Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Aug 2017, 1:38 pm

Rickyp, please address this:

Doctor Fate wrote:Does anyone believe North Korea won't proliferate nuclear weapons? (Maybe to) Iran? After Iran? (To) Somalia? (To) Boko Haram in Nigeria?


If you don't believe they will spread nukes, then please explain why not.

If you do believe they will, then why is that okay?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Aug 2017, 4:23 pm

They will know the difference Ricky...because Kim Jong Un will not be targeted. When Israel took outIraq's nuclear reactor...Iraq was able to discern that the only intent was our to take Iraq's nuclear program. We have war planning (I think) where in addition to missile strikes we attempt to take out NK's leaders. I think it will be clear if we are doing that or not.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Aug 2017, 6:35 am

fate
If you don't believe they will spread nukes, then please explain why not


Pakistan is a lot easier for terror states to get nuclear technology from... Where do you think North Korea got assistance in making theirs?
What have we done about Pakistani nuclear capabilities?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Aug 2017, 6:55 am

freeman3
They will know the difference Ricky...because Kim Jong Un will not be targeted. When Israel took outIraq's nuclear reactor...Iraq was able to discern that the only intent was our to take Iraq's nuclear program. We have war planning (I think) where in addition to missile strikes we attempt to take out NK's leaders. I think it will be clear if we are doing that or not.


Magical thinking. What evidence do you have that this is realistic?
Consider
Kim Jong Un, like his father Kim Jong Il, appears to view nuclear weapons as the most reliable way to deter foreign aggression. “The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the Gaddafi regime in Libya could not escape the fate of destruction after being deprived of their foundations for nuclear development and giving up nuclear programs of their own accord,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency solemnly observed in 2016.
Given this, Press reasoned, North Korean leaders could interpret any U.S. attack on their nuclear infrastructure as a prelude to invading or overthrowing the government, even if the United States insists otherwise. To force the United States and its regional allies to back off, the North Koreans might carry out conventional attacks on Seoul and U.S. military bases in Japan and South Korea, unleash chemical weapons on those targets, or even make use of whatever nuclear weapons survive the initial U.S. strikes. (

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... cb529e525d
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Aug 2017, 7:07 am

rickyp wrote:fate
If you don't believe they will spread nukes, then please explain why not


Pakistan is a lot easier for terror states to get nuclear technology from... Where do you think North Korea got assistance in making theirs?
What have we done about Pakistani nuclear capabilities?


Non-responsive.

North Korea has no other way to make money. Furthermore, ideologically, they want maximum risk for the US. So, please, answer the question.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Aug 2017, 7:30 am

It's not magical thinking. It's figuring out what a reasonable, rational person would do when he sees that there are attacks against his missile sites but none against him personally. Magical thinking is a is trying to read his mind and assume that he would view any attack on his missiles as part of regime change when there is no actual evidence to support that assertion.

So let's assume faced with missile attacks he weighs his options. China tells him they will go to war to prevent that. He then opts for a suicidal war against the SK and the US?

Look. He is not suicidal. If we hold the line on not allowing ICMS he'll stop...for now. And if he doesn't we'll take out those missiles. If we are weak he'll keep pushing. We all know what would happen if you were president...

It is significant that you have been unable to answer DF's question about how do we stop NK from selling their knowledge regarding ICBMs to the highest bidder if we allow them to master the technology.There are risks in our being strong in not allowing NK to get ICBMs. But there are big risks in us allowing him to get ICBMs. And our credibility in dealing with aggressive regimes will be greatly reduced. You saw what happened when Obama did not do anything about the Red Line in Syria--Russia was greatly emboldened in being aggressive in Syria, Ukraine, and in intervening with the US election.

If the US is weak here...it will have enormous negative consequences. No one wants to have to risk a war but we have something that is worth risking said war--safeguarding our country from ICBM attack.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Aug 2017, 6:55 am

freeman3
It's not magical thinking. It's figuring out what a reasonable, rational person would do when he sees that there are attacks against his missile sites but none against him personally. Magical thinking is a is trying to read his mind and assume that he would view any attack on his missiles as part of regime change when there is no actual evidence to support that assertion

First, you've claimed that the missiles could be taken out, without providing any evidence to counter the evidence I produced that indicates its highly unlikely that 100% of capabilities could be eradicated in a first strike.
Second its magical to think that the risk of him interpreting a strike as anything but an attempt at regime change (namely him) is low. He kills all his potential opponents in NK. Uncles and brothers...
Do you not see the contradiction in you assuming he'll view a "limited" strike rationally but that he's potentially irrational enough to use Nukes as a first strike weapon ....You're as tied up in logic knots as fate usually gets..



freeman3
If we hold the line on not allowing ICMS he'll stop...for now.


He already has ICBMs... And the latest is that they have miniature war heads too.
https://www.wired.com/story/north-korea-miniature-nuke/

freeman3
Look. He is not suicidal

So why would he launch a missile attack on the US then? If he is as rationale as you think he'll know that means his destruction.
The only point in having ICBM nukes is to retaliate if the US strikes first. They are a deterrent, not a weapon of first use.Eespecially not by a nation that could not wipe out its opponent ...and would know retribution would be complete destruction.


freeman3
It is significant that you have been unable to answer DF's question about how do we stop NK from selling their knowledge regarding ICBMs to the highest bidder if we allow them to master the technology.

I think its the nuclear capability that is a problem. Terrorist organizations might want that...
Though again, they have a source already. However I assume this is a case for the intelligence departments of all the nations in the world working against ISIS and Al Queda et al...

Who else wants ICBMs? Where would they put them? North Korea is a mountainous country with about a third of the country providing sites where they can hide military installation... Particularly underground...
And they have a massive military budget compared to their size, and an autocrat who's priority is the military...
Who are the likely customers?
Somalia? Boko Haram? ICBMs? Please be realistic.
Iran has already walked away from nuclear development.
Syria? They have Russia to protect them and nurture any weapons development ...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Aug 2017, 7:33 am

rickyp wrote:I think its the nuclear capability that is a problem. Terrorist organizations might want that...
Though again, they have a source already.


Pakistan? It hasn't happened yet. Well, at least from the government.

However I assume this is a case for the intelligence departments of all the nations in the world working against ISIS and Al Queda et al...

Who else wants ICBMs? Where would they put them?


So, what if it's "only" a suitcase? Or a tactical missile?

And, any sovereign nation might well be willing to buy them. Again, the problem is proliferation. This is Pandora turning the box upside down and making sure there is nothing left inside.

Iran has already walked away from nuclear development.


Rubbish. You might believe that, but it's about as mature a belief as children who think Elsa is real.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 16 Aug 2017, 10:31 am

The important point is that you seem incapable of grasping is that North Korea does not yet have an ICBM armed with a nuclear warhead that could hit the United States. They have to figure out reentry issues and develop targeting systems. The fact that the missile they tested could have hit the US does not take into account payload so we can't do not know if the missile could actually hit the US. An article on CNN notes with regard to missile tested late last month that "if the missile were fired on a flatter, standard trajectory, it would have major US cities such as Los Angeles, Denver and Chicago well within its range..." "However, early analysis of Friday's test cannot determine how heavy a payload the missile was carrying in its warhead... The heavier the payload, the shorter the range."

Moreover a US official noted that "while North Korea can currently get a missile 'off the ground' a lot of undetermined variables remain about guidance, re-entry and the ability to hit a specific target."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html


So since your whole argument is based on the idea that North Korea can hit us with a nuclear-armed ICBM--and you are wrong about that--then your argument falls apart. Because obviously it makes a huge difference in what policies to undertake based on whether North Korea can hit us right now.

But NK will develop the capability if we allow them to keep testing. So we have a window of time to stop them.

It may be difficult to get all of the missiles at one time ...I assume that we will keep trying until we get them all.

The responsibility for a war starting is on Kim. We should not allow him to develop an ICBM. Period. We're not interested in regime change. Period. If he ignores those facts..then there is nothing we can do but use a military option. Hopefullly, he is rational enough to realize that. I suspect he is...but he will keep probing for weakness on our part.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 Aug 2017, 10:10 am

Fate
Pakistan? It hasn't happened yet. Well, at least from the government


Iraq's nuclear program came from Pakistan. The one the Israelis bombed out of existence.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... _page=true

Fate
And, any sovereign nation might well be willing to buy them. Again, the problem is proliferation. This is Pandora turning the box upside down and making sure there is nothing left inside.

This is true. Its also true that it isn't that difficult a technology... If you take the time to read the link above, even by 2006 nuclear weapons technology was very easily acquired..
North Korea wouldn't be offering anything that wouldn't be available in many other places.

freeman3
The important point is that you seem incapable of grasping is that North Korea does not yet have an ICBM armed with a nuclear warhead that could hit the United States

They do actually ...

The CIA report comes after other US intelligence assessments said North Korea can miniaturize nuclear warheads to fit them on ballistic missiles, meaning that US now maintains that Kim Jong-un has fully developed the capability to strike the US mainland.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cia-admi ... ies-2017-8

freeman3
We should not allow him to develop an ICBM. Period.

But you can't stop him...(Since they already have them according to the CIA)
And you can't get them to stop fielding more ... Unless either they respond to Chinese and UN sanctions or positive offers from the US.
Or you are willing to go to war, and even Steven Bannon says that won't happen.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/steve-banno ... -1.3549215
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Aug 2017, 11:33 am

The actual source that you used to claim that North Korea was a lot more circumspect as to whether NK can actually hit the United States. There are so many ifs. Is the assessment that they can put miniaturized nukes on a missile accurate? Can their reentry vehicle survive (the one they tested did not survive; just because the CIA attributes that to a higher trajectory does not mean they are right). Does their missile actually have the range estimated for it? Do they have guidance systems that can get the missile anywhere near the United States?

Given that they are pretty new at doing this...the answer is almost certainly no as to whether they can hit us yet, but you do it down as likely. They shoot a missile straight up for a few hundred miles that burns up and now they can send one armed with a nuke 10,000 miles? It's not reasonable to think that they can master the technology that quickly. Clearly, if we allow them to keep testing...they will get better.

With regard to targeting: "In mid-July, Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. Paul Selva also said the "North Koreans have yet to demonstrate the capacity to do the guidance and control that would be required" to strike the United States "with any degree of accuracy or reasonable confidence of success."

And there is no evidence that they have obtained the necesssry guidance and control.

http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/us-intel ... nental-us/


I am not listening to Steve Bannon...on anything.

I think that DF has made a great point on nuclear proliferation. Allowing a poor country like North Korea to master nuclear technology to the extent that any country on earth could obtain the ability to strike the US with ICBM nuclear weapons is very dangerous. I highly doubt that they would refrain from trying to cash in on it. That's scary stuff. MADD has only worked because nukes are in a few hands. It won't work if there are 30-40 countries with ICBMs. Something will happen.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Aug 2017, 10:16 am

rickyp wrote:This is true. Its also true that it isn't that difficult a technology... If you take the time to read the link above, even by 2006 nuclear weapons technology was very easily acquired..
North Korea wouldn't be offering anything that wouldn't be available in many other places.


If that were true, nukes would be everywhere. They aren't.

NK has nothing else to offer, so they have nothing to lose by proliferating. Other nations do.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Aug 2017, 10:47 am

fate
NK has nothing else to offer, so they have nothing to lose by proliferating. Other nations do.


Rickyp
Really? Nothing to lose?
"North Korea understands if they do give nuclear weapons, it could backfire on them," said Lamrani. "If a warhead explodes, through nuclear forensics and isotope analysts, you can definitely trace it back to North Korea."
At that point, North Korea would go from being an adversarial state that developed nuclear weapons as a means of regime security to a state that has enabled and abetted nuclear terrorism or proliferation.
This would change the calculus of how the world deals with North Korea, and make a direct attack much more likely.
Right now, North Korea has achieved regime security with long-range nuclear arms. If they sold those arms to someone else, they would effectively risk it all.


http://www.businessinsider.com/north-ko ... ons-2017-7
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Aug 2017, 11:22 am

rickyp wrote:fate
NK has nothing else to offer, so they have nothing to lose by proliferating. Other nations do.


Rickyp
Really? Nothing to lose?
"North Korea understands if they do give nuclear weapons, it could backfire on them," said Lamrani. "If a warhead explodes, through nuclear forensics and isotope analysts, you can definitely trace it back to North Korea."
At that point, North Korea would go from being an adversarial state that developed nuclear weapons as a means of regime security to a state that has enabled and abetted nuclear terrorism or proliferation.
This would change the calculus of how the world deals with North Korea, and make a direct attack much more likely.
Right now, North Korea has achieved regime security with long-range nuclear arms. If they sold those arms to someone else, they would effectively risk it all.


http://www.businessinsider.com/north-ko ... ons-2017-7


I suppose it depends on who is drawing the red line, eh?

NK will do it. Mark it.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Sep 2017, 9:31 am

This article clearly explains that North Korea almost certainly does not have the capability to hit theme US with an ICBM. Yet.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reute ... SKCN1BE0PT