Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Korea Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: 5/25/09 Reports and Claims of North Korean conducting 2nd nuclear weapon test
Carl D.    5/25/2009 12:41:08 AM
Posted for fair use.... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/world/asia/25nuke.html?ref=global-home May 25, 2009 North Korea Claims to Conduct 2nd Nuclear Test By CHOE SANG-HUN SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea announced on Monday it had successfully conducted its second nuclear test, defying international warnings and drastically raising the stakes in a global effort to get the recalcitrant Communist state to give up its nuclear weapons program. The North’s official news agency, KCNA, said the country had conducted an “underground” nuclear test. The announcement came moments after the South Korean government’s geological sensors had detected an artificially triggered tremor emanating from Kilju, northeast North Korea, said Lee Dong-kwan, spokesman of the office of President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea. The spokesman said “intelligence officials of South Korea and the United States are analyzing the data and closely monitoring the situation.” Word of the nuclear test sent a shudder through Asian financial markets, with Korea’s stock index plunging four percentage points within minutes. North Korea conducted its first nuclear test on Oct. 9, 2006, and it had given some advance notice of its intention to test a device. That initial test also was in the northeast. North Korea recently threatened to conduct a second nuclear test, citing what it called Washington’s “hostilities” against the isolated Communist regime. The test came against a backdrop of heightened tensions between North Korea and the United States, which keeps a heavy military deployment in South Korea. Two American journalists are scheduled to be tried June 4 in North Korea, charged with illegal entry into the North and “hostile acts.” That case in particular has aggravated tensions between Pyongyang and Washington, which were already strained after the North launched a long-range rocket on April 5. After that launching, Washington pressed the United Nations Security Council to tighten sanctions on the North. In retaliation, Pyongyang expelled United Nations nuclear monitors, while threatening to restart a plant that makes weapons-grade plutonium and to conduct a nuclear test. This month, one day after an American diplomat offered new talks on North Korea’s nuclear program, the North said it had become useless to talk further with the United States. “The study of the policy pursued by the Obama administration for the past 100 days since its emergence made it clear that the U.S. hostile policy toward the D.P.R.K. remains unchanged,” the North Korean Foreign Ministry said, using the initials for the country’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In comments carried by KCNA, the ministry said: “There is nothing to be gained by sitting down together with a party that continues to view us with hostility.” The rebuff came as Stephen W. Bosworth, the American special envoy on North Korea, began a trip to Asia with a fresh offer of dialogue. The North’s vow to “bolster its nuclear deterrent” came just hours before Mr. Bosworth was due to arrive in Seoul.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
smitty237       5/27/2009 2:33:26 AM
I had not heard that the Japanese are considering adopting a defense policy that would allow them to launch preemptive strikes against a potential enemy,  but in light of the recent events in North Korea the Japanese willingness to consider this option is understandable.  The Japanese are averse to nuclear weapons for obvious reasons, but they also know that the best way to prevent a nuclear attack is to have a few of your own and let your enemies know that you will use them.  It was nuclear weapons and the concept of mutual assured destruction (MAD) that kept the Cold War from going hot. 
 
Quote    Reply

HIPAR       5/27/2009 12:27:18 PM
New York - The United Nations, 27 May 2009
 
Breaking news -- The Security Council has voted unanimously to establish an embargo on ice cream against North Korea. Reportedly,  the key breakthrough occurred when China was persuaded to support the action.  Details of that negotiation were not immediately available.

When President Obama was informed he was elated, 'I warned them there would be severe consequences if they continued to defy UN resolutions'. 
 
Quote    Reply

Spiky    Good One   5/27/2009 3:25:49 PM
Ice Cream embargo.... LOL, sadly, that's about right.
 
Quote    Reply

Photon       5/27/2009 9:06:29 PM
Funny how lax has the Chinese and the Russians (and, to an extent, also South Korea) have been towards NorKor's nuke program.  I am not sure if China and Russia would like to see someone like Japan using NorKor nuke program as a pretext to become more vocal about Japan becoming a nuke power (or ... more diplomatically, make hints about abandoning the NPT).  Not only that, both South Korea and Taiwan have more than enough industrial-technological capabilities to build their own nukes as well.
 
While the Balkans have been tiresomely portrayed as the 'powder keg', you can say the same about East Asia (a plenty of national myths and disgusting amount of nationalistic chauvinisms fill their sewers, but with much smaller ethnic pools), if any one of them indulges in brinkmanship and goes too far.
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz       5/28/2009 8:47:40 PM
There will be no military action because there is no imminent threat. They are still 5-10 years away from a working warhead small enough to mount on a Taepodong or one of their shorter range BMs.  Maybe in 5 years they could have a nuclear bomb that can be carried by an aircraft, but their only bet for it to be successful would be to put it on their fastest jet, put their best pilot in the cockpit, and send him on a one way run to downtown Seoul.
 
The bigger issue is whether they are going to sell the design to Iran, or if they already have. The Iranian "peaceful" nuclear program is an obvious sham. Why would a country sitting on huge oil and gas reserves spend billions to develop nuclear energy when they have all the cheap fossil fuels they will ever need? All they would need to do is build some refinerys and their "energy problem" would be solved.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz    Anyone Seen This   5/30/2009 11:17:37 PM

Saturday, May 30, 2009


 

NORTH KOREA PUTS WARHEAD ON SHIP!

******* BULLETIN *******


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uIpart1IM-0/SiFypL8jaKI/AAAAAAAAAXE/oJdnHELPDJA/s320/Northkorea.gif" />Washington, DC (TRN) -- The U.S. National Reconnaissance Office which manages United States military spy satellites, issued an alert this morning regarding North Korea.

According to the alert, which was seen by the Turner Radio Network, U.S. spy satellites code named "Misty-2" and "Lacrosse -4" detected a "diffuse energy signature" emanating from an ocean shipping container loaded onto an ocean container ship at the port of Chiongjin in northeastern North Korea.

The energy signature is one that could be expected if a nuclear bomb was inside the shipping container.

That ship has set sail into the Sea of Japan.

The vessel is now under constant satellite surveillance and the U.S. Navy is deciding what to do about it. A military officer with knowledge of the situation told TRN:
"The ship has to be stopped and inspected but we can't send any ships to put a shot across her bow, order it to heave-to and prepare to be boarded. If it is a bomb, the North Korean ship Captain may have orders to detonate it if confronted at sea. That would kill any ship trying to board her.

We can't send in attack aircraft to sink the ship without verifying what's in the shipping container.


A submarine could safely torpedo the ship to sink it before the crew could detonate a bomb - if it's a bomb -- but since North Korean nuclear technology is very unstable a torpedo might cause the bomb to detonate anyway. The sub would survive, but the radiation released by an accidental detonation will cause problems.

Even in the best case scenario, if it is a bomb and the ship is sunk without a bomb detonation, there's the whole issue of having a nuclear bomb at the bottom of the Sea of Japan. The environmental damage could be catastrophic, poisoning the ocean and killing sea life for thousands of square miles.

This is an unimaginable act by North Korea and is going to end badly for everyone.
"
At present, the ship is heading out into the Sea of Japan. Its destination is unknown. If it is heading toward Japan, it can be within range of a major Japanese City within 2 days. If it is not heading out to Japan, it can reach the U.S. west coast in about 14 days.

More details as they become available. Check back
 
Quote    Reply

Spiky       5/31/2009 5:11:01 PM

Just brain storming, how about long range helicopters with seal teams to board the ship. Check the ship out, confirm the status of the radiation situation, and then take appropriate measures or go home.

 
Quote    Reply

Spiky       5/31/2009 10:26:27 PM
Looks like South Korea is beefying up and not taking any chances.
 
From Defenseindustrydaily,
 
"The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced May 26/09 [PDF] South Korea?s official request to buy 46 SM-2 Block IIIA missiles, 35 SM-2 Block IIIB missiles, 3 SM-2 Block IIIB Telemetry Missiles for testing, 84 SM-2 missile containers, and associated test and support equipment, spare and repair parts, training, and other forms of support. The estimated cost is $170 million, and the prime contractor will be Raytheon in Tucson, AZ. The sale would require temporary travel for U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the Republic of Korea for in-country training, as a recurring requirement during the life of the missile systems."
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/31/2009 11:28:58 PM
 
First, Spiky, the purchase of a few more SM-2 SAMs would be completely unrelated to any shipment of a nuclear weapon in a container ship, even if it did happen.
 
No offense, Beazz, but to me that story is goofy on numerous counts.  Among them are:
 
The NRO doesn't issue reports regarding the actual operational details of satellite mission packages.  That's not their job. 
 
I suggest to you that we don't identify specific satellites using names like "Misty-2" and "Lacrosse-4."
 
I'd certainly like to know what technology was used on "Misty-2" and "Lacrosse-4" to detect these "diffuse energy signatures."  What is this, a rejected script from Star Trek?  Yes, there are forms of MASINT that deal with detecting emissions throughout the RF spectrum including things like IR or way up in the gamma and x-ray region, with detecting the presence of specific particles through things like spectroscopy, with physically collecting and analyzing samples of particles, etc.  I'd love to see how this detecting of a warhead in a container was done from satellites!
 
Incidentally, the concensus of internet rumor-mongering seems to be that the LACROSSE program is a series of radar imagery satellites, and that MISTY is a program for optical and/or radar imagery satellites with a special low observable shroud--neither of which has anything to do with detection of some sort of "diffuse energy signature" of a nuclear weahead inside a container.
 
The idea that a torpedo hit to the ship could somehow in itself detonate the nuclear warhead is laughable.  That sounds like something out of a comic book, and by itself is enough for me to discount this supposed military source.  Also, why not worry about that with respect to an attack by aircraft?  Getting hit by 2000lb bombs is no picnic, either.
 
The environmental damage at the bottom of the sea?  While if it did break open there could be some damage, does this author not know that there have been several bombs dropped into the sea over the years, not to mention a few nuclear reactors from subs?  No Godzillas or Smog Monsters have emerged so far.
 
This thing belongs on Snopes.com... if it was more believable.
 
My opinion is, "Nothing to see here."  And while I had no previous experience with Hal Turner, I suggest this is good evidence for putting him in the same cubbyhole as DEBKa.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Spiky    warpig   6/1/2009 12:03:03 AM
 I mentioned the SM-2 purchase with relations to the heightened tensions with North Korea and its belligerent actions to its neighbors. I did not mention the purchase of SM-2s with regards to Beazz's post. Although I can see why my back to back posts could have been interpreted that way, but that was not my intention.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics