WTF Are the North Koreans Smoking Now?

[Broomstick]

Good thing that Broomstick is so good at psychoanalyzing an entire nation. I think she should try and become adviser to the president just so she can tell him how all those strange aliens that live outside the US really feel.

>snort<

Nothing I say or do here is going to have any effect at all over the situation on the Korean peninsula. So what does it matter if I speculate, question, or try to understand?

[The Xeelee]

Also remember that the North can't even put nuclear warheads on it's missile.

[chitoryu12]

Also remember that the North can't even put nuclear warheads on it's missile.

Since when?

[Flagg]

Also remember that the North can't even put nuclear warheads on it's missile.

Since when?

Since ever?

[Simon_Jester]

We know they have a missile. We do NOT know how heavy their nuclear bombs are. Therefore it is possible that they can't fit the bomb on the missile at this time.

But I wouldn't bet my life on it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There were uranium gun-type devices inside the throw-weight of Taepodong, like those used for the "Atomic Annie" 11in gun, and Pakistan has been understood to have shared a design for a compact nuclear weapon with North Korea. It is believed that this bomb is of the same basic yield as the 11in nuclear shell, and that it used HEU like a gun-type device instead of plutonium like the prior bombs that North Korea tested, of which they have only a limited supply. I frankly believe that presumptions that the DPRK's nukes are not on Taepodong yet are racist arrogance and that they probably do have 5 - 6 Taepodong missiles with associated nuclear warheads which could be launched on 3 - 4 day warning. That is the problem with very early IRBMs/ICBMs and it shows why worrying about this isn't very rational.

[Simon_Jester]

To clarify: early long range ballistic missiles were liquid-fueled, so getting them ready to fire took a long time. This was a tricky enough problem for the Russians, who just had to worry about getting them fueled and ready to fire before an American B-52 crossed the thousands of miles to the launch site from a point in international airspace. It's much worse for the North Koreans, who have to deal with constant recon satellite overflights and multiple enemy armies and navies with cruise missiles ready to hit their launchpads.

Also note, North Korea has orbited a satellite. This means they could definitely put a nuclear bomb on a missile, although the nuclear missile might fail for any of a number of reasons (missile engine craps out, warhead burns up on reentry, missile goes wild and hits the wrong target, warhead fizzles...). This applied to early US and Soviet missiles too.

What's the difference between us basing our policy on "yeah, North Korea has nukes" and us 'recognizing' North Korea as a nuclear state?

Basing national policy on obvious facts is a no-brainer. Officially recognising NK as a Nuclear Weapons State would require amending the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and opening up a couple of cans of worms about a million times its size called India and Pakistan. The idea is fucking insane.

India, Pakistan, and Israel have already merrily violated or ignored the NPT, and we have supposedly-good relations with all of them. Iran is damn well going to develop a nuclear bomb any year now because they want one, and the NPT isn't stopping them.

I think we have to recognize that the NPT doesn't carry as much weight as it used to, not in the world's hotspots. During the Cold War it worked, because there were two superpowers and most global crisis areas saw the two powers staring at each other. So anyone afraid of massive invasion from their enemy could get under one side or the other's nuclear deterrent umbrella.

Today, this is no longer true- North Korea can't count on Russian or Chinese nukes to protect them if the US decides to invade them, so they develop their own. The Iranian theocrat regime can't count on anyone to protect them if Iraq invades them, let alone the US, so they develop their own. And so it goes.

The NPT served its big purpose- to avoid massive proliferation in the immediate post-WWII world, when there were more armies threatening each other. A lot of borders have cooled down, the world is more peaceful now, and fewer countries feel they have reason to pursue nuclear weapons. But for the ones who do, the NPT is less and less effective as a discourager.

[chitoryu12]

Also remember that the North can't even put nuclear warheads on it's missile.

Since when?

Since ever?

What a brilliant rebuttal. I can see where you get such respect for your debating prowess.

[Flagg]

Please provide evidence that North Korea has nuclear warheads capable of fitting on one of their existing missiles.

[Ralin]

Please provide evidence that North Korea has nuclear warheads capable of fitting on one of their existing missiles.

So, you do realize he was asking how we know that and not claiming that they can, right?

EDIT:

I mean, I know you have this desire to be as much of a shithead as possible so that we'll all know that you totally don't give a fuck, but it's a pretty innocuous question to dig your heels in over, don't you think?

[Flagg]

Please provide evidence that North Korea has nuclear warheads capable of fitting on one of their existing missiles.

So, you do realize he was asking how we know that and not claiming that they can, right?

EDIT:

I mean, I know you have this desire to be as much of a shithead as possible so that we'll all know that you totally don't give a fuck, but it's a pretty innocuous question to dig your heels in over, don't you think?

So is this "rag on Flagg" day or something? I'm asking that he provide evidence that North Korea can fit one of their nukes on one of their missiles. Because every single story I've seen has said they don't have the capability.

[Ralin]

So is this "rag on Flagg" day or something? I'm asking that he provide evidence that North Korea can fit one of their nukes on one of their missiles. Because every single story I've seen has said they don't have the capability.

I'm just saying dude, he was pretty clearly asking for more information because he didn't know that. It's not something everyone knows off the top of their head.

[Flagg]

So is this "rag on Flagg" day or something? I'm asking that he provide evidence that North Korea can fit one of their nukes on one of their missiles. Because every single story I've seen has said they don't have the capability.

I'm just saying dude, he was pretty clearly asking for more information because he didn't know that. It's not something everyone knows off the top of their head.

I'll take your word for it, but it looked to me like he was implying the North Koreans possess warheads small enough to fit on their current missiles, which to my knowledge isn't the case. If I took it the wrong way that's on me and I apologize.

[Alkaloid]

Sorry simon, might have been unclear there. The options i see are to let NK become a nuclear power, and deal with it like grown ups, convince them to give up nukes voluntarily, or go to war. Any discussion of an attempt to get them to give them up voluntarily by exchanging something most of the world wants (NK not havong nukes) for something they want (food, trade, puppies, whatever) seems to lead to people muttering about appeasement and germany in the '30s. That leaves threats, shouting and war as options in those peoples minds.

[The Xeelee]

Remember also that the majority of North Koreas space launches have been failures (understandable). Also the fact they will be able to manufacture like 7 devices. American anti missile systems should be able to take out any nuclear missile they launch, making this a non nuclear threat to America.

As to putting a nuke in one of those artillery pieces. Maybe they can do that, but we don't know the condition of those artillery pieces and exactly what defenses SK and the USA have in place there.

[Dartzap]

Just hitting the various wires now: DPRK has advised all embassies in Pyongyang it cannot guarantee safety after April 10th in the event of conflict.

[gigabytelord]

Just hitting the various wires now: DPRK has advised all embassies in Pyongyang it cannot guarantee safety after April 10th in the event of conflict.

I know it's probably over reactionary but I'm worried, I really hope that no one does anything stupid, and damn it there's that date again.

[Lagmonster]

I've often wondered, what is the absolute best-case long-term outcome for the Korean penninsula, that is also plausible?

[The Xeelee]

Since when?

Since ever?

What a brilliant rebuttal. I can see where you get such respect for your debating prowess.

How can you say anything other than that? If they have never had the capability of something, you don't ask p, "since when?" that is just a shit question that was unnecessary.

[The Xeelee]

I've often wondered, what is the absolute best-case long-term outcome for the Korean penninsula, that is also plausible?

I don't know about best-case but I think eventually the North Korean regime will fall or maybe ever reform itself (long way off). It will then probably still be two states for a while, but maybe enough support will be generated for unification, this would probably be with Seoul as the capital. Unification is decades off though.

[ChaserGrey]

As to putting a nuke in one of those artillery pieces. Maybe they can do that, but we don't know the condition of those artillery pieces and exactly what defenses SK and the USA have in place there.

Making a nuke small enough to fit in an artillery shell requires moderately advanced bomb-fu. So far the North has only run three tests, the first of which was a fizzle and other two fairly low-yield. I wouldn't think they have a nuclear artillery shell yet.

[Simon_Jester]

Please provide evidence that North Korea has nuclear warheads capable of fitting on one of their existing missiles.

Do you require the answer to take the form of top-secret information on North Korean weapons that only the North Koreans know? Or will you accept logical inferences, from knowing basic facts about nuclear bombs and the North Korean missile program that foreigners can know?

I could go into detail, if you'll take logical inference instead of classified North Korean documents.

Remember also that the majority of North Koreas space launches have been failures (understandable). Also the fact they will be able to manufacture like 7 devices. American anti missile systems should be able to take out any nuclear missile they launch, making this a non nuclear threat to America.

They are still a threat to huge cities in South Korea and Japan, which we could hopefully defend but not with 100% confidence.

At this time, there is no evidence that the North Koreans have a long range ICBM that could put nuclear bombs on American soil. So what?

As to putting a nuke in one of those artillery pieces. Maybe they can do that, but we don't know the condition of those artillery pieces and exactly what defenses SK and the USA have in place there.

Not good enough, is the answer. I don't think there is any system on the South Korean peninsula that can shoot down artillery; there might be of course. Even if there is, any North Korean nuclear shell would be accompanied by hordes of normal ones flying through the air and we wouldn't know which ones to shoot down. Systems that can shoot down all artillery from a massed barrage aren't available, sadly.

That said, Chaser is probably right. When it comes to bomb design, I suspect the North Koreans are about where we were in 1947-50, and stuck with lower industrial reliability to boot. The USSR and US had huge supplies of raw uranium and tons of really good engineers and scientists, so they could make and test more bombs and probably get better quality control. On the other hand, the North Koreans can get a lot of basic information about what will and won't work just from Wikipedia, and can use modern computers to do simulations much better than anyone could in the '50s.

[Ralin]

I've often wondered, what is the absolute best-case long-term outcome for the Korean penninsula, that is also plausible?

North Korea, with Chinese assistance, undergoes Deng Xiaoping-style economic reforms and gradually becomes a non-poor and dysfunctional as well as a more or less normal member of the international community. With more or less normalized relations with South Korea.

It will then probably still be two states for a while, but maybe enough support will be generated for unification, this would probably be with Seoul as the capital. Unification is decades off though.

I doubt this will happen in a non-disastrous manner anytime in the next century or so. Not even sure it would be a particularly good thing if it did.

Basically, the way I see it there are three possible outcomes for North Korea

1) They manage to collapse on their own
2) Someone (By which I mean almost certainly America Fuck Yeah) comes in and collapses them
3) The DPRK regime keeps it together and manages to continue trucking on for the foreseeable future.

I don't think 1 is going to happen. The North Korean government, while horribly oppressive and abusive of its people, has shown that it capable of staying in power and in control right up through the point where their population was resorting to cannibalism to not starve to death. Say what you will about them, but they're very good at being a totalitarian state. 2 is possible but it would be a Bad Thing for numerous reasons and a colossal humanitarian clusterfuck for all concerned, so we want to avoid that.

So that leaves outcome 3. I think it's the most likely one, so we should make the best of it and do everything we can to encourage them to go down that path and become less of a basket case.

[The Xeelee]

I don't think two would be such a cluster fuck for America politically, economically maybe.
Remember China is the only Country North Korea has semi-normal relations with, and even they wouldn't make a fuss as long as the Americans make an agreement, consisting of "don't put troops on our border".

[Ralin]

I don't think two would be such a cluster fuck for America politically, economically maybe.
Remember China is the only Country North Korea has semi-normal relations with, and even they wouldn't make a fuss as long as the Americans make an agreement, consisting of "don't put troops on our border".

See, by "humanitarian clusterfuck" I was focusing on the large number of people who would die as a direct result.

But leaving that aside, I think you're still missing the full picture here. Let’s suppose America Fuck Yeah curb stomps North Korea. In addition to the massive economic cost to us of doing so, pretty much everyone agrees that refugees are going to go streaming in every direction unless there’s a wall and soldiers actively gunning down everyone who approaches it in their way. Meaning that China and South Korea, also known as our largest trading partner and a fairly important ally, respectively, will be swamped with said refugees. In all likelihood they’ll end up having to pony up a large chunk of the reconstruction costs, and in South Korea’s case more than likely eventually undergo some sort of political unification with the former DPRK. Ever hear what it did to the West German economy when they reunited with East Germany? This would be like that, only much worse.

I imagine this would all add up to a great deal of ill will towards the United States.

Plus I guess it would really suck for the North Koreans.