SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Kim "Nuke" il?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
IRONMAN
Member



Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS

 Kim "Nuke" il?

i don't think that this has escaped anyone's attention but it seems things are escalating...

Kim Jong-il has now done what the Iranian mullahs are still a few years from accomplishing and what Saddam Hussein never came close to pulling off. He has apparently exploded an atom bomb. He probably can't yet pack a nuke into the nose cone of a missile or drop one from a plane. But as the term is generally (and aptly) defined, North Korea is now a nuclear-armed power. What's the rest of the world going to do about it?

from slate on msn.com

The "international community" has a chance to behave as if the term were more than a polite or ironic euphemism. If there's a single national leader in the world who likes this new development, he hasn't said so. The U.N. Security Council quickly voted 13-0 to condemn the nuclear test. Several nonmembers have joined in the criticism. Now all we need is a next step—action.

This is nothing to shrug off. The combination of Kim Jong-il and a nuclear arsenal is a nightmare. It doesn't mean he's going to fire A-bombs at the United States or, for that matter, at South Korea or Japan. Kim may be a monster, but he's not suicidal; his top priority is the survival of his regime, and he must know that a nuclear attack would be followed by obliterating retaliation.

But what nuclear weapons do provide is cover for lesser sorts of aggression. The "club" of nuclear nations is a sort of mafia. The bomb provides protection, and thus a certain swagger, whether the other club members like it or not.

It doesn't take more than a handful of nukes to become a "made man" in this club. If Saddam Hussein had possessed some nukes in 1990, before he invaded Kuwait, it is doubtful that the U.S.-led coalition (and that really was a coalition) would have mobilized armed forces to push his troops back. If Mao Zedong had not possessed an atomic arsenal in 1969, during intense border clashes with the Soviet Union, it is likely that Leonid Brezhnev would have mounted an invasion. More to the point, without the nukes, Mao wouldn't have had the nerve to trigger the border clashes to begin with.

Kim Jong-il—like his father, Kim Il-Sung, before him—has kept his tiny, impoverished country afloat all these decades precisely by stirring up trouble and provoking confrontation (to justify his totalitarian rule), then playing his bigger neighbors off one another (to keep the tensions from spinning out of control and into his borders). His quest for nukes was propelled by a desire for the ultimate protection, mainly against an American attack. But now that he has them, he can be expected to play his games of chicken more feistily—and with still more opportunities for miscalculation.

Sunday's nuclear test has four other potential, dreadful consequences.

First, Kim Jong-il could churn out more bombs and sell at least some of them to the highest bidders. North Korea is dreadfully short of resources; his scheme to counterfeit American money has run into roadblocks; nukes might be his new cash cow. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush rallied domestic support by invoking the image of Saddam Hussein selling A-bombs to al-Qaida. It was a highly improbable scenario; even if Saddam had been building A-bombs, he would almost certainly have kept them under tight control. Kim, on the other hand, is a guerrilla-anarchist; he maintains his power not by trying to shape, or seek greater influence in, the international system but rather by throwing the system into a shambles. He's much less likely to have qualms about trading bombs for hard currency, regardless of the customer.

The second possible consequence of a nuclear North Korea is the unleashing of a serious regional arms race. The Japanese have long had the technical know-how and the stash of plutonium to build atomic (or possibly even hydrogen) bombs. They've foresworn that route because of moral qualms stemming from their own militarism in World War II. They also cite their security arrangement with the United States. But it's an open question how long these 60-year-old qualms would endure in the face of a clear and present danger. Just last month, a Japanese think tank run by former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone published a study calling on the nation to "consider the nuclear option." North Korea's nuclear test can only fuel these temptations.

If Japan goes nuclear, the Chinese might decide that it's in their security interests to resume nuclear testing. China's moves could incite India to accelerate its nuclear program, which would almost certainly compel Pakistan to match that effort. The South Koreans, meanwhile, might feel they need their own bomb to deter any crazy ideas from their northern neighbor, which could push the cycle into still higher gear.

Third, it's a fair bet that the Iranians will be closely watching the coming weeks' events. If the world lets tiny, miscreant, destitute North Korea—the freaking Hermit Kingdom—get away with testing a nuke, then who will stop the oil-rich, leverage-loaded, modern-day Persian Empire from treading the same road?

For many reasons, then, the world's major powers and organizations—if they have any capacity for coordinated action—must take actions to punish Kim Jong-il for what he has done, not to pound him with airstrikes (for better or worse, an impractical option), but to make his regime suffer in all other ways, to let those around him know that his actions are the cause of their suffering.

However, this leads to a fourth risky scenario that Sunday's test has set in motion: the danger of escalation and war.

A plan of economic pressure or sanctions depends crucially on cooperation from China. Without Chinese food, fuel, and other forms of aid, Kim Jong-il's regime would soon crumble. And that's the problem: The Chinese don't want the regime to crumble, for their own security reasons. It's a delicate matter to punish Kim just enough to affect his actions but not enough to trigger his downfall. The question is whether pressure from other countries—or the Chinese leaders' own anger at Kim's defiance of their warnings not to test—will lead them to walk this line and decide whether such a balancing act is possible.

It may well be that, back in 2003, the Chinese took the lead in creating a diplomatic forum to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis because they thought the Bush administration was about to order a military strike. They relaxed their sense of urgency once they realized a strike wasn't imminent after all. (This theory is held not only by White House hawks but also by many outside specialists who have pushed for direct negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang.)

It is therefore conceivable that, in light of Sunday's test, some White House officials are proposing, once again, to send signals of impending military action against North Korea—if just to unnerve Beijing into going along with sanctions. The danger, of course, is that such stratagems can spiral out of control: Signals can be misread, threats can escalate to gunshots.

The current predicament is the outcome of three missteps: a major strategic blunder by President Bush (who refused to negotiate with the North Koreans when they were practically begging for talks and their course was still easily reversible); an only slightly less gigantic blunder by Chinese President Hu Jintao (who thought he could bring the North Koreans in line with minimal arm-twisting); and severe miscalculations, from start to finish, by Kim Jong-il (who thought Washington would have leapt at negotiations by now and who, apparently, didn't think his nuclear test would cause quite such excitement).

So, here we are. The two major powers in this confrontation are led by blunderers; the provocateur is a chronic miscalculator. It doesn't look good.


_________________
Farai Bamu

 2006/10/10 23:22Profile









 Re: Kim "Nuke" il?

Iron,

I think they failed, I'll tell you why: based on seismic reading of 4.0 to 3.6, I read the yield was somewhere between 550 tons to 1,000 tons of TNT, which makes it a 1 KT yield bomb, at best.

in context, the bomb used at Hiroshima had a 20kt yield.....

I think two things could have happened, one , is that they set off a coventional underground mimic explosion, just to rattle some cages.

the other theory I believe more strongly is that they were using an implosion device, which are concentric circular explosive lenses, around the core. These lenses have to explode togther to implode the nuclear material, which then reacts and explodes. Here's the key, the lenses have to explode simultaenously, not even a millisecond of deviation, and thats the part that failed, which acccounts for some sort of bang, albiet a sub kiloton bang...550 to 1,000 tons. That would have been the explosive force of the conventional lenses surrounding the core if they were looking for a weapon with a 20 to 50 kt yield.


wanna hear a little factoid? I had a bud, who was a B-52 bombadier, strategic, read nuclear, and he told me, in our nuclear weaponry we have the ability to dial up or dial down the yield...meaning before you arm the weapon, you can program it to yield 100kt or 500kt, whatever the mission would require and praise God, that so far, we haven't had to use these weapons.

yet.

and as you might know, our subs have "city-busters", where you have throw weights of 1 to 5 megatons.

See what happens when man has science as their "god"?

Its all so clear, aint it?

 2006/10/11 0:05
Deany1980
Member



Joined: 2004/9/26
Posts: 25
Hong Kong (SAR)

 Re: Kim "Nuke" il?

Christians perish slowly in North Korean death camps, the likes of which we remember from the horrors of Nazi Germany. The once known "Jerusalem of the Orient" is now a horror house for Christians who are secretly there today.

Unknown numbers of secret Christians, unknown numbers of Bibles needed, unknown numbers escaping into China to be picked up by sex traders, slave traders of Christians who will help them seek asylum outside of China (China sends them back to North Korea to face death, or worse, the death camps).

The extreme poverty in North Korea, fathers severing their own arm to feet their children - as sons of the living God, it's time not to use military - it's time by life or by death to go in with the Gospel.


_________________
Dean

 2006/10/11 0:48Profile









 Deany

there's hope

here's the website of some pretty sold out to Jesus, on fire prayer warriors and missonaries

http://www.nkmissions.com/

 2006/10/11 1:12
IRONMAN
Member



Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS

 Re:

bro Bartle
how much did the first such test done under J. Robert Oppenheimer yield?

i suppose that if they have failed, they will keep working to perfect their weapons?

either way things are coming to a head and we ought not be found lacking in Faith or Good works.


_________________
Farai Bamu

 2006/10/11 11:11Profile









 Ironman

I think the Trinity test in NM yielded 15 to 20 kt, but they were working on two types of triggers , one was a "gun barrel", which shot a load into the core, this was the Hiroshima bomb and the other the "implosion device" was the Nagasaki bomb and both yields were around 20 kt.

I'm not certain what trigger was tested at Trinity, I think it was the implosion trigger.

You see they worked very hard to coordinate the simultaenous dentonation of the lenses and had many failures, circa 1944.....and you see , these were some of the finest physicists and scientists all together in New Mexico, many of them refugee Jews who Hitler chased out of Germany. So there was a base of knowledge to operate from, meaning it would be like gathering Julia Childs, Emeril, and other world class chefs together with unlimited resources to make a meal, which they did.

Now in North Korean, intellectual freedom is very limited, so its the equivelant of gathering a bunch of short order chefs to make a fine French haute cuisine meal...ya get me?


and when you start talking in terms of microsecond, or millisecond plus minus tolerances in crafting DELIVERABLE nuclear weaponry, they failed, I know it.

they don't have 6 to 8 nuclear weapons, they have 6 to 8 big pieces of metal.

They probably have a "cookbook", provided by the Paki scientist Khan, who's under "house arrest" in Islamabad, thats a joke, and they probably "bought" a handful of ex-soviet scientists, but this just added to the mess, given traditional reflexive North Korean fear and distrust of outsiders, not to mention the language barrier.

they failed, but they are still VERY VERY dangerous foes. A million man army, well trained and hard, with a terrain that is murder on armor, and perfect for defense, not to mention the fact that every strategic asset the NK's possess is DEEP underground. They have 4,000 plus arty pieces near the DMZ, they wouldn't blink a eye to use chemical and bio rounds in these artillery pieces.

I think their special forces alone is somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 men, which they would insert deep into South Korea, which is intensely vulnerable, because the ROK has only ONE main north-south highway in the west and in the northeast of South Korea is a pretty rugged mountain range, with a two lane coastal highway to the east. So if they cut off the main highway in the center, (I won't say where, but I know where I would do it, if I was an NK general) they could isolate Seoul and the north half of South Korea.

The NK objective to the attack would be to be in Pusan in two to three weeks, before the Americans could react, and we really couldn't react IN DEPTH, because we are stretched that thin.

Could the ROK forces defend South Korea?

I don't know, they have 600,000 men under arms, and they're good, Koreans are tough brother. But if the NK's did a lot of rear area Spec forces insertions, and cut the country in two, they would prevail.

One thing in our favor, we would own the air in two weeks, and thats crucial.

It could be a replay of 1950-53, but much much more uglier.

Only God knows, but the President was correct in his assessment of the "Axis of Evil", "Iraq, Iran and North Korea".

strange days ahead bro.

The reason I'm conversant in all this is two fold, I was in the Navy at 17 in South Korea, and I've made a study of nuclear weaponry and nuclear warfighting.

I just gave away 30 boxes of books, most of all that stuff, kept 10 boxes, books on the faith, and other secular books I like. I belong to Jesus now, not Caesar...lol

much love, bartle

 2006/10/11 13:52
IRONMAN
Member



Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS

 Re: Ironman

hey bro Bartle
interesting stuff...the North Koreans certainly wouldn't have a problem pouring it on seoul especially with all those artillery pieces at the dmz. if i remember right there is a presence of about 37,000 us troops there on the dmz, it makes me wonder what kinda heat they're packing since they are so few in number compared to the 800 lb gorilla on the other side...

Lord have your way


_________________
Farai Bamu

 2006/10/12 12:17Profile
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re:

Gentlemen, if I may...let me suggest a possible resolution to this crisis. As a citizen of Columbus Ohio, I think the UN should send in the Ohio State Buckeyes! They can not be defeated!

The landing craft would hit the beach of N. Korea, the metal gate drop would drop down and the first wave of attack would be the marching band...then the Buckeyes would burst out through a paper banner.

The sight of of the best offensive line in the world would be enough to make Kim Il's hair stand on edge. Oh wait...

Go Bucks!

MC


_________________
Mike Compton

 2006/10/12 14:13Profile









 Re: Ironman

from what i understand we removed almost all our guys from the DMZ to more rear positions, I think this happened about a year or two ago....

and its basically one infantry div we have there, I think its the 2nd, the other personnel are AF, and various Army and Navy support in country.....its a great country too.

ya ever been in a Korean prayer meeting?

Wheeeew! talk about tears of repentance and crying out to the Lord, its intense, there are some some really sold out to Jesus believers there AND in L.A.

want another factoid? guess the country that sends the second most number of missionaries into the world? America is first, and South Korea is a close close second?

and people wonder why South Korea went from being a ravaged wrecked smoking hulk of a nation to being a jewel in a half a century.

God is good.

 2006/10/12 14:37
boomatt
Member



Joined: 2006/3/20
Posts: 235
fredericksburg, Virginia

 Re:

Compton is right, but I think that we should send Madalin Albright in with a signed basketball from Michael Jordan to help scare Kim. OOOPPPSSS.... wait, that already happened.

In all seriousness though, this is a touchy topic. We are kind of darned if we do, darned if we don't situation. However, Voice of the Martyr's came to my church last night and a lady, who was a missionary to China was there. And she told us about all of the problems that the North Korean Christians are having with persecution. Lets just say I left the church in tears for my brothers and sisters in christ that live in North Korea.

I might be a little off topic, but I think thats fine.

Oh, and Bartle, thanks for your expertise on the subject of nuclear weapons, do you know anywhere that I can get a large overview of the nuclear program in general? Very interesting stuff...

God Bless.


_________________
Matt Kroelinger

 2006/10/12 14:50Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy