Report: N Korea Conducts Nuke Test

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Irvine511 said:





oh STING, even Colin Powell thinks Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War.


. (Applause.)[/q] [/B]
Click to expand...

The United States military understands what a Civil War is, Huffington Post does not. Bosnia was a Civil War which the United States military put an end to, Iraq currently is not despite the sectarian violence in one province.
 
STING2 said:


The United States military understands what a Civil War is, Huffington Post does not. Bosnia was a Civil War which the United States military put an end to, Iraq currently is not despite the sectarian violence in one province.
Click to expand...



the United States military has ever interest in trying to describe the conflict as anything other than a civil war, for that would be to admit their failure. others, those with no conflicts of interest in the presentation of reality, including those on the right who initially supported the administration, like Colin Powell, beg to differ with you (and would probably find your dismissal of the violence in Iraq tremendously insulting):

[q]Iraq is now in a civil war. Thirty thousand Iraqis have died there in the past three years, more than in many other conflicts widely recognized as civil wars. The number of internal refugees, mostly Sunni victims of ethnic cleansing, has exploded over the past few months, and now exceeds a quarter of a million people. (The Iraqi government says 240,000, but this doesn't include Iraqis who have fled abroad or who may not have registered their move with the government.) The number of attacks on Shiite mosques increases every week: there have been 69 such attacks since February, compared with 80 in the previous two and a half years. And the war is being fought on gruesome new fronts. CBS News's Lara Logan has filed astonishing reports on the Health Ministry, which is run by supporters of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. According to Logan, hospitals in Baghdad and Karbala are systematically killing Sunni patients and then dumping their bodies in mass graves.

Iraq's problem is fundamentally political, not military. Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds need a deal that each can live with. Sen. Joseph Biden has outlined an intelligent power-sharing agreement, but what he, or for that matter George Bush, says doesn't matter. Power now rests with the locals. And the Shiites and the Sunnis have little trust in one another. At this point, neither believes that any deal would be honored once the United States left, which means that each is keeping its own militias as an insurance policy. If you were a Shiite, having suffered through a brutal insurgency and an incompetent government, would you give up your weapons? If you were a Sunni, having watched government-allied death squads kill and ethnic-cleanse your people, would you accept a piece of paper that said that this government will now give you one third of Iraq's oil revenues if you disarm?[/q]
 
Irvine511 said:




the United States military has ever interest in trying to describe the conflict as anything other than a civil war, for that would be to admit their failure. others, those with no conflicts of interest in the presentation of reality, including [/q]
Click to expand...

You tend to get a far more intelligent and unbiased perspective from the military than you will from any other source. The military is there to serve period, they have nothing to sell for profit and are not running for political office. They have access to more information than most people and are on the ground in Iraq in numbers that outnumber any other single organization or group. They have been involved in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Afghanistan, Somalia just to name a few places over the past 15 years. They understand the difference between Civil War and sectarian conflict. They acknowledge the possibility of Civil War in Iraq, but from their experience in working on these issues in various parts of the globe, they know the current situation cannot be described in those terms.
 
Oh god...Bono just found another subject that requires another 20 minutes of mid-concert speeches!
 
STING2 said:


You tend to get a far more intelligent and unbiased perspective from the military than you will from any other source. The military is there to serve period, they have nothing to sell for profit and are not running for political office.
Click to expand...

You can't seriously believe this 100%. The military still has to protect image, don't kid yourself. They have to sell success.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

You can't seriously believe this 100%. The military still has to protect image, don't kid yourself. They have to sell success.
Click to expand...

No, no, that Donald Rumsfeld is nothing if not an honest man. He wouldn't spin a thing to suit his own needs.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
so ... almost 5 years after the chest-thumping "Axis of Evil" speech, NoKo has nukes, Iran is well on its way, and Iraq is now in the midst of a Civil War.

:|
Click to expand...

But the world is safer for nuclear testing. Sounds like a good campaign slogan or something.

And he still can't pronounce it
 
STING2 said:


No, what the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about 15 Kilotons in strength, most French nuclear weapons would be about 250 Kilotons in strength.
Click to expand...

why don't i believe you?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


You can't seriously believe this 100%. The military still has to protect image, don't kid yourself. They have to sell success.
Click to expand...

Their not selling ANYTHING! Their defending the country with their lives! Its incredible how many myths there are about the military in the civilian world. Certainly, there are a small number individuals in the military who may engage in such things, but not as an organization.
 
STING2 said:


Their not selling ANYTHING! Their defending the country with their lives! Its incredible how many myths there are about the military in the civilian world. Certainly, there are a small number individuals in the military who may engage in such things, but not as an organization.
Click to expand...



small numbers of people like Donald Rumsfeld.
 
Numb1075 said:


why don't i believe you?
Click to expand...

The United States typically has 250 Kiloton yields on average for most of its strategic nuclear warheads. I don't think the French are really much different in that regard. During the Cold War, the Soviets would average about 1 Megaton or 1,000 Kilotons per startegic nuclear warhead because they were not as accurate as western warheads and they needed the extra yield to insure the destruction of the target if there was a miss by a moderate distance.

Short Range Nuclear Warheads and battlfield nuclear warheads will often have yields as small or smaller than what was used in World War II. The smallest nuclear weapon ever fielded by the United States was a 155 mm artillery shell with a yield of about 1 Kiloton. Considering the range of artillery, you don't want to use a yield that would not have any immediate impact on the area your firing from.

But hey, if you think these average yield totals are wrong, go look it up yourself.
 
gotcha - because you wrote that the US size was 15 kilotons and that the French was 250 and that appears to be a large difference.
 
STING2 said:


Its incredible how many myths there are about the military in the civilian world. Certainly, there are a small number individuals in the military who may engage in such things, but not as an organization.
Click to expand...

This isn't myth coming from a civilian, this is fact coming from a military family. You don't think they silence failed attacks? Or silence those individuals who break rank? What about the Pendleton Eight?

If the military wasn't worried about image and didn't sell a thing this would all be free information, but it's not.

And this isn't an attack on the Military, it's just a fact that all organizations have to sell something.
 
AEON said:


I'll also give that a big AMEN. They are at risk of becoming as obsolete as the League of Nations.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

There will be a new General secetary of the UN in december , maybe that freshen things up.
 
In the news tonight it said NoKo do not have the right equipment or the right team to be able to create nuclear weapons.
 
Numb1075 said:
gotcha - because you wrote that the US size was 15 kilotons and that the French was 250 and that appears to be a large difference.
Click to expand...

The size of the US bomb used in 1945 was 15 Kilotons, BUT THAT IS NOT the size of US strategic Warheads or French Warheads today or even as far back as the 1950s.

Bomb yields were greatly expanded in the 1950s. The Soviets exploded the largest one ever at 60 Megatons(60,000 Kilotons) back in the 1960s.

A warhead with a yield of only 15 Kilotons is considered to be very small by todays standards, and would normally be consider a battlefield or tactical nuclear device, rather than a strategic one. Most US, French and British warheads have yields of around 250 Kilotons while the Russians at least back in the early 1990s still had their warheads at the 1 Megaton level(1,000 Kilotons).
 
ok this is a question i've asked many people but then they all agree with me (which is nice hehe) but...why is it so bad that North Korea has nuclear weapons? I mean of course i don't want them to have nuclear weapons but i don't want ANY country to have nuclear weapons.

Here is my question; Why are only SOME countries allowed to have the technology and a supply of nuclear weapons? I don't trust any country and i find it rather cynical for the us to be calling for sanctions on north korea cause to quote Bill O'reilly (that wonderful journalist *cough*) 'nth korea is a country with an insane man as a leader'
while im not calling GWB insane (childlike retardation more like it) i don't trust the usa as much as i dont trust nth korea. The USA have invaded countries, killed thousands of innocents and forced people to bend to their will. Russia fucks over the Chechens people, France is trigger happy, India and Pakistan are eyeballing each other, in fact NO country is responsible enough to have them, so if the usa, russia, india and so on can have them, who are they and we to deny North Korea, Iran and so on to have them?
 
For one reason, because there is the distinct possibility that they can sell the weapons or the recipe to terrorists and/or other countries like Iran.
 
From Gwynne Dyer:


Kim's crude tactics were always intensely irritating to the other
parties to the Six-Power Talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons (the US,
Russia, China, Japan and South Korea), and now they are furious with the
little dictator. Even China, North Korea's only ally, called Pyongyang's
test "stupid." But what are they actually going to do about it?

Sanctions, I hear you cry. But the US has had sanctions against
North Korea since 1953, and Japan has had them for more than a decade
already -- and if China stops sending aid, the entire economy will
collapse, millions will starve, and millions more will flee the country. I
was at the Foreign Ministry in Seoul in 1994 on the day that Kim Il-Sung
died, and I remember the panic that reigned as South Korea's diplomatic
elite contemplated the prospect of 25 million starving North Koreans
suddenly landing in their laps.

The regime in Beijing is equally appalled at the notion of millions
of North Korean refugees pouring across its border, so there may be
sanctions, but they will not be life-threatening for Pyongyang. Which
brings us back to the distasteful business of bargaining with blackmailers.

Kim would probably relinquish his nuclear weapons if he were
offered enough food and oil aid, an end to trade embargoes, and a firm US
promise not to try to overthrow him. None of that would cost very much, and
the US is not going to attack him anyway. Nor has Kim any intention of
attacking anybody, especially with nuclear weapons: he would have no hope
of surviving the instant and crushing retaliation by American nuclear
weapons. So it's just a question of persuading him to stop the nonsense.

But what about the principle of the thing? Won't other countries
be tempted to follow North Korea's example if we don't punish it for
developing nuclear weapons? You know, like we did when Israel, India and
Pakistan developed theirs.
 
Chizip said:
"If the U.S. keeps pestering us and increases pressure, we will regard it as a declaration of war and will take a series of physical corresponding measures"
Click to expand...

If it wasn't so ridiculous I'd think this was the October Surprise.

Nice way to take the heat of Iraq though. Not to mention another "nucular" threat to raise the fear levels enough to say, win the mid-terms...and perhaps pre-emptive strikes on Iran after the election.
 
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
New York Times, Oct. 12, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush said Wednesday that he would not use force against North Korea because “diplomacy hasn’t run its course,” but acknowledged that many Americans wonder why he invaded Iraq but has not taken military action to head off North Korea’s race for a bomb.

“I’m asked questions around the country, ‘Just go ahead and use the military,’ ” Mr. Bush said at a morning news conference in the Rose Garden, his first extended question-and-answer session with reporters in the days since North Korea announced it had detonated a nuclear device. “And my answer is that I believe the commander in chief must try all diplomatic measures before we commit our military.”

Then, without prompting, the president asked an obvious next question. “I’ll ask myself a follow-up,” Mr. Bush said. “ ‘If that’s the case, why did you use military action in Iraq?’ And the reason why is because we tried the diplomacy.”...That the president himself raised and rejected this critique appears to reflect concern among Mr. Bush’s advisers that North Korea could be a political liability for Republicans, one that the president needed to confront directly with voters.

Intelligence officials have not yet determined the exact size of the device that North Korea tested, or explained why it appeared to have been fairly small, less than a kiloton. Democrats and Republicans have been arguing over who was responsible for the buildup in the North. Madeleine K. Albright, a secretary of state for former President Bill Clinton, issued a statement on Wednesday defending his administration and striking back at Mr. Bush. “During the two terms of the Clinton administration, there were no nuclear weapons tests by North Korea, no new plutonium production, and no new nuclear weapons developed in Pyongyang,” Ms. Albright’s statement said. “Through our policy of constructive engagement, the world was safer. President Bush chose a different path, and the results are evident for all to see.”

Despite the North’s test, Mr. Bush insisted Wednesday that his diplomatic approach was the best course and that he would continue to seek support for sanctions from other nations. He resisted calls for direct negotiations with North Korea of the sort the Clinton administration had engaged in, saying “the strategy did not work.” “North Korea has been trying to acquire bombs and weapons for a long period of time,” Mr. Bush said, “long before I came into office.”
....................................
Mr. Bush was asked if he regretted his decision not to take action — military or otherwise — to destroy fuel supplies in 2003, when the North threw out international weapons inspectors, withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and said it would turn its spent nuclear fuel into weapons. At that time, the fuel was all briefly in one known location.

“I used that moment to continue my desire to convince others to become equity partners in the Korean issue,” Mr. Bush said, referring to the so-called six-party talks aimed at persuading the North to give up its nuclear capacity. He added, “I obviously look at all options all the time, and I felt like the best way to solve this problem would be through a diplomacy effort.”

Experts believe the nuclear buildup in the North dates back to the early 1990’s, when the first President Bush was in office. Under an agreement Mr. Clinton struck in 1994, North Korea agreed to freeze its production of plutonium in return for energy aid. North Korea abided by the freeze, but starting around 1997, it took steps on a second, secret nuclear program. In 2002, after South Korean and American intelligence agencies found conclusive evidence of that program, the Bush administration confronted the North with the evidence that it had cheated while Mr. Clinton was still in office. That led to the six-nation talks, involving the United States, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia.

“The Clinton administration was prepared to accept an imperfect agreement in the interest of achieving limits,” said Gary S. Samore, a North Korea expert who helped negotiate the original 1994 agreement. “The Bush administration is not prepared to accept an imperfect agreement, and the result is that we have no limits.” But Mr. Bush on Wednesday reiterated his stance that it was “unacceptable” for North Korea to have nuclear weapons. Asked if he was “ready to live with a nuclear North Korea,” Mr. Bush gave a one-word answer: “No.”
Click to expand...
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/world/asia/13nations.html?pagewanted=all
US Softens Sanctions Proposal After Russia, China Object

New York Times
October 13, 2006

UNITED NATIONS — The American push to win Security Council backing for tough, swift sanctions against North Korea appeared to be set back by China and Russia on Thursday, in an echo of the obstacles the United States faces in a similar push to punish Iran. The US circulated a softened draft resolution to the Security Council in response to North Korea’s assertion that it conducted a nuclear test on Monday. The US pressed for a vote by Friday, but China and Russia immediately signaled their opposition to critical parts of the measure and said they needed more time. On Thursday night, a new draft resolution was circulated, and Reuters quoted the Chinese and Russian ambassadors calling the revisions improvements.

That draft dropped earlier Japanese amendments prohibiting North Korean ships from entering any port and North Korean aircraft from taking off or landing in any country. Japan is imposing its own new sanctions, including a ban on North Korean ships in Japanese waters.

The draft still cited Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which makes sanctions mandatory and suggests the possibility of military enforcement. China and Russia have consistently opposed Chapter VII enforcement for North Korea in the past. The version circulated Thursday night retains stringent economic and weapons sanctions, but makes clear that the measures do not include military force, Reuters and The Associated Press reported. China and Russia had said they believed the steps recommended in the draft proposed by Washington earlier in the day could end up doing more harm than good. Sounding a note of exasperation, Mr. Bolton protested as “simply incorrect” the interpretation that Chapter VII sets a pretext for military force, as many countries at the United Nations believe it did in Iraq. “It would require a separate resolution, if one were needed, to authorize force,” he said.

The latest draft drops the idea of a weapons embargo and keeps a provision to allow nations to inspect cargo to and from North Korea. The provision has aroused particular objections from China, which is wary of such interdiction moves being conducted off its coasts. American officials, while acknowledging how difficult it will be to win Security Council backing for the tough sanctions they prefer, insist that even a weaker resolution would send a strong signal of international condemnation. The draft still would require all countries to prevent the sale or transfer of arms, luxury goods and material related to North Korea’s nuclear, ballistic missile and unconventional weapons programs. Mr. Bolton said that the US already had the power to inspect cargo under the American-led Proliferation Security Initiative, a group of more than 70 countries that have pledged to seize illicit weapons as they move across oceans or are transported by air. But he said the US wanted language in the resolution that would make it binding on all 192 member states of the United Nations.

The measure also calls on North Korea to return to the six-nation talks involving South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the US that it walked out of 13 months ago.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

u2popmofo
Artificial 4.9 to 5.1 earthquake detected in North Korea
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
u2popmofo
u2popmofo
MissVelvetDress_75
North Korea developments
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
mikal
mikal
Jeannieco
Detained US journalist reportedly set free with Bill Clinton's help!
Replies
23
Views
1K
U2isthebest
U2isthebest
S
North Korea Says It May Shut Down Nuclear Plant Early
Replies
17
Views
551
A_Wanderer
A_Wanderer
coemgen
Kim Jong Il interprets sunrise, release of U2 album as acts of war.
Replies
9
Views
453
LarryMullen's POPAngel
LarryMullen's POPAngel

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom