DPRK plans 3rd nuclear test

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

North Korea says it is proceeding with plans for a third nuclear test.
In a statement carried by KCNA news agency, the country's top military body said the "high-level nuclear test" and more long-range rocket launches were aimed at its "arch-enemy", the US.
The statement gave no time-frame for the test. North Korea has conducted two nuclear tests, in 2006 and 2009.
The move comes two days after a UN Security Council resolution condemned Pyongyang's recent rocket launch.
The Security Council also expanded sanctions against the isolated communist country following its December launch, which was seen by the US and North Korea's neighbours as a banned test of long-range missile technology.
North Korea said the rocket was solely aimed at putting a satellite into space for peaceful purposes.
The statement, which came from North Korea's National Defence Commission, hit out at the resolution as "illegal", before pledging a response.
"We do not hide that the various satellites and long-range rockets we will continue to launch, as well as the high-level nuclear test we will proceed with, are aimed at our arch-enemy, the United States," KCNA quoted it as saying.
"Settling accounts with the US needs to be done with force, not with words," it added.

(More here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21175466)

[Futility Personified]

If this is domestic posturing, it's stupid.
If this is real, it's stupid.
It just seems so bizarre that I kinda wonder if it's a press plant, but... truth can be stranger than fiction sometimes.

[Thelonious]

I am constantly amazed how North Korea is constantly condemned about it's nuclear program, yet when the United States does a nuclear test most of the world is silent. Even more puzzling is the fact that the United States is the only country that ever attacked another with nuclear weapons. Besides Iran, the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Survivors Council in Japan condemned the test.


http://www.thenewstribe.com/2012/12/08/us-conduct-subcritical-nuclear-tests-condemned-by-iran-japan/

[Prof. Oblivion]

I am constantly amazed how North Korea is constantly condemned about it's nuclear program, yet when the United States does a nuclear test most of the world is silent. Even more puzzling is the fact that the United States is the only country that ever attacked another with nuclear weapons. Besides Iran, the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Survivors Council in Japan condemned the test.


http://www.thenewstribe.com/2012/12/08/us-conduct-subcritical-nuclear-tests-condemned-by-iran-japan/

When was the last time the US performed a nuclear detonation test?

[GerrardWinstanley]

I kind of freaked out when I saw this on the news last night, because it made me feel like a character in the first 30 minutes of Threads. I don't think I ever want to feel that way again.

[Winkers Fons]

When was the last time the US performed a nuclear detonation test?

The last US detonations occurred in 1992.


I doubt anything will come of this. Though I do suppose something has to change in North Korea eventually whether it be invasion or gradual liberalization.

[B5C]

I am constantly amazed how North Korea is constantly condemned about it's nuclear program, yet when the United States does a nuclear test most of the world is silent. Even more puzzling is the fact that the United States is the only country that ever attacked another with nuclear weapons. Besides Iran, the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Survivors Council in Japan condemned the test.


The last nuclear test done by the United States was over twenty years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Julin

As for Japan, it was horrible, but it was WWII. I can understand why America back in the day would use nukes. It was either nuke two cities to make Japan surrender or launch an land invasion. I hate numbers game, but those two nukes probably saved more Japanese, American, Aussie, Chinese, and Russian lives if we continued on with the war and launch Operation Downfall. Also it was cold war politics. Stalin just launch a surprised invasion of Manchuria by breaking Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact. The atomic weapons were also used to break Japanese early before they surrender to the Soviets and the Soviets take control of Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties

I just hope the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will remain the only atomic bombings in human history.


I oppose weapons that can destroy the Earth. I can understand why nations like Iran and North Korea would want nukes. Nukes are a invasion deterrent. I don't mind North Korea having nukes to defend it's nation from another nuclear power. I don't like North Korea's process of achieving a nuke over the lives of it's people. Making nukes is very expensive for a nation. It's really bad when a nation like North Korea who is unable to feed it self builds a nuke over the suffering of the people.

I don't support or condone Iran's reasoning for getting a nuke if it getting one. It's being threatened by the United States and Israel, so as an nation-state it has a right to defend it self.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I kind of freaked out when I saw this on the news last night, because it made me feel like a character in the first 30 minutes of Threads. I don't think I ever want to feel that way again.

Why (and how) would NK target the UK with nuclear weapons?

[B5C]

Why (and how) would NK target the UK with nuclear weapons?

Wait? You didn't see Team America? ;) :lol:

[LeonJWilliams]

Yeah this is pretty scary stuff, my concern is that the US will use this threat to their advantage to legitimise at attack on the DPRK with UN backing and China staying neutral. Sure it could pan out in a variety of ways but one thing is for sure, if this does lead to war, millions of civilians could be killed again.
Tensions high on Korean peninsula (http://acatheunderground.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/daily-headline-250113/)

[B5C]

Yeah this is pretty scary stuff, my concern is that the US will use this threat to their advantage to legitimise at attack on the DPRK with UN backing and China staying neutral. Sure it could pan out in a variety of ways but one thing is for sure, if this does lead to war, millions of civilians could be killed again.
Tensions high on Korean peninsula (http://acatheunderground.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/daily-headline-250113/)

I think you should not worry about it too much. The North Koreans & USA have been at "state of war" for 60 years. I don't expect North would want to have an attack by the United States nor United States want to see Soul burned. Also the North knows it can't win a way against the US and it's allies.

A fire fight is still possible, but very very unlikely. You should be more worried about Iran if the US & Israel do attack the nation.

[GerrardWinstanley]

Why (and how) would NK target the UK with nuclear weapons?That's not what I meant. Just panicked for a moment about NK doing something stupid and provoking a nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia/China, especially with relations deteriorating at the moment.

[LeonJWilliams]

hmm unlike the last Korean War I can't see Russia getting involved this time. The Stalin era on the early 50's is over and I don't see Russia having the appetite for a conflict with the US, especially over DPRK.

I could be wrong though.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

North Korea has issued another warning, a day after announcing plans for a third nuclear test.
In a statement, Pyongyang pledged "physical counter-measures" against South Korea if it participated in the UN sanctions regime.
The threat came 24 hours after North Korea said it would proceed with a "high-level" nuclear test in a move aimed at "arch-enemy" the US.
The White House condemned the move, labelling it "needlessly provocative".

(More at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21191264)

[Art Vandelay]

As for Japan, it was horrible, but it was WWII. I can understand why America back in the day would use nukes. It was either nuke two cities to make Japan surrender or launch an land invasion. I hate numbers game, but those two nukes probably saved more Japanese, American, Aussie, Chinese, and Russian lives if we continued on with the war and launch Operation Downfall. Also it was cold war politics. Stalin just launch a surprised invasion of Manchuria by breaking Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact. The atomic weapons were also used to break Japanese early before they surrender to the Soviets and the Soviets take control of Japan.

This simply isn't supported by historical fact. The war was on verge of ending and Japan was on the verge of surrendering at the times the bombs were dropped; regardless an attack that barbaric upon a civilian population is monstrous. They dropped that bomb as a warning to the USSR.

[Thelonious]

The United States claims that it was a test and not a detonation, but they do not allow independent inspectors at their sites to verify this. So we have to take the government's word that there was no detonation. I do not believe for one second that the United States has not performed a detonation since 1992.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/subcritical-underground-us-nuclear-bomb-explosion-test/5314635

[Hexen]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/subcritical-underground-us-nuclear-bomb-explosion-test/5314635

Well the global research is a conspiracy site which I don't think I should take it as a reliable source.


I could be wrong though.

Although I highly doubt that Russia is going to protect NK since I heard China is it's only ally left which it's relations could easily be damaged.

[Thelonious]

Well the global research is a conspiracy site which I don't think I should take it as a reliable source.


OK....

But are you willing to take the United States government's word that it does not detonate? I do not know about you but I would need some independent verification when it comes to the United States and nuclear weapons and the truth. The website I referenced simply stated that the United States government does not allow inspectors at the nuclear test site, so there is no way to determine if the government is telling the truth. I don't see the "conspiracy" in that claim.

[B5C]

This simply isn't supported by historical fact. The war was on verge of ending and Japan was on the verge of surrendering at the times the bombs were dropped; regardless an attack that barbaric upon a civilian population is monstrous. They dropped that bomb as a warning to the USSR.


I still think that is still debatable. There were many in the Imperial High Command who opposed any surrender. Remember, some Japanese Generals did try to create a coup on the eve of surrender from preventing from happening. The nukes was the straw that broke the camel's back. Also look at the cost of lives during the battle for the islands heading to Japan. The US Marines almost had to kill every Japanese soldier because they refused to surrender until nearly 90% of the defenders were destroyed.

I agree it was an warning to the USSR as well. I believe it was a combinations of ending the war quickly with less deaths and possible Soviet invasion of Japan lead to the use of atomic weapons.

9mm, I am not sure your history of warfare and understand the moral complications of warfare. War is hell and desperate nations would do desperate things to end it. WWII was Total War and ideals of "Just War" was killed off. Every side targeted civilians and military. For years before we used nukes. We have been attacking Japanese & German cities with firebombing that has the same destruction power of nukes. Firebombing is basically a moral equivalent of nukes. They were all horrible back then. During the late stages of the war. We had to use submission to end the war. What if some how Stalin beat the United States in making nukes. Do you think Stalin would have used Nukes on Berlin or Tokyo?

I highly recommend taking the time to watch "The Fog of War" for you to understand moral complications of war. You & I don't have to sympathize for the actions of the past, but we can understand of why they had to do it.

A1-bHRq4eV8

[Prof. Oblivion]

OK....

But are you willing to take the United States government's word that it does not detonate? I do not know about you but I would need some independent verification when it comes to the United States and nuclear weapons and the truth. The website I referenced simply stated that the United States government does not allow inspectors at the nuclear test site, so there is no way to determine if the government is telling the truth. I don't see the "conspiracy" in that claim.

First, this isn't an argument.

Second, nuclear detonations aren't really something that you can conceal. They are easily observable by pretty much any country. They would also show up with a specific signature on seismograph records.


I still think that is still debatable. There were many in the Imperial High Command who opposed any surrender. Remember, some Japanese Generals did try to create a coup on the eve of surrender from preventing from happening. The nukes was the straw that broke the camel's back. Also look at the cost of lives during the battle for the islands heading to Japan. The US Marines almost had to kill every Japanese soldier because they refused to surrender until nearly 90% of the defenders were destroyed.

I agree it was an warning to the USSR as well. I believe it was a combinations of ending the war quickly with less deaths and possible Soviet invasion of Japan lead to the use of atomic weapons.

9mm, I am not sure your history of warfare and understand the moral complications of warfare. War is hell and desperate nations would do desperate things to end it. WWII was Total War and ideals of "Just War" was killed off. Every side targeted civilians and military. For years before we used nukes. We have been attacking Japanese & German cities with firebombing that has the same destruction power of nukes. Firebombing is basically a moral equivalent of nukes. They were all horrible back then. During the late stages of the war. We had to use submission to end the war. What if some how Stalin beat the United States in making nukes. Do you think Stalin would have used Nukes on Berlin or Tokyo?

I highly recommend taking the time to watch "The Fog of War" for you to understand moral complications of war. You & I don't have to sympathize for the actions of the past, but we can understand of why they had to do it.

A1-bHRq4eV8


Actually the "straw" was not the nukes but rather the swift incursions by the Soviet forces on the Japanese army in occupied Manchuria. These advances decimated the Japanese army while at the same time closing the door on negotiations for conditional surrender, something the Japanese were completely relying on. When the Soviets declared war on Japan, it was over.

The arguments supporting the nukings by claiming that it "would have been worse" and that they "would not have" surrendered are completely and 100% speculation. In other words, this is one rare time where ideological arguments cannot be rationalized with the evidence, as there simply is none to even twist to support it. In fact the MAGIC cables, which are now declassified, show that this is not true. A cursory examination of the primary materials shows this.

[B5C]

The arguments supporting the nukings by claiming that it "would have been worse" and that they "would not have" surrendered are completely and 100% speculation. In other words, this is one rare time where ideological arguments cannot be rationalized with the evidence, as there simply is none to even twist to support it. In fact the MAGIC cables, which are now declassified, show that this is not true. A cursory examination of the primary materials shows this.

Well here are the cables reports. It doesn't full answer everything, but it looks like trying to prevent the Soviets and avoiding Operation Downfall were the main motives.

The National Archives De-Classifed reports of the atomic attacks and Japanese Surrender.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_N agasaki

[feeLtheLove]

And what right does the U.S. have to condemn this...?

[B5C]

And what right does the U.S. have to condemn this...?

None. It's mainly for show.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I bet 15 usd that it'll make it 30 meters in the air, no higher, any takers?

[Geiseric]

I still think that is still debatable. There were many in the Imperial High Command who opposed any surrender. Remember, some Japanese Generals did try to create a coup on the eve of surrender from preventing from happening. The nukes was the straw that broke the camel's back. Also look at the cost of lives during the battle for the islands heading to Japan. The US Marines almost had to kill every Japanese soldier because they refused to surrender until nearly 90% of the defenders were destroyed.

I agree it was an warning to the USSR as well. I believe it was a combinations of ending the war quickly with less deaths and possible Soviet invasion of Japan lead to the use of atomic weapons.

9mm, I am not sure your history of warfare and understand the moral complications of warfare. War is hell and desperate nations would do desperate things to end it. WWII was Total War and ideals of "Just War" was killed off. Every side targeted civilians and military. For years before we used nukes. We have been attacking Japanese & German cities with firebombing that has the same destruction power of nukes. Firebombing is basically a moral equivalent of nukes. They were all horrible back then. During the late stages of the war. We had to use submission to end the war. What if some how Stalin beat the United States in making nukes. Do you think Stalin would have used Nukes on Berlin or Tokyo?

I highly recommend taking the time to watch "The Fog of War" for you to understand moral complications of war. You & I don't have to sympathize for the actions of the past, but we can understand of why they had to do it.

A1-bHRq4eV8

Way to act like you're some kind of authority by watching MacNamara (who regretted the nukes and firebombings, if you actually watched that movie) how about we tell Russia to nuke your town, and then they use the excuse "if we wanted to invade the U.S. we would of lost a bunch of soldiers." Because that's basically what happened. You can't just say that was okay, the entire war was an imperialist one, so obviously the nukes were for no good.

[B5C]

Way to act like you're some kind of authority by watching MacNamara (who regretted the nukes and firebombings, if you actually watched that movie) how about we tell Russia to nuke your town, and then they use the excuse "if we wanted to invade the U.S. we would of lost a bunch of soldiers." Because that's basically what happened. You can't just say that was okay, the entire war was an imperialist one, so obviously the nukes were for no good.

No, my knowledge is from taking US history, Philosophy, Political Theory, and International Relations classes in high school and college. Plus being an Army brat for most of my life traveling the planet. MacNamara was an example of the mindset of the time. I never said it was ok, but understandable for the use. For example: I understand why Usama Bin Laden thought it was a good idea to slam passenger airplanes into the WTC, Pentagon, and targeted White House. It doesn't make me say it was ok. There is a difference between understand and accepting the event than just saying it was ok.

Also we are both completely armcharing the events. We can discuss all day if we want it was morality and understanding for the use of dead corpses as ammo for Mongol or Hun siege weapons. All we can do now is to try to prevent this from happening ever again.

[Geiseric]

Well first of all, you can't just say "I understand their mindset, so it's acceptable," this has nothing to do with morality, it's as abominable as the use of smallpox to wipe out indian populations.

It also wasn't inderstandable at all, the entire japanese economy was, well, ashes by this point, the war was nearly over and the U.S. wanted to tell the fSU to stay OUT of south east asia, which is what happened.

[billydan225]

North Korea should worry more about feeding their citizens than nuclear tests

[China studen]

If this is domestic posturing, it's stupid.
If this is real, it's stupid.
It just seems so bizarre that I kinda wonder if it's a press plant, but... truth can be stranger than fiction sometimes.

You are slaves of imperialism.Stupid slaves.

Every time you slander the Korea, but can not stop the pace of progress in Korea. Korea has successfully launched several satellites. Also successfully carried out two nuclear tests.

[Art Vandelay]

You are slaves of imperialism.Stupid slaves.

Every time you slander the Korea, but can not stop the pace of progress in Korea. Korea has successfully launched several satellites. Also successfully carried out two nuclear tests.

Do you actually subscribe to Juche?

[Geiseric]

North Korea should worry more about feeding their citizens than nuclear tests

Oh but the catch about Socialism in One Country is that you need a constant military so imperialist countries can't invade, which should, for somebody with common political sense, establish that theory as invalid.

[Prof. Oblivion]

Well here are the cables reports. It doesn't full answer everything, but it looks like trying to prevent the Soviets and avoiding Operation Downfall were the main motives.

The National Archives De-Classifed reports of the atomic attacks and Japanese Surrender.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_N agasaki

There are more extensive primary documents available. Unfortunately I am really busy for the next few weeks but if interested I can see what I can dig up. The primary sources clearly and unquestionably show that the Japanese were leaning on the Soviets for setting up negotiations for terms of surrender, and had no other alternatives.

The Soviets were simply stalling with the Japanese so that they could transfer their troops to the east following the end of the war in Europe. The Soviets then declared war on Japan, destroying any last hope of a conditional surrender. They completely annihilated the Kwangtung Army in Manchuria/Sakhalin, effectively destroying the Japanese army. The only reason the Soviets had to stop was because they were advancing so quickly their supply lines couldn't keep up.

[Lensky]

North Korea should worry more about feeding their citizens than nuclear tests

The "empty cities" of 2005-2010 were mobilizations of urban workers into agriculture, what else could be done in times of famine? The Korean war was never been declared as over, America has been purposefully withholding food with nuclear sanctions as North Korea scrambles to arm itself against foreign intervention.

[LeonJWilliams]

DPRK to bomb America (http://acatheunderground.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/dprk-to-bomb-america/) is an interesting and enlightening article.

[Young12Messiah73]

wat
Im talking about definite 3rd world war where Indigo people will play major role against Illuminati.

[China studen]

Do you actually subscribe to Juche?


You should ask "Pragmatic-Punk": Do you really believe the stigma of imperialist to Korea?

[Leftsolidarity]

North Korea should worry more about feeding their citizens than nuclear tests

And people in the states should be more worried about pressuring "our" imperialist state to keep their hands off the DPRK instead of saying what the DPRK should or should not be worried about.

[Yazman]

MODERATOR ACTION:

I don't want to see any more one-line or one-word posts in this thread. Don't quote somebody's post and then just say "wat" or "hilarious". This isn't Chit Chat. Next person who does it, gets infracted.

Young12Messiah73: I'm not sure if you're trying to troll with this stuff about freemasons and indigo children, so I'm just going to tell you now to be serious and not do that again. Otherwise I'll infract you.

This post constitutes a public warning, as well as a warning to Young12Messiah73 specifically.