Unusual activity at North Korean nuclear test site. - Polidicks

[quote]Recent satellite images indicate that North Korea is building a new tunnel at its nuclear test site, a respected US think tank has said. A report on 38 North, a website run by the US-Korea Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, studied images taken between April and November. These appeared to show work in a new area of the Punggye-ri nuclear zone. But, the report said, there is no sign that any nuclear test is imminent, North Korea carried out three underground nuclear tests at Punggye-ri in 2006, 2009 and 2013. Its nuclear programme has been a source of great concern for the international community. 'Increased capability' The tunnel identified in the latest imagery is in a new area of the site, separate from three other tunnels that the North has excavated or used for tests in the past, the report said. "While there are no indications that a nuclear test is imminent, the new tunnel adds to North Korea's ability to conduct additional detonations over the coming years if it chooses to do so," it added. [/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34992010[/url] A test soon, perhaps?

They keep using all their nukes for tests, they won't have any left to use in war :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49236253]They keep using all their nukes for tests, they won't have any left to use in war :v:[/QUOTE] If war breaks out they probably won't use them anyway. Nuking China or South Korea would hurt them too and they don't have the range for anything else.

[QUOTE=_Pai;49236742]If war breaks out they probably won't use them anyway. Nuking China or South Korea would hurt them too and they don't have the range for anything else.[/QUOTE] Offensive usage on civilian targets is dumb, but they could attack a military garrison or some kind of force buildup on the border. Assuming, of course, that the nuke would survive the intense bombing campaign that would happen before any push to the North.

[QUOTE=_Pai;49236742]If war breaks out they probably won't use them anyway. Nuking China or South Korea would hurt them too and they don't have the range for anything else.[/QUOTE] Maybe not, but the damage they'd cause in that short amount of time would be enormous. Literally millions would be killed by the push of a button. North Korea is crazy enough to do it. I mean, consider this: You're fighting a war. You know you're going to lose soon. Why not take as many of them with you as possible?

I completely forgot NK still existed. Fucking ISIS.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;49236878]Maybe not, but the damage they'd cause in that short amount of time would be enormous. Literally millions would be killed by the push of a button. North Korea is crazy enough to do it. I mean, consider this: You're fighting a war. You know you're going to lose soon. Why not take as many of them with you as possible?[/QUOTE] because all in all you'll probably want to take out the enemy's military forces out more. maybe you still have some respect for your people and don't want to lose more in retaliation. maybe the entire top brass isn't crazy and some are actually patriotic.

I'm still imagining these retards finally pulling together enough resources to build an ICBM, launching it, and it just going maybe 10 feet off the ground before self destructing and wiping out the entire country

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;49237200]I'm still imagining these retards finally pulling together enough resources to build an ICBM, launching it, and it just going maybe 10 feet off the ground before self destructing and wiping out the entire country[/QUOTE]I like how you're either imagining North Korea is the the size of Hoboken, New Jersey or that they are actually skilled enough to build a giant nuclear warhead capable of so much destruction.

Even the largest US warheads at the peak of the Cold War wouldn't have destroyed New Jersey with one weapon. [QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;49236878]Maybe not, but the damage they'd cause in that short amount of time would be enormous. Literally millions would be killed by the push of a button. North Korea is crazy enough to do it. I mean, consider this: You're fighting a war. You know you're going to lose soon. Why not take as many of them with you as possible?[/QUOTE] They don't have the weapon to kill millions of people.

The longer the current global situation re. countries like NK continues, I the more I feel that mutually assured destruction doesn't really hold up. I can really imagine a situation where NK fires one nuke at another country and we find ourselves in a weird scaled-up hostage situation where we're trying to talk NK down from shooting off another one. Because everybody knows that once more than one nuke is in the air, it's game over for everybody.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;49248898]The longer the current global situation re. countries like NK continues, I the more I feel that mutually assured destruction doesn't really hold up. I can really imagine a situation where NK fires one nuke at another country and we find ourselves in a weird scaled-up hostage situation where we're trying to talk NK down from shooting off another one. Because everybody knows that once more than one nuke is in the air, it's game over for everybody.[/QUOTE] Lolwut? Why the hell would we have world-wide destruction because of the North Koreans?

[QUOTE=download;49248955]Lolwut? Why the hell would we have world-wide destruction because of the North Koreans?[/QUOTE] It's not that infeasible. Most hypothetical apocalypse scenarios start out with an anonymous atomic bomb hitting some country, leading to a spiral of miscommunication and confusion that finally concludes with the partial or complete destruction of multiple nations. Also, there's speculation that Cold War installations like the Perimeter system are still active. No way to know for certain, but there's always rumors.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;49248898]Because everybody knows that once more than one nuke is in the air, it's game over for everybody.[/QUOTE] Why lol? I hate how most people have no idea what nuclear weapons are or how they'd be used its a huge pet peeve of mine.

[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;49249012]It's not that infeasible. Most hypothetical apocalypse scenarios start out with an anonymous atomic bomb hitting some country, leading to a spiral of miscommunication and confusion that finally concludes with the partial or complete destruction of multiple nations. Also, there's speculation that Cold War installations like the Perimeter system are still active. No way to know for certain, but there's always rumors.[/QUOTE] You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. [editline]5th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49249018]Why lol? I hate how most people have no idea what nuclear weapons are or how they'd be used its a huge pet peeve of mine.[/QUOTE] Agreed. There's a lot of mindboggling stupidity around the topic.

No one is going to retaliate with MAD nukes for a wimpy, tiny yield Nork bomb. Oh Shit, a bomb exploded in South Korea, better annihilate the Russians! Nuclear war is never going to happen.

I hate it when you guys say "Nork". Literally nobody outside of facepunch says this; you make them sound like a star craft faction

[QUOTE=download;49249033]You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. [editline]5th December 2015[/editline] Agreed. There's a lot of mindboggling stupidity around the topic.[/QUOTE] It's easier to simply dismiss an argument instead of constructing an actual counterpoint, huh? There have been several cases in the past where miscommunication or confusion over nuclear weapons has brought the world to the brink. Consider events like the Stanislav Petrov incident, Able Archer 83, or the Norwegian rocket incident. The modern era of nuclear defense is no more invulnerable than it was during the Cold War.

Also I am pretty damn sure that we have the capability to tell really quickly where a missile launch has occurred from, especially if launched from ground based sites. For instance there are something like 23 DSP (Defense Support Program) satellites in geosynchronous orbit specifically for the purpose of detecting missile launches.

[QUOTE=download;49248745]They don't have the weapon to kill millions of people.[/QUOTE] but they have the [I]weapons[/I] to do so. a single nuke the size of little boy detonated at just the right part of tokyo, for instance, would lead to deaths in the 100,000's, not to mention the radiation that would come off of it. Besides that, we don't [I]know[/I] of any weapons that the CCCP developed that would take out New Jersey, but look at the other side, we don't [I]know[/I] of the location of hundreds of warheads, nor the location of thousands of tons of weapons grade uranium.

[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;49249357]It's easier to simply dismiss an argument instead of constructing an actual counterpoint, huh? There have been several cases in the past where miscommunication or confusion over nuclear weapons has brought the world to the brink. Consider events like the Stanislav Petrov incident, Able Archer 83, or the Norwegian rocket incident. The modern era of nuclear defense is no more invulnerable than it was during the Cold War.[/QUOTE] The US has and still does firmly believe in limited response and the use of tactical nuclear weapons. The US would not have responded to the use of a single nuclear torpedo with an all-out strategic attack against the Russians. That would simply be retarded and would mean the US sacrifices 25% or so of its population over what - in comparison - is a minor loss of life. Able Archer, again, no side would suddenly push the "strategic" button and go all out. If anything it would have been a tit-for-tat exchange of chemical and then tactical nuclear weapons backing a very nasty conventional war. The Norwegian rocket incident wouldn't have resulted in any weapons fired unless the missile actually exploded like a nuclear bomb. Both Russian and American nuclear forces can survive a single weapon detonated anywhere or above Russia/US. All of these things were facing actual nuclear powers, not two-bit nations. No one is going to go full-retard over anything the North Koreans can do.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;49249258]I hate it when you guys say "Nork". Literally nobody outside of facepunch says this; you make them sound like a star craft faction[/QUOTE] I just read it for the first time and I love it. I'm going to start calling them Nork irl from now on.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49249421]but they have the [I]weapons[/I] to do so. a single nuke the size of little boy detonated at just the right part of tokyo, for instance, would lead to deaths in the 100,000's, not to mention the radiation that would come off of it. [/quote] You're exaggerating a little bit. Modern-day Tokyo is of completely different construction to 1930s paper-constructed Hiroshima. The radiation from an airburst would also be quite minimal. That's not to say it would be non-existent but most of Hiroshima's casualties were blast, over pressure and thermal radiation casualties. [quote]Besides that, we don't [I]know[/I] of any weapons that the CCCP developed that would take out New Jersey, but look at the other side, we don't [I]know[/I] of the location of hundreds of warheads, nor the location of thousands of tons of weapons grade uranium.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. The locations of both super-power's arsenals is very well known; they have to disclose it as part of the arms treaties and violations are easily detected from space because it's fucking difficult to hide and ICBM.

[QUOTE=download;49249454]The US has and still does firmly believe in limited response and the use of tactical nuclear weapons. The US would not have responded to the use of a single nuclear torpedo with an all-out strategic attack against the Russians. That would simply be retarded and would mean the US sacrifices 25% or so of its population over what - in comparison - is a minor loss of life. Able Archer, again, no side would suddenly push the "strategic" button and go all out. If anything it would have been a tit-for-tat exchange of chemical and then tactical nuclear weapons backing a very nasty conventional war. The Norwegian rocket incident wouldn't have resulted in any weapons fired unless the missile actually exploded like a nuclear bomb. Both Russian and American nuclear forces can survive a single weapon detonated anywhere or above Russia/US. All of these things were facing actual nuclear powers, not two-bit nations. No one is going to go full-retard over anything the North Koreans can do.[/QUOTE] Alright, I concede to your argument. It would certainly be a tense time if North Korea did hit Seoul with an atomic bomb, though. Conventional war would be a huge risk (if not a certainty) considering our defense ties with South Korea.

[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;49249556]Alright, I concede to your argument. It would certainly be a tense time if North Korea did hit Seoul with an atomic bomb, though. Conventional war would be a huge risk (if not a certainty) considering our defense ties with South Korea.[/QUOTE] It's wouldn't remain tense for long. The US would probably drop 20 odd weapons on the North Koreans in retaliation. Anything that looks like it might support their nuclear program would get flattened followed by any large congregations of North Korean armour. That would hold off the North long enough for the US and Allies to deploy to the South and then begin an invasion of the North.

[QUOTE=download;49249502]You're exaggerating a little bit. Modern-day Tokyo is of completely different construction to 1930s paper-constructed Hiroshima. The radiation from an airburst would also be quite minimal. That's not to say it would be non-existent but most of Hiroshima's casualties were blast, over pressure and thermal radiation casualties. [/QUOTE] Tokyo today is some tens of times more dense than that of Hiroshima, or Nagasaki for that matter, it's literally the most populated city in the world, and a nuclear detonation would be very destructive, even if it's in the kilotons. NK's bomb's are also 50-60% stronger, judging by the latest detonation in 2013. Besides that, they have 20 or so nukes of likely varying size. [QUOTE=download;49249502]I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. The locations of both super-power's arsenals is very well known; they have to disclose it as part of the arms treaties and violations are easily detected from space because it's fucking difficult to hide and ICBM.[/QUOTE] After the fall of the Soviet union there was a lot of confusion, and hundreds of warheads were lost. the point i was trying to make is the fact it's possible to get nuclear detonators relatively easy on the black market. Beyond this, the largest [U][I][B]known[/B][/I][/U] nuclear warhead was 100MT, and that was in 1961, we don't know if they worked on warheads bigger in size.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49249590]Tokyo today is some tens of times more dense than that of Hiroshima, or Nagasaki for that matter, it's literally the most populated city in the world, and a nuclear detonation would be very destructive, even if it's in the kilotons. NK's bomb's are also 50-60% stronger, judging by the latest detonation in 2013. Besides that, they have 20 or so nukes of likely varying size.[/quote] Western estimates for NK weapons put their largest test at less than 10kt. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 16-22kt. Your idea relies on them being able to smuggle all of those weapons into Japan without detection and then coordinate the attack. [quote]After the fall of the Soviet union there was a lot of confusion, and hundreds of warheads were lost. the point i was trying to make is the fact it's possible to get nuclear detonators relatively easy on the black market. Beyond this, the largest [U][I][B]known[/B][/I][/U] nuclear warhead was 100MT, and that was in 1961, we don't know if they worked on warheads bigger in size.[/QUOTE] Now I know you're talking complete shit.

[QUOTE=download;49249618]Western estimates for NK weapons put their largest test at less than 10kt. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 16-22kt. Your idea relies on them being able to smuggle all of those weapons into Japan without detection and then coordinate the attack.[/QUOTE] Not when they have been working ICBMs that can put a satellite into space. Your analysis is facile, considering that the last test was already at 12-16KT, it's very possible and incredibly likely that they've at the very least increased the yield of their nukes by 25-50%. [QUOTE=download;49249618]Now I know you're talking complete shit.[/QUOTE] Yeah, except, it's well documented how easy it is to buy a nuke detonator, for example, Vice has an article, as well as a video detailing how easy it is to go and buy one of these missing warheads on the black market- Let us not also forget that when the soviet union fell, hundreds of thousands of documents and thousands of military papers were destroyed. We, as civilians of the "First world' have no clue on if they have bigger weapons or not. I mistook your first post as saying the USSR, but i looked back now and see that you said the US.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49249661]Not when they have been working ICBMs that can put a satellite into space. Your analysis is facile, considering that the last test was already at 12-16KT, it's very possible and incredibly likely that they've at the very least increased the yield of their nukes by 25-50%. Yeah, except, it's well documented how easy it is to buy a nuke detonator, for example, Vice has an article, as well as a video detailing how easy it is to go and buy one of these missing warheads on the black market- Let us not also forget that when the soviet union fell, hundreds of thousands of documents and thousands of military papers were destroyed. We, as civilians of the "First world' have no clue on if they have bigger weapons or not. I mistook your first post as saying the USSR, but i looked back now and see that you said the US.[/QUOTE] Might I make a suggestion? Go back and do some research that doesn't come from Vice. Everything you've said there is just plain wrong.

[QUOTE=download;49249691]Might I make a suggestion? Go back and do some research that doesn't come from Vice. Everything you've said there is just plain wrong.[/QUOTE] Except I've done academic research on this very subject, looked through thousands of different sources to state that as a claim. If anyone needs to be educated in this subject, it should be you, not me. When your main argument is pretty much a personal attack, then you need to rethink your debate strategies.