Will North Korea and the US both get what they want?

[MeJennifer]

Well N. Korea is most certainly not the first country to perform nuclear tests.
If I am not mistaken the US was the first country to perform such a test about more than half a century ago. Furthermore the USA was the only country that actually used nuclear weapons to kill human beings, talking about using weapons of mass destruction.

From wikipedia we get:

United States: 1,054 tests
Soviet Union: 715 tests
France: 210 tests
United Kingdom: 45 tests
China: 45 tests
India: between 5 and 6 tests
Pakistan: between 3 and 6 tests

 

[moose]

MeJennifer-
Who do you think is more likely to sell nuclear devices to terrorists, NK, or the US?
Which country's nuclear workers do you think is more likely to be corrupted, NK or the US?

People were worried about how Russians treated their scientists...

Also, who has more to lose, NK or the US?

 

[ptabor]

Well N. Korea is most certainly not the first country to perform nuclear tests.
If I am not mistaken the US was the first country to perform such a test about more than half a century ago. Furthermore the USA was the only country that actually used nuclear weapons to kill human beings, talking about using weapons of mass destruction.

had we not dropped the bomb the battle with japan would likely have raged on for weeks if not months or longer. Many more casualties would have been incurred in a much slower and more dramatic fashion. By nuking japan, we were able to swiftly and decisively win the war. Granted, it's a rotten thing to do someone and is sure to ruin their day... but is it any worse than firebombing dresden?

bottom line, it sucked but had to be done.

Our current situation with NK is completely different here. There is a real possibility of NK selling such devices to those who would use it against the US or our allies. There is very little chance of the US (or allies) preemptively using a nuke (although I guess I can't put anything past the bush administration).

 

[Hurkyl]

bottom line, it sucked but had to be done.

Whether or not that's true, that topic is just a red herring.

 

[siddharth]

had we not dropped the bomb the battle with japan would likely have raged on for weeks if not months or longer. Many more casualties would have been incurred in a much slower and more dramatic fashion. By nuking japan, we were able to swiftly and decisively win the war. Granted, it's a rotten thing to do someone and is sure to ruin their day... but is it any worse than firebombing dresden?

bottom line, it sucked but had to be done.

Ouch!
The certainty with which you present opinions as facts makes me cringe.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ouch!
The certainty with which you present opinions as facts makes me cringe.

This was the basis for the decision to use the bomb. At the least, it was the best information available to President Truman.

 

[EL]

had we not dropped the bomb the battle with japan would likely have raged on for weeks if not months or longer. Many more casualties would have been incurred in a much slower and more dramatic fashion. By nuking japan, we were able to swiftly and decisively win the war. Granted, it's a rotten thing to do someone and is sure to ruin their day... but is it any worse than firebombing dresden?

bottom line, it sucked but had to be done.

You're not saying this just to be able to sleep better in the nights?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Do you have a problem with the facts?

 

[siddharth]

What facts?

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

(link http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#teotab)

This was the basis for the decision to use the bomb. At the least, it was the best information available to President Truman.

Even though the information available may have been faulty, and even if it was a war, I think the decision was effectively instant mass murder.

 

[ptabor]

You're not saying this just to be able to sleep better in the nights?

No, I'm not. If I'm mistaken on my facts, then so be it - however I do not hold that line of reasoning simply to sleep better at night.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the governments on Earth have committed attrocities at some point in their history. For instance, the USA would not be here (in its present glory) were it not for the systematic uprooting and murder of the natives. Where should we draw the line? I see no reason to arbitrarily state that one should feel remose because your government nuked people 60 years ago, but you should be kosher with the genocide of the native americans because it was more distant in the past.

If we were to take responsibility for the past actions of our governments, everyone on Earth would have to promptly crawl up into a hole and die.

So, for the sake of consistency, you have a choice. Either a) accept that attrocities have happened and you can't do anything to change them or
b) take the responsibility on yourself and be miserable for your entire life.

 

[EL]

Do you have a problem with the facts?

"Facts"?
How can you call a scenario which didn't happen "a fact"? How do you know how things would have turned out if US hadn't nuked Japan?
(Note that I'm not arguing about if it was the right thing to do or not...)

 

[russ_watters]

"Facts"?
How can you call a scenario which didn't happen "a fact"? How do you know how things would have turned out if US hadn't nuked Japan?
(Note that I'm not arguing about if it was the right thing to do or not...)

You are misunderstanding what is being said. The "fact" that they are referring to is the US's reason for dropping the bomb. Ie: It is a fact that the US dropped the bomb because of the expectation at the time that an invasion would be needed to end the war. (as others said).

What really gets me about arguments over history, though, are the cherry-picking of the information. Ie, the report of the "Strategic Bombing Survey" - is that the only credible opinion that exists on the matter? (Rhetorical - I know there are other credible opinions and many of them say the opposite). I know it is irrelevant because it is an after-the-fact opinion of what could have happened, but still - it is annoying how people present such info. [/rant]

 

[Astronuc]

One thing I'm not sure of here, and you probably know: isn't there a typical - even a minimum - yield for a first generation nuke? Ie, doesn't it have to be between about 5 and 15 kt?

Also, I've heard - but again don't know for sure - that a big pile of tnt doesn't explode very well and because of that makes a pretty poor fake-nuke test. The seismographs should show it.

Little Boy (Hiroshima) was about 15 kT, and Fat Man (Nagasaki) was about 20 kT.

Correct on chemical explosives like TNT. The impulse is very different - 10-100 microsec vs few microseconds - because it takes time for the detonation wave from the primaries to propagate through the volume of HX.

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's defense minister said Monday that North Korea's nuclear test was equivalent to 5,000 tons to 15,000 tons of TNT.

That would be far greater than the force given by South Korea's geological institute, which estimated it at just 550 tons of TNT.

By comparison the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima during World War II was equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT.

In 1996, France detonated a bomb beneath Fangataufa Atoll about 750 miles southeast of Tahiti that had a yield of about 120,000 tons of TNT. [And the Australians, NZers, and everyone else living in the region were pretty pissed about that!]

The U.S. Geological Survey said it recorded a magnitude-4.2 seismic event in northeastern North Korea. Asian neighbors also said they registered a seismic event, but only Russia said its monitoring services had detected a nuclear explosion.

No one has reported detecting any radiation.

"We know the exact site of the test. The ecological situation is normal, including on Russian territory in Primorye," Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said, referring to the Russian Far East province that shares a short border with North Korea.

Source - Yahoo http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/russia_nkorea

 

[EL]

No, I'm not. If I'm mistaken on my facts, then so be it - however I do not hold that line of reasoning simply to sleep better at night.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the governments on Earth have committed attrocities at some point in their history. For instance, the USA would not be here (in its present glory) were it not for the systematic uprooting and murder of the natives. Where should we draw the line? I see no reason to arbitrarily state that one should feel remose because your government nuked people 60 years ago, but you should be kosher with the genocide of the native americans because it was more distant in the past.

If we were to take responsibility for the past actions of our governments, everyone on Earth would have to promptly crawl up into a hole and die.

So, for the sake of consistency, you have a choice. Either a) accept that attrocities have happened and you can't do anything to change them or
b) take the responsibility on yourself and be miserable for your entire life.

I agree with with you. One cannot take responsibility (or credit) for things which one had no chance to affect (like things happening before one was born).
My objection was because to me it sounded like you were trying to defend the nuking of Japan with some vague arguments about what could have happened otherwise, mainly just to stick up for US's actions.

 

[Astronuc]

"Facts"?
How can you call a scenario which didn't happen "a fact"? How do you know how things would have turned out if US hadn't nuked Japan?
(Note that I'm not arguing about if it was the right thing to do or not...)

Russ and Ivan are correct on the "historical facts". The considerations and arguments involving Truman's decision are 'facts', as is the fact that two atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Of course, no one knows what might have happened if the US simply waited out the surrender of Japan. If the US did not have the nuclear weapons, it would have contined to US high explosives and incendiary bombs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_storm#Firestorms_in_cities

See - Tokyo (Japan) 9 March 1945 (120,000 dead) - mostly civilians - and many more injured.

Truman made the decision. He elected not to wait.

p.s.

Firebombing

The first firebombing raid was on Kobe on February 3, 1945, and following its relative success the USAAF continued the tactic. Japanese cities were susceptible to such attack, but the most favorable conditions for success were areas with few firebreaks and high surface winds. Much of the armor and defensive weaponry of the bombers was also removed to allow increased bomb loads, but ultimately loads were increased by the use of low altitudes for fuel conservation, with individual aircraft bomb loads increasing from 2.6 tons per plane in March to 7.3 tons in August.

The first such raid on Tokyo was on the night of February 23–24, when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (~2.56 km²) of the city. Following on that effort 334 B-29s took off from the Mariana Islands on the night of March 9–10 heading for Tokyo. After 2 hours of bombardment, Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. The fires were so hot they would ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. Many women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads and the heat would ignite those turbans like a wick on a candle. The aftermath of the incendiary bombings lead to an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed in the fire storm. The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace. In the following two weeks there were almost 1,600 further sorties against the four cities, destroying 31 square miles (80 km²) in total at a cost of 22 aircraft. There was a third raid on Tokyo on May 26.

The firebomb raids were not the only raids on Tokyo; there were more regular raids using conventional high explosives. With the capture of Okinawa, the Eighth Air Force was transferred there from Europe and began its own raids. Monthly tonnage dropped on Japan had increased from 13,800 short tons in March to 42,700 tons in July (from 12,500 to 38,700 metric tons), and was planned to have continued to increase to around 115,000 short tons (105,000 metric tons) per month.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II#Firebombing

 

[EL]

You are misunderstanding what is being said. The "fact" that they are referring to is the US's reason for dropping the bomb. Ie: It is a fact that the US dropped the bomb because of the expectation at the time that an invasion would be needed to end the war. (as others said).

Yeah, I guess we are misunderstanding each other a bit. What I objected to was I thought ptabor were trying to validate the nuking with

Many more casualties would have been incurred in a much slower and more dramatic fashion.

My point is that this is speculation.

I know it is irrelevant because it is an after-the-fact opinion of what could have happened, but still - it is annoying how people present such info.

Agree.

 

[EL]

Russ and Ivan are correct on the "historical facts". The considerations and arguments involving Truman's decision are 'facts', as is the fact that two atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I never objected to that (or at least I didn't mean to).

 

[Astronuc]

I never objected to that (or at least I didn't mean to).

I see that in your other post. I simply wanted to point out that no one here attempted to justify the use of nuclear weapons, but rather simply reflected the justifications that Truman and others used.

 

[BobG]

MeJennifer-
Who do you think is more likely to sell nuclear devices to terrorists, NK, or the US?

Neither is likely. If I had to choose one, I'd choose NK simply because of NK's leader. The question is still a little like asking whether the Pope or Santa Claus is more likely to rape your sister.

Regardless, North Korea would be more likely to sell weapons technology to enemies of the United States, which I think might have been your real point.

Which country's nuclear workers do you think is more likely to be corrupted, NK or the US?

People were worried about how Russians treated their scientists...

This is the most valid concern about North Korea having nuclear weapons. A single North Korean or a small group could help spread nuclear weapons technology to yet another state that the US considers to be an enemy.

Also, who has more to lose, NK or the US?

This question is also a very lousy question. It's like asking who has more to lose by dying - a rich person or a poor person?

I'm not sure what good it does North Korea to have a nuclear weapon. Presumably, they could black mail South Korea and/or Japan, but they'd have to be very subtle about it. It would probably work better having the existence of nuclear weapons in the background than actively threatening anyone with them. Actually using them would ensure destruction of North Korea.

Nuclear weapons in Iran is more dangerous than North Korea. Iran is a regional power that could use those nukes in the background to increase their influence a lot more effectively than North Korea could. The problem for both is the same one that confronted Iraq and its chemical weapons in the 80's and in the first Gulf War. Weapons of mass destruction only work if you're willing to use them - which means you have to be strong enough to withstand the response.

Even having shown the willingness to use WMDs by using them against Kurds and Shi'ites, Iraq's threat only worked against Iran. It didn't stop the rest of the region from intervening when they invaded Kuwait. The difference being that in the 80's, Iran couldn't respond if Iraq hit them with WMD. Using chemical weapons against Israel or against neighboring Arab countries would have brought a response of nuclear weapons.

In fact, if there's anything positive about the Iraq invasion, it's that the threat of WMDs isn't even a huge deterence to invasion - presuming the Bush administration actually believed their own reason for invading Iraq.

 

[devil-fire]

nuclear weapons are more of a defensive weapon as opposed to chemical/biological since nukes can kill soldiers who are wearing their hazardous materials suits. what i mean by this is that its difficult to attack a country with a fleet of ships when the armada can be nuked. so the motivation of North Korea to have nuclear weapons is that they are no longer as vulnerable to forcible regime change. i don't think NK will be using that deterrent much but I'm told the leader there is extra cautious with these sorts of protections.

 

[Astronuc]

nuclear weapons are more of a defensive weapon as opposed to chemical/biological since nukes can kill soldiers who are wearing their hazardous materials suits. what i mean by this is that its difficult to attack a country with a fleet of ships when the armada can be nuked. so the motivation of North Korea to have nuclear weapons is that they are no longer as vulnerable to forcible regime change. i don't think NK will be using that deterrent much but I'm told the leader there is extra cautious with these sorts of protections.

Well, Bush and others in the administration have considered pre-emptive attacks on Iran and NK, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, in order to destroy the capability of making nuclear weapons.

The US is the only country at the moment that has publicly stated a policy of attacking other countries that are 'suspected' of trying to achieve military parity with the US. The Bush policy has as one of its objectives that of ensuring the US is the only unchallenged superpower.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, Bush and others in the administration have considered pre-emptive attacks on Iran and NK, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, in order to destroy the capability of making nuclear weapons.

The US is the only country at the moment that has publicly stated a policy of attacking other countries that are 'suspected' of trying to achieve military parity with the US. The Bush policy has as one of its objectives that of ensuring the US is the only unchallenged superpower.

Bush's particular reasoning (or your interpretation thereof) aside, the concept of nonnuclear pre-emptive strike of a nuclear proliferation threat was established as viable by the Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor in 1981. At the time, debate on the tactic's legitimacy was very negative (outside of Israel, of course), but clearly that tide is turning. Bush may be the first after Israel to proclaim it explicitly, but the UN (and Clinton) was moving in that direction in the '90s with its treatment of Iraq.

 

[Astronuc]

Russ, the Bush administration put a 'nuclear' bunker-buster on the table.

On October 26, Pete Domenici, Republican Senator from New Mexico and chairman of the committee that oversees the budget of the Department of Energy, announced that Congress is halting funding on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), or “nuclear bunker buster,” at the request of the Administration. The effort will be transferred from the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons lab to the Department of Defense, which will seek conventional, non-nuclear solutions for this military mission.

http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=401

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster

Bush Request to Fund Nuclear Study Revives Debate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9148-2005Feb8.html

Rumsfeld Seeks to Revive Burrowing Nuclear Bomb
Bush Budget May Fund Program That Congress Cut
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52564-2005Jan31.html

Rumsfeld wanted it!

Conventional earth-penetrators, namely the Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28, BLU-113 Penetrator), are available. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm

I visited the arsenal where they are made.

 

[Burnsys]

Let's hope USA don't start a war with NK.
If USA don't drop the bomb the battle with NK would likely to rage on for weeks if not months or longer. Many more casualties would result in a much slower and more dramatic fashion.
By nuking NK, USA will be able to swiftly and decisively win the war.
Granted, it's a rotten thing to do someone and is sure to ruin their day... but is it any worse than invading NK?

 

[devil-fire]

Let's hope USA don't start a war with NK.
If USA don't drop the bomb the battle with NK would likely to rage on for weeks if not months or longer. Many more casualties would result in a much slower and more dramatic fashion.
By nuking NK, USA will be able to swiftly and decisively win the war.
Granted, it's a rotten thing to do someone and is sure to ruin their day... but is it any worse than invading NK?

starting a pre-emptive war with weapons of mass distruction for the sake of preventing "many more casualties"? you have to be sarcastic.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, the Bush administration put a 'nuclear' bunker-buster on the table.

I know lots of things have been talked about and researched, I'm just not sure about the official policy. Things like that are often taken out of context or exaggerated by the media. Often, also, dots are connected that are often not connected in reality.

Did Bush (or Rumsfeld) actually say explicitly that we would consider using tactical nukes for a pre-emptive strike? I only skimmed your links, but I don't see anywhere in any of them were it implies that.

In general, I have found the Bush-Rumsfeld nuclear weapons policy to be very sensible. It was they, afterall, who decoupled our strategy from the Cold War in 2002: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm

Further, deterrence is a game and a lot of the same moral and practical objections that apply here applied to MAD as well. But in my view, such policies are just a bluff anyway. So I guess more to the point: do you really think the US would actually do what you are suggesting?

 

[russ_watters]

starting a pre-emptive war with weapons of mass distruction for the sake of preventing "many more casualties"? you have to be sarcastic.

Nuclear or not, a purely humanitarian justification for war with North Korea is far more straightforward than it was in Iraq. Roughly 2 million people (10% of the population) has starved to death in the past 10 years, so we could literally wipe out their entire 1 million man military and still be far short of that level of damage.

More realistically, cutting off the command and control infrastructure would likely quickly dissolve their military with marginal loss of life. I suspect a war with North Korea would be far easier than either Iraq war and the aftermath would be absent the religious issues.

Plus, there is the added simplification of P'yongyang only being a mock-up of a real city, making widespread civilian casualties unlikely.

 

[devil-fire]

Nuclear or not, a purely humanitarian justification for war with North Korea is far more straightforward than it was in Iraq. Roughly 2 million people (10% of the population) has starved to death in the past 10 years, so we could literally wipe out their entire 1 million man military and still be far short of that level of damage.

More realistically, cutting off the command and control infrastructure would likely quickly dissolve their military with marginal loss of life. I suspect a war with North Korea would be far easier than either Iraq war and the aftermath would be absent the religious issues.

Plus, there is the added simplification of P'yongyang only being a mock-up of a real city, making widespread civilian casualties unlikely.

i agree there is definitely a humanitarian motivation for regime change in NK, but i think that can be best done with conventional weapons. kim jong-il is considered godly in NK as i understand it and he doesn't strike me as a martyr so capturing him and a few other key people (they may even surrender with the capture of kim) would bring a swift end to resistance. to kill kim jong-il would bring fanatical resentment onto the foreigners from many of the north korean people so using a nuclear attack is something i consider to be a poor option

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, more:

Russ, the Bush administration put a 'nuclear' bunker-buster on the table.

Right. So what? The US already has a nuclear penetrator - the B61 mod 11. It went into service in 1997. They just want a better one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

So what does that imply about policy?

 

[Amp1]

{Russ}

You are misunderstanding what is being said. The "fact" that they are referring to is the US's reason for dropping the bomb. Ie: It is a fact that the US dropped the bomb because of the expectation at the time that an invasion would be needed to end the war. (as others said).

There are other posts with much the same sense to them. However, there is another reason the bomb was dropped and that was as a demostration. The statement made was something like there is none stronger than the US', which freaked out the other nations including the allies. This is also why the nuclear race started. No nation wanted to be that weak in comparison to the US. You of course realize at that time (when the US was sole owner of the tech to build an atomic bomb) whole nation's populations were subject to extermination which made the nations themselves subject to coercion at the very least.

 

[Astronuc]

(when the US was sole owner of the tech to build an atomic bomb)

Actually there was close cooperation between UK and US at the time. Britain went on to fabricate their own atomic bombs, as did the French and the Russians.

Klaus Fuchs provided details of US and British technology to the Russians.

 

[ptabor]

Let's hope USA don't start a war with NK.
If USA don't drop the bomb the battle with NK would likely to rage on for weeks if not months or longer. Many more casualties would result in a much slower and more dramatic fashion.
By nuking NK, USA will be able to swiftly and decisively win the war.
Granted, it's a rotten thing to do someone and is sure to ruin their day... but is it any worse than invading NK?

I was not justifying the use of nuclear weapons on civilian targets. As astro explained, I was merely parroting the justification at the time. Whether or not this justification was valid is a matter of debate. As someone else (not sure who, atm) stated, it was also done as a demostration of our power - which I feel to be a likely scenario.

In my opinion, every nation on Earth should dismantle their nukes yesterday.

 

[McGyver]

NK Perceived Threats Serve Republicans and Kim Jong

Did Bush (or Rumsfeld) actually say explicitly that we would consider using tactical nukes for a pre-emptive strike?

Further, deterrence is a game and a lot of the same moral and practical objections that apply here applied to MAD as well. But in my view, such policies are just a bluff anyway. So I guess more to the point: do you really think the US would actually do what you are suggesting?

Does anyone here actually believe NK would attack anyone with a nuclear weapon? I mean, Kim Jong is having a wonderful life! Why would he put all this in jeopardy? NK's tests and rhetoric are merely a result of loose threats by the Bush White House and their wanting continued trade and high level prosperity made possible thru China. So is China really our friend?

Two groups bennefit thru NK's nuclear test. Kim Jong, and the Bush - Republican leadership. I wouldn't put it past Bush operatives to PAY Kim Jong to carry out these tests, i.e. Bush and Repub ratings go up with these perceived security threats. Isn't it obvious NK is unable to carry out a nuclear attack. If Kim Jong were serious, he wouldn't be setting off these [firecrackers]. He has a very cozy lifestyle! These actions appear to be mere PR campaigning. We only need worry if Kim Jong enters into cozy dealings with Iran, and it would seem not a fit as they are two very different regimes.

It appears Kim Jong wants to be more a part of the international community and West, but w/o access from the outside world, like China, but with a politcal model of dictator.

 

[Hurkyl]

NK's tests and rhetoric are merely a result of loose threats by the Bush White House

Ah, of course this is all Bush's fault. Silly me, I thought it was Kim's fault.

Isn't it obvious NK is unable to carry out a nuclear attack.

I don't know. Is it?

 

[McGyver]

It Appears Both Kim and Bush Will Get What They Want

It appears after late today, that NK's Kim and U.S. President Bush will both get what they want. Kim will enter talks to avoid sanctions - where I suspect he will seek some new trade thru China and the West. Bush gets to boast that he peacefully resolved this escalation of a potential WMD threat.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15341349/