[quote]sasquatch wrote:
this is strictly about maintaning control and face at home. [/quote]
Which goes along with the press release I posted right above you. That helps explain things for me somewhat. Nice.
[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
The funniest thing about it is the US would rather attack Iran over nukes rather than North Korea… who has actually admitted to having WMDs. Why hasn’t the US pressured North Korea with deadlines or sanctions just yet?
[/quote]
Because there aren’t sufficient amounts of oil there to warrant an invasion.
[quote]Skystud wrote:
Because there aren’t sufficient amounts of oil there to warrant an invasion.[/quote]
LOL and that too.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Dudes, have you ever seen an underground nuclear test? There’s videos out there. The ground lurches up like a tidal wave, mountains rock back and forth… there isn’t some 4 on the richter scale. That’s probably a couple hundred tons of conventional explosives they set off. In other words, way less than one of our MOABs.[/quote]
I think you are getting a few things mixed. First, there is no way you can compare a first tentative nuclear blast with later testing of larger yield devices.
However, that said, there is still no definitive word yet as far as I know.
At the same time, a successful test, if there is one, means that they are traveling down a road. Bigger yields and smaller bombs are a matter of time if they continue to work on it.
I don’t think anyone is really considering them a credible threat today, at least not here… though of course South Korea or Japan may not relish the concept of a supposed lunatic with missiles and nuclear bombs at his disposal.
Article on Strategypage by Harold Hutchinson. Interesting analysis. The end result may be the rise of Japan as a major military power.
North Korea Awakens the Sleeping Giant
October 11, 2006:
The North Korean nuclear tests will have the effect of spurring the growth of a new military superpower in East Asia. Japan has, since World War II, not felt the need to re-arm. However, the recent North Korean tests are likely to change that, awakening what is arguably the sleeping military giant of Asia.
From Japan’s perspective, they have no choice. North Korea fired a missile over Japan in 1998. North Korea has also kidnapped Japanese citizens, and despite diplomatic protests, attempted to test both ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons in 2006. North Korea is not the only neighbor of Japan who has done some pretty irrational things. In the past decade, two Chinese generals have made very thinly-veiled nuclear threats towards the United States. From Japan’s perspective, East Asia is obviously a neighborhood that is becoming a lot less safe than it was in 1990.
At present, Japan spends about one percent of its GDP on the defense budget ($42.1 billion in 2005). Compare this to China, which spends about 4.3 percent of its GDP on defense (to the tune of $81.48 billion in 2005). Japan’s relative lack of defense spending still has not prevented it from turning out what is arguably the best navy and air force in the region, one that outclasses even China.
As one example, Japan has 40 destroyers in its Maritime Self-Defense Force. China has 25, only nine of which are really modern. China has 45 frigates, of which perhaps 15 are modern. Japan has nine. Most of China’s submarines are very old Romeo-class submarines or the Ming-class ( which is a variant of the Romeo). Only 22 of China’s subs are relatively modern. Japan has 16 modern diesel-electric submarines.
The respective air forces also show a technological disparity. The bulk of the 1,250 fighters in Chinese service are J-6 and J-7 models, copies of the 1950s era MiG-19 and MiG-21, respectively. China’s only modern fighters are the 200 J-11 (Su-27) and 180 Su-30MKK Flankers. The Japanese air defense force centers around 180 F-15J fighters and 130 F-2s (best described as an F-16 that took steroids).
Japan has been able to keep pace with China with a defense budget that is one percent of its GDP. Were Japan to spend the 2.4 percent of GDP, the same percentage that the United Kingdom spends, its defense budget would be $101.4 billion. If Japan were to spend 4.3 percent of its GDP (what China spends), its defense budget would reach $181.03 billion. What does a Japanese military with those budgets look like? For one thing, Japan easily could increase its military and equip it with modern ships (like the Atago and Takanami classes of destroyers), submarines (like the Oyashio class), and aircraft (like the F-2). Japan also could easily operate several “Harrier carriers” as well, giving Japan the ability to project power. Japan could also decide to build nukes ? and has the ability to do so very quickly (within six months).
Japan would have no trouble spending big bucks on arms. The government already spends that kind of money on wasteful, “make work”, projects. It’s good politics to keep people employed, and it doesn’t matter if they are building warships, or highways to nowhere.
Such a buildup would make South Korea, China, and other countries in Asia very nervous. For that reason, Kim Jong-Il’s recent nuclear tests are going to make him a very unpopular person in East Asia, where old memories of Japan’s conduct from 1931-1945 are still fresh. They would much rather that the potential of Japan’s military remain potential, and not become realized. China, in particular, doesn’t want to see Japan start a buildup, because they will not be able to keep up. ? Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Rummy’s North Korea Connection
FORTUNE
May 2003
What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB’s deal to build nuclear reactors there? And why won’t he talk about it?
(FORTUNE Magazine) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rarely keeps his opinions to himself. He tends not to compromise with his enemies. And he clearly disdains the communist regime in North Korea. So it’s surprising that there is no clear public record of his views on the controversial 1994 deal in which the U.S. agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program.
What’s even more surprising about Rumsfeld’s silence is that he sat on the board of the company that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors…
…In his final days in office, Clinton had been preparing a bold deal in which North Korea would give up its missile and nuclear programs in return for aid and normalized relations. But President Bush was skeptical of Pyongyang’s intentions and called for a policy review in March 2001.
Two months later the DOE, after consulting with Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, renewed the authorization to send nuclear technology to North Korea. Groundbreaking ceremonies attended by Westinghouse and North Korean officials were held Sept. 14, 2001–three days after the worst terror attack on U.S. soil.
The Bush administration still hasn’t abandoned the project. Representative Edward Markey and other Congressmen have been sending letters to Bush and Rumsfeld, asking them to pull the plug on the reactors, which Markey calls “nuclear bomb factories.”
Nevertheless, a concrete-pouring ceremony was held last August, and Westinghouse sponsored a training course for the North Koreans that concluded in October–shortly before Pyongyang confessed to having a secret uranium program, kicked inspectors out, and said it would start making plutonium.
The Bush administration has suspended further transfers of nuclear technology, but in January it authorized $3.5 million to keep the project going.
Sooner or later, the outspoken Secretary of Defense will have to explain his silence.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342316/index.htm
[/quote]
I already knew about this alarming stuff.
NK’s nuclear program keeps Japan, China, South Korea, and Russia busy.
What a great idea!?
[quote]Skystud wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
The funniest thing about it is the US would rather attack Iran over nukes rather than North Korea… who has actually admitted to having WMDs. Why hasn’t the US pressured North Korea with deadlines or sanctions just yet?
Because there aren’t sufficient amounts of oil there to warrant an invasion.[/quote]
No, but there’s still quite a bit of tungsten (a strategic military metal) up around the 38th parallel, which we’d love to get our hands on just as much now as we did back in 1950.
North Korea may not have much oil, but it does have fabulous mineral wealth, including iron, coal, gold…and of course, uranium.
[HH] If only this would have happened during Clitons watch. We would have had a field day.
But now we have to spin it all to blame him.
Spinning is hard work you know.
Luckily no-one had the guts to blame it on our precious leader. That just wouldn’t have been fair. You can’t critisize a man when he’s loosing two wars at once.[/HH]