then I think you see large scale response, but I'm not convinced you would s a nuclear retaliation. Any sort of nuclear yield and things would get hairy, IMO.
 
Last edited:
#30
#30
droski said:
is this really possible? i've heard this before and don't get it. is it really that hard to produce nukes in 2010?
Click to expand...

Getting complete detonation of implosion devices is tricky, but they can definitely get there...especially if they get any aid from Chinese scientists. If it is a uranium weapon, then it is easy and everyone knows how to do it.

Of course, we're talking about standard nukes here - not thermonuclear weapons. There is a very good chance that they cannot do that (which means considerably lower-yield nuclear bombs). Unfortunately, a 15 kT nuclear bomb will do plenty of damage.
 
#32
#32
TennTradition said:
There weapon would be plutonium, right? It's possible that they could have detonation problems. If they had a uranium weapon, I would expect that they would have no problems with detonation, but with plutonium, it's definitely possible. In their most recent tests, the yield was beyond "dirty bomb" scale, but they may not be getting full detonation yet.

IF it were at the level of a dirty bomb, then I think you see large scale response, but I'm not convinced you would s a nuclear retaliation. Any sort of nuclear yield and things would get hairy, IMO.
Click to expand...

If they detonate a nuke things would get really hairy (especially if they do it around the end of 2012).

I kind of wonder about their ability to detonate a full nuke since if they had it and wanted to 'show the world' why would they do such a poor job of the display. Remember most of the ground media you saw of the detonation was solely shown by NK. The questions started arising when our satellites showed other possibilities.
 
#34
#34
droski said:
is the assumption that they don't have access to uranium?
Click to expand...

I think that they were using nuclear reactors and reprocessing to get their weapons-grade material, which means plutonium. I don't think that they have uranium centrifuges in action, which means that they don't have access to enough enriched uranium.

Enriched uranium weapons are easy to make, and easier to work with than plutonium, which is why you see Iran being very interested in centrifuge technology.

Good thing the US was wise to that and made sure they were sold an absolute pile of crap instead of working centrifuges several years back. Unfortunately, technology doesn't stand still and they certainly have centrifuges going now.
 
#36
#36
MontereyVol said:
I'm not sure but I think they sit on several mines? Either way we know they have it since the UN and US have seen it during the inspections.
Click to expand...

They may have uranium ore, or low-enriched uranium for their reactors, but I haven't seen any information that suggests they have a sufficient stockpile of highly enriched uranium to build weapons. They don't seem to have the enriching capacity in place to get there right now, which is why it seemed they were taking the reactor route to plutonium (which they were definitely doing).

Do you think I'm misguided on that?
 
#37
#37
TennTradition said:
They may have uranium ore, or low-enriched uranium for their reactors, but I haven't seen any information that suggests they have a sufficient stockpile of highly enriched uranium to build weapons. They don't seem to have the enriching capacity in place to get there right now, which is why it seemed they were taking the reactor route to plutonium (which they were definitely doing).

Do you think I'm misguided on that?
Click to expand...

No, you probably know more than I do about the development of Nukes. I just know the things guys like you need to know to form an opinion of what they are capable of.
 
#38
#38
MontereyVol said:
No, you probably know more than I do about the development of Nukes. I just know the things guys like you need to know to form an opinion of what they are capable of.
Click to expand...

Well, there's definitely room for me to be off on this ... and taking a two-pronged strategy would make some sense. But, I just haven't seen information to suggest that they have the significant enrichment capacity in place that would be needed.

North Korea was pretty tight with Pakistan, so I'm sure they got some centrifuge technology...and it sounds like they have been doing some enriching. It just doesn't sound like they have enough capacity to get there as soon as they want and that is why they are going to plutonium route.

It is nice that enriched uranium is harder to get, but easier to build and plutonium is easier to get (if you're a state agency that can build a nuclear reactor and reprocessing plant), but is harder to build. At least we, in the nuclear-haves world, have that going for us.

Even though Iran is focusing a lot on centrifuge technology, it is entirely possible that they will look to siphon a plutonium stream from their nuclear reactors. Two-pronged just makes too much sense if you have the $$.
 
#39
#39
TennTradition said:
Well, there's definitely room for me to be off on this ... and taking a two-pronged strategy would make some sense. But, I just haven't seen information to suggest that they have the significant enrichment capacity in place that would be needed.

North Korea was pretty tight with Pakistan, so I'm sure they got some centrifuge technology...and it sounds like they have been doing some enriching. It just doesn't sound like they have enough capacity to get there as soon as they want and that is why they are going to plutonium route.

It is nice that enriched uranium is harder to get, but easier to build and plutonium is easier to get (if you're a state agency that can build a nuclear reactor and reprocessing plant), but is harder to build. At least we, in the nuclear-haves world, have that going for us.

Even though Iran is focusing a lot on centrifuge technology, it is entirely possible that they will look to siphon a plutonium stream from their nuclear reactors. Two-pronged just makes too much sense if you have the $$.
Click to expand...

Or you have the approach Jordan elected to go for!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top