North Korea possibly tested hydrogen bomb

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
And not of Iran, Pakistan, India and presumably the rest of the mideast?

Of course it is, did I say otherwise or are you trying to build a strawman and failing?

Ukraine didn't *want* to sign the NPT initially. If I were them at time time, I wouldn't either. But the west offered a gentleman's agreement to help with it's security and dangle the possibility of nato membership.

Actually, it was a lot more complicated than "Ukraine didn't want to sign the NPT." When the Ukraine gained independence, they affirmed three things: not to accept, manufacture, or acquire nuclear weapons. Kravchuk originally had no problem giving up their inherited nuclear arsenal but then he changed his mind. They ended up agreeing to transfer the weapons back to Russia for a number of reasons: it conformed to their "Declaration of State Sovereignty" and other agreements they made in the founding of the Commonwealth of Independent States and because they could leverage their position of voluntarily giving up their nuclear arsenal to look favorably to the West.

It's also important to remember that the Ukraine never had operational control over the weapons in their territory and when they said they would try to establish it, Russia said any such action would be treated as a direct threat to the Federation.

Okay... you go with that.

That's your comeback? Since you're such the sociopolitical savant, how is the Budapest Memorandum and our relationship with the Ukraine similar to our agreements and treaties with two of our closest allies?

And NK sparking a nuke arms race in that region wont?

North Korea doesn't need to spark an "arms race" in the region because everyone knows that both Japan and South Korea could build a nuclear arsenal that would dwarf anything North Korea could muster. The point is that they don't need to because they have us.

**Ustrello**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Considering Japan has, to this day, still advocates a nuclear disarmament policy, I doupt the fact that a country which hires people to act out an existance in a run down town might have test a nuclear weapon, I doupt they care.
I mean, how is NK even gonna deliver it?

Suicide submarine maybe? They have enough of them

**the Signless**

North Korea has tested rockets that would be capable of delivering a warhead in the region. The question is whether they can miniaturise the weapon enough to mount it.

The Chinese news agencies that I follow have been quite detached about this event. They usually feature at least one paragraph of propaganda whenever an international event occurs, but now the most emotion I can find is a quote stating that China does not approve of these tests. I think if NK gets any more aggressive, we may end up cutting diplomatic ties with them or "encouraging" them to form a new government.

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
whembly wrote:
And not of Iran, Pakistan, India and presumably the rest of the mideast?
Of course it is, did I say otherwise or are you trying to build a strawman and failing?

The current administration doing a bang on job with Iran... eh? We ain't doing gak.

Ukraine didn't *want* to sign the NPT initially. If I were them at time time, I wouldn't either. But the west offered a gentleman's agreement to help with it's security and dangle the possibility of nato membership.
Actually, it was a lot more complicated than "Ukraine didn't want to sign the NPT." When the Ukraine gained independence, they affirmed three things: not to accept, manufacture, or acquire nuclear weapons. Kravchuk originally had no problem giving up their inherited nuclear arsenal but then he changed his mind. They ended up agreeing to transfer the weapons back to Russia for a number of reasons: it conformed to their "Declaration of State Sovereignty" and other agreements they made in the founding of the Commonwealth of Independent States and because they could leverage their position of voluntarily giving up their nuclear arsenal to look favorably to the West.

My understanding was that Krav initially didn't want to give 'em up. But, I may have that backwards....

It's also important to remember that the Ukraine never had operational control over the weapons in their territory and when they said they would try to establish it, Russia said any such action would be treated as a direct threat to the Federation.

That was in dispute (meaning Ukraine claimed to have operational control too) and I remember that there were real concerns that Russia would actually go to war to get them back.

It wasn't a clean disentanglement and it was a clusterfark in the making. Luckily cooler heads prevailed.

Okay... you go with that.
That's your comeback? Since you're such the sociopolitical savant, how is the Budapest Memorandum and our relationship with the Ukraine similar to our agreements and treaties with two of our closest allies?

You're moving goal post here. All I'm saying is that Ukraine was given assurances to it's security as long as they signed the Non nuke treaty. It didn't mean gak in the face of Russian's shenanigans.

You keep saying, "the US will be there for SK / Japan". All I'm saying... we said the too with respect to Ukraine.

And NK sparking a nuke arms race in that region wont?
North Korea doesn't need to spark an "arms race" in the region because everyone knows that both Japan and South Korea could build a nuclear arsenal that would dwarf anything North Korea could muster. The point is that they don't need to because they have us.

See my previous statement. Why should SK / Japan believe us?

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
See my previous statement. Why should SK / Japan believe us?

Because they have closer ties with us? Because, unlike Russia, North Korea is fair game for a US retaliatory strike if they try anything? The US is not going to start a nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. I suspect the US is much more willing to remove North Korea from the map if they make any serious attack against South Korea or Japan. Make it a nuclear attack against South Korea or Japan and the only real question is whether someone with sanity in North Korea will manage to launch a coup and declare their unconditional surrender before the ICBMs are launched.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
The current administration doing a bang on job with Iran... eh? We ain't doing gak.

I'll take this as your admission to a strawman argument.

My understanding was that Krav initially didn't want to give 'em up. But, I may have that backwards....

Yes, you have it backwards while also ignoring a lot of the ins and outs that actually occurred during that time.

That was in dispute (meaning Ukraine claimed to have operational control too) and I remember that there were real concerns that Russia would actually go to war to get them back.

It wasn't a clean disentanglement and it was a clusterfark in the making. Luckily cooler heads prevailed.

Ukraine never had operational control because the entire command/control infrastructure was built around Russian-controlled PALs.

You're moving goal post here. All I'm saying is that Ukraine was given assurances to it's security as long as they signed the Non nuke treaty. It didn't mean gak in the face of Russian's shenanigans.

It's not moving goalposts, Whembly. I've asked you like three times how our non-treaty agreement is similar to relationship with two of our closest allies and all you've done is dance around the question. Besides, the Budapest Memorandum didn't really guarantee security for Ukraine.

You keep saying, "the US will be there for SK / Japan". All I'm saying... we said the too with respect to Ukraine.

Are you forgetting the 28,500 soldiers and Marines we have stationed in South Korea? What about the fact that the UN Command is still effectively in charge of the South Korean military? Are you forgetting about the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan that we've had with Japan since 1960? What about our 10,000 Marines in Okinawa or our twenty-three military installations across their country?

But you're right Whembly, we've given neither country any indication that we would help them militarily if North Korea decided to act like a bag of dicks.

See my previous statement. Why should SK / Japan believe us?

Is that a serious question? Because it doesn't look like a serious question. Also, see above.

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
whembly wrote:
The current administration doing a bang on job with Iran... eh? We ain't doing gak.
I'll take this as your admission to a strawman argument.

I'll take that as your admission that you don't want to engage this. You said "Because non-proliferation in that area of the world is a security concern to the United States. " So, whenever I bring anything critical of the Obama administration (ie, Iran, et el.), despite your protestation that you're not an Obama honk, you feel it necessary to defend his policies like a damsel in distress.

My understanding was that Krav initially didn't want to give 'em up. But, I may have that backwards....
Yes, you have it backwards while also ignoring a lot of the ins and outs that actually occurred during that time.

That was in dispute (meaning Ukraine claimed to have operational control too) and I remember that there were real concerns that Russia would actually go to war to get them back.

It wasn't a clean disentanglement and it was a clusterfark in the making. Luckily cooler heads prevailed.

Ukraine never had operational control because the entire command/control infrastructure was built around Russian-controlled PALs.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
I'll take that as your admission that you don't want to engage this. You said "Because non-proliferation in that area of the world is a security concern to the United States. " So, whenever I bring anything critical of the Obama administration (ie, Iran, et el.), despite your protestation that you're not an Obama honk, you feel it necessary to defend his policies like a damsel in distress.

Whembly, what the feth am I "defending" here?

You asked why the United States doesn't want really want Japan or South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenal and the answer was because nuclear proliferation in that part of the world is a security concern to the United States. You responded with, "what about the Middle East," but we aren't talking about the Middle East and at no time did I ever say that the United States doesn't give a gak about nuclear proliferation there. Then you throw the Iran nuclear deal and Obama into it for absolutely no reason other than to build a strawman.

Just stop making gak up.

Right.

Indeed I am.

I haven't danced around it. But we're sure getting offtopic here...

You still haven't answered the question. And it's not really off topic because you seem to think that, for whatever reason, we have no commitment to the defense of South Korea or Japan against North Korea's aggression because we haven't defended Ukraine against Russia aggression (even though we don't have too). I've explained to you that these two things are apples and oranges, you've denied it, and when asked multiple times to expand on your line of thinking, you've refused.

You're right that at this very moment in SK/Japan, we won't be bags of dicks and just leave. But also understand, that it won't be forever.

Well it isn't going to change any time soon, so I don't think you have anything to worry about.

**reds8n**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35255506

China's patience with 'Kim The Fat' wears thin after H-bomb test

"Our Neighbour is a nut, a nut with a weapon."
That's how one irate Chinese social media user responded to North Korea's claims to have detonated a hydrogen bomb, in a location not too far from the border between the two historical allies. The comment is typical of a large swathe of recent Chinese internet postings.
The two countries are so close that this kind of comment isn't always tolerated by censors. At one time it would have been unthinkable for China to allow such open insulting criticism of Pyongyang.
But this comment posted on Sina Weibo, China's equivalent of Twitter, by a user called kklpoo has remained uncensored and received more than 3000 likes.
Relations between the two nations have been strained for some time. And in recent days, matters have reached a new low as China didn't even receive any advance warning of the test.
The hashtags "Fourth Korean Nuclear Explosion" and "Another DPRK Nuclear Test" have been trending with tens of thousands of users employing them to express their exasperation.

Such is the strength of many Chinese people's anger that in both official state media and social media, it seems to be open season for attacks on North Korea and in particular it's young leader Kim Jong-un.
What is also striking is that censors are also allowing people to make some barbed criticisms of China's own government, over the issue.
Many users have accused officials in Beijing of being too indulgent to North Korea and demand tough action.

One cartoon posted on Weibo depicts Kim Jong-un as a character in a video game using the power of a hydrogen bomb cloud to bounce high enough to snatch golden coins. The caption reads: "What does Kim the Fat want this time?"
The sentiment behind it is a popular feeling that North Korea is very good at using its erratic behaviour to milk China for economic assistance.
'Breeding a virus'
Others have been more direct in taking the Chinese government to task. One Weibo user received more than 1000 likes for a post which said: "The heavenly kingdom [China] is still protecting this thug. We should be ashamed that the heavenly kingdom is still protecting this thug, we should be ashamed."
Another Weibo user, Han Zhiguo posted a map showing the proximity of the bomb test site to China. He compared the toleration of North Korea's behaviour to the breeding of a "virus" which could one day do great harm to China.
So why do China's censors seem relatively relaxed about allowing the public to vent their feelings in this way?
Vincent Ni of the BBC Chinese Service says: "Chinese censors seem to be quite tolerant in allowing people to use social media to criticise their government for not doing more to try to tackle North Korea. This is probably because these comments reflect a debate that is going on within the Chinese leadership about how to deal with the young leader in North Korea."
Relations have been on the slide since North Korea's first nuclear bomb test under Kim Jong-un in 2013, which was followed other separate incidents such as killing of Chinese citizens along the border for which North Korea was blamed.