North Korea Air Sample Shows Radiation 543
Apocalypse111 writes, "According to CNN.com, air samples taken over North Korea have not yet shown any radiation from the event on Monday that North Korea claims was a nuclear test. This is not definitive proof that the event was non-nuclear, as it may either have been so small and deep that it did not let any radioactive debris escape, or perhaps the North Koreans sealed the site." Furthering speculation over whether North Korea has actually exploded a nuclear device, vk38 writes to point out a (free) article in today's Wall Street Journal claiming that the blast could have been
set off by exploding fertilizer (ammonium nitrate). The article points to the
Texas City disaster of 1947, in which 7,700 tons of ammonium nitrate exploded in the hold of a ship with the estimated power of 2 to 4 kilotons of TNT.
Update: 10/14 08:03 GMT by Z : The story at CNN has been updated: "A preliminary analysis of air samples from North Korea shows 'radioactive debris consistent with a North Korea nuclear test,' according to a statement from the office of the top U.S. intelligence official."
Update: 10/14 08:03 GMT by Z : The story at CNN has been updated: "A preliminary analysis of air samples from North Korea shows 'radioactive debris consistent with a North Korea nuclear test,' according to a statement from the office of the top U.S. intelligence official."
In Other News (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously though - is this really news ? Shouldn't we wait until it's confirmed one way or the other before it makes sense to comment on it ?
If North Korea says so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we justified sanctioning and otherwise punishing it, even if it lied?
This is more than an abstract question (like the famous "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there...").
Saddam's Hussein downfall was (at least partially) brought about by his insinuating that he still has WMDs privately — to keep neighbors in fear, soldiers brave, and citizens proud, while claiming loudly, that he got rid of them all (which turned out to be true, after all)...
Sanctions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In Other News (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
With all the information that is public, it *is* trivial to create a bomb. Access to plutonium, which he has, is the hard part.
I hate to introduce politics, but it has to be said, Saddam maybe, could have, possibly, been working on something, if you look at the intelligence "just so." North Korea, has been openly saying they are working on these bombs. North Korea sells arms to our enemies. I blame Bush on all counts. The guy is all about acquiring power, but without the wisdom or honor to use it well.
I am remeinded if Bill Maher, Usually you have an administration that is corrupt or one that is inept. The Bush administration is both.
yes, it may or not be... (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, get back to the question. If a nuke was buried deep enough and the caverns sealed before the blast, with a very small nuke, would radiation escape to be detected? And wasn't there a lot of talk the other day that the seismograph guys were good enough to tell just from the signature?
Re:Sanctions? (Score:3, Insightful)
Should I be arrested for calling you every night and threaten to shoot you and your children, even if I don't actually own a gun?
The fact that North Korea is saying they have nukes is threat enough to warrant attention.
Re:Sanctions? (Score:4, Insightful)
The are already starving, lack electricity in 95% of the country, are almost completely uneducated, and make most starving African nations look rich in comparison.
They quite literally have nothing to lose, which is very sad.
Re:yes, it may or not be... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that "total" economic sanctions would be effective. This means absolutely nothing in or out--no food, no medicine--nothing. Despite complete self-reliance being Dear Leader's wet dream, the NK regime would collapse. However, Russia and China would never go along with it; the westerners would be wracked with guilt about millions (more) NKans starving to death; and the NK generals might obliterate Seoul in the regime's death throes.
North Korea proves they still arn't "big time". (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I think it proves they DONT have a bomb.... yet. And more likely their real first test will be over Japan/Israel/South Korea/ whereever else, and their second will be during the all out nuclear bombardment where all the countries give them all the nuclear power they need, though they'll have to figure out how to contain it.
North Korea and Iran are both playing dangerous games. They are acting like children at the grown ups tables. Let's hope they mature or get slapped before they become teenagers who get into a massive car accident and "kill" one or more of the adults
Take him at his word (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:yes, it may or not be... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:3, Insightful)
OT, but good call. Can you imagine what people would have done if Bush had given a big loud speech blaming Jews for all the evil in the world for the last 2,000 years? Chavez did this. Or if Bush made a public speech with crude sexist comments about foreign female diplomats? Chavez did this (about Rice). Or, to show how petty he was, Bush passed laws to force all the radio stations in the country to play only the music he personally liked? Chavez did this...
I guess this proves the rule "A fascist dictator is my friend if he happens to hate George W. Bush".
Re:C'mon (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In Other News (Score:5, Insightful)
So yes, we should know by now, but we don't. This is news.
Especially since (Score:5, Insightful)
To run with your analogy this is like someone holding a gun to their child's head and demanding you give them money to not shoot their kid. Regardless of if it's a cap gun, the fact that they'd stoop to that level of blackmail means that they need to be stopped.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me, the whole point of having a... (Score:3, Insightful)
Who bets this was a well calculated plan by some sensible N.K. scientists to demonstrate that in fact they have nothing for us to fear.
Of course idiot Kim wouldn't know what a real nuke is capable of, probably felt the earth shake and thought to himself, "cool, now I have a big penis too.". Also a calculated response from some sensible N.K. scientists.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why Kim Jong Il is still in power and Saddam isn't.
Bullies don't pick on those who could seriously fight back.
Implosion devices are not trivial, a dud I bet (Score:4, Insightful)
And, because in the modern age there are thousands of seismic sites and many radiological sites that can detect the seismic and radioactive signature of a nuclear explosion, a nuclear test is also the announcement that you have succeeded in your nuclear ambitions. For a recent example of how a nuclear test is both final exam and public announcement, see Pakistan.
So the fact that a successfull nuclear test would be quite apparent (and as we are seeing the absence of a nuclear test as well), and that NK called China to tell them so they would be sure China was watching closely, tells me that this was probably a real nuclear test. A test that, it would appear, failed. If memory serves, they told China to expect a 2KT explosion, with the actual measurement at about 0.5KT?
Sounds to me like they had at best a partial detonation of the nuclear material, but didn't have the timing of the high explosives good enough to pack all the plutonium into a small enough ball for it all to react before the reaction force blew it apart.
Saddam could bluff about having chemical weapons. Kim can bluff about developing nukes, but it really doesn't make sense to try to bluff a nuclear test. And of course we know he desperately wants them. So I'm going with the theory that this was a real nuclear test, just a failed one, and North Korea doesn't have a working nuke yet, but they are very close. The data from just this test may be enough for them to fix it.
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:5, Insightful)
The present-day insurgents weren't in Iraq until after we removed Saddam from power. He ran a run-of-the-mill dictatorship that used his religion (and that of most of his country) as a tool to control people, but he was no religious fanatic. He disliked the Taliban and the Bin Laden extremists almost as much as the U.S. does.
Saddam's Iraq was a cakewalk. We "accomplished" that mission quickly, efficiently, and with minimal casualties on our side. Then, we started screwing almost everything up, and haven't stopped yet. We needed to create a stabler, more secure country faster, before zealots and extremists had time to enter the country and set up shop. Probably having more troops from a wider variety of allies would have helped tremendously, but that would have required us to earn more allies through discourse and compromise, something this administration is not able to do.
Had we not entered Iraq, Saddam would have continued to do an adequate job of suppressing religious fanatics, and Iraq would not have become another Taliban country. (He would have continued suppressing his own people, too; he was still a dictator, murderer, and thug. I'm not denying that. But there are plenty of other murderous dictators in power around the world, some of which are our allies.) Overall, we've probably left the country in worse shape than if we'd just left it alone.
We should have sent many, many more troops to Afghanistan (where we had internation support and justification for our invasion) to avoid the problems that country is having - resurgent Taliban because we didn't kill them all back then when they were in the open, and the country falling back into its longtime role as the world's opium supplier (something the Taliban had tried to suppress, but now profits from).
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush claimed that Saddam had an active program and was continuing to stockpile. This is false, and continues to be false.
The only WMD that have been found are the ones that nobody on earth doubted he had. That they were badly accounted for is also not in doubt, as it was all part of Saddam's suicidally stupid bluff. It was not a "stockpile" if it was not maintained, and hence claiming that he had WMD is incorrect if you accept that an impotent WMD is not a WMD.
No relevent devices have been found to this day.
I disagree... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you think petty namecalling is equivalent to hundreds of thousands dead. I mean the CIA even tried to kill chavez in a coup, if anything hes remarkably polite considering that. Saddam tried to kill bush's dad and look how he reacted.
NK != IRAN != VENEZUELA
Though that doesnt stop the administration from making you think otherwise.
Re:Chemical explosion, is my bet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:2, Insightful)
p.s. The fact that Chavez is a horrible dictator doesn't change the fact that Bush is a terrible president.
North Korean Explosions (Score:3, Insightful)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryongch
k2r
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh my gawd (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Better to avoid analogies altogether in this case, and talk about rogue nations developing nuclear weapons and selling missile technology to other rogue nations, while holding cities full of people hostage using the credible threat of devastating and unavoidable chemical weapons attacks.
Talk about the actual facts of the matter, and suddenly the whole idea of punching becomes both eminently desireable and eminently unworkable.
What now?
Re:In Other News (Score:5, Insightful)
So, nobody's really sure what to believe right now, and eventually it'll just fall to consensus on the data we already have.
The best place to hear about the debate's over at ArmsControlWonk [armscontrolwonk.com]. New radionucliotide data, insider info from some well-placed anonymous sources, and insights into the scientific cultures within dictatorships paints an interesting picture.
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:2, Insightful)
They were in Iraq. They were school teachers, doctors, construction workers, grocers, electricians, etc...
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your comment but you're technically wrong on this point. The vast majority of these insurgents were in country prior to the war but not actually fighting. And a lot of the Shi'a insurgents are related, literally and figuratively, to the uprising following the first Gulf War that we encouraged then let Saddam crush.
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:3, Insightful)
He had none at the time that it mattered -- when the case for war was made.
It's that simple, and laser focused. No, none of the weapons from before Gulf War I that were not maintained count. And that, so far, is every one we've found.
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm venezuelan. I know what I'm talking about.
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong. Iraq wasnt a religious state, unlike the USA
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nevertheless, I believe that the Bush Administration should have framed the Iraq War, when it first started, in the terms they frame it in now: Iraq refused to allow UN inspectors to do their jobs, despite numerous UN resolutions requiring it. In other words, Saddam could say he'd destroyed every last WMD until he's blue in the face, but we would never know one way or the other until Saddam acquiesced to full and unfettered inspections.
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mao killed 60 million of his own people.
The Tsars and the Chinese nationalists were pikers when it came to bad government compared to the communists.
The fundamental law of communism is that it is the worst political system ever invented. No exceptions.
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:3, Insightful)
For one thing, American neocons aren't in power. There's a difference between speaking in front of your think tank and being a world leader speaking on the world stage. Chalk this one up to another mention of the "neocon" bogeyman in conversations where it does not belong. Aside from that: can you CITE references where Neocons did what Chavez did: 1) blame Jews for all the evil in the world 2) put lewd sexual language about female diplomats in their speeches? 3) Neocons wanting to censor all music they did not like from the radio?
Can you back up your claim?
Thanks also for the alternatve history of the Cold War... you described things that never happened except PRIOR to WW2.
Each one made things worse. (Score:3, Insightful)
It was the Venezuelan dictator who made the speech blaming Jews for all the evil in the world for the last 2,000 years. This speech was Dec. 24, 2005.
"But one thing is still true about him, this being pretty much the fundamental law of communism--he's still better than the nasty right-wing fucker who immediately preceded him(Lenin and the Tsars, Mao and Chiang Kai-shek, Castro and Batiste)."
You need to check your history:
Lenin: The Tsars (who had already moderated a whole lot) were gone by the time Lenin seized power. Lenin actually overthrew a fledgling post-Tsar democracy. He made things significantly worse, grabbing for himself more power than the Tsars ever had, re-invading the former vassal states that the Tsars had actually let go free, and slaughtering many hundreds of thousands of people.
Mao and Chiang Kai-shek: Clearly no comparison at all here. Mao ordered more than 30,000,000 people killed. The relatively mild legacy of Chiang has been apparent in how Taiwan was ran after Mao's conquest. Chiang's government, the Nationalists, had run all of China for quite a while before Mao came along: pre-Mao China was significantly lacking in the routine atrocity that Mao ushered in. Do you really know anything about it at all?
Castro and Batista: Aside from the mass execution of political prisoners by Castro, and the many tens of thousands killed by his invasions of other countries (Batista stayed home), there are so many other factors such as freedom of religion, freedom of the press (many beleaguered newspapers under Batista, no independent ones at all under Castro).
Every single one of these was much worse than the one before. That's the fundamental law of Communism.
Three valid examples of communist countries. (Score:3, Insightful)
"The only socialism the world has seen has been in democratic countries."
Socialism is the degree to which ruling elites control the private and personal economic affairs of the people. Socialism has been very strong in the named communist countries. It has been weak in the democracies.
Re:If North Korea says so... (Score:3, Insightful)
I read his speech at the U.N., so now I like him a LOT.
He's got the balls to tell the truth.
Of course this makes him hated by those who live in darkness and lies.