Running North Korea freakout thread

[Pete]

I agree with Heyabbott and think this is one rare place where Trump's unpredictability — and his Twitter tantrums — probably play in the country's favor.

I certainly hope this is how it plays out. This is why I don't have the stomach to be a serious gambler.

 

[User 149557]

I certainly hope this is how it plays out. This is why I don't have the stomach to be a serious gambler.

I think Donald Trump is an idiot. I think he's dangerous. I think he might be on the road to insanity. But I'd never, ever want to be sitting at a table with him.

This is as close to grudging respect he'll ever get from me.

 

[Pete]

I think Donald Trump is an idiot. I think he's dangerous. I think he might be on the road to insanity. But I'd never, ever want to be sitting at a table with him.

This is as close to grudging respect he'll ever get from me.

That gave me a good laugh, imagining Trump as that guy at the blackjack table who drives everyone crazy by going "against the book."

"That was supposed to be MY face card, a--hole!"

 

[QYFW]

I think Donald Trump is an idiot. I think he's dangerous. I think he might be on the road to insanity. But I'd never, ever want to be sitting at a table with him.

This is as close to grudging respect he'll ever get from me.

Trump as Ali and North Korea as Liston?

 

[BTExpress]

I've always wondered why a country that, say, decides on Jan. 1 "we want nukes" can't have 1,000 of them by June.

It's 2018, not 1948.

 

[heyabbott]

Trump will do what Eisenhower failed to do: Make Friends with the Nazis and end the KoreanWar.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I've always wondered why a country that, say, decides on Jan. 1 "we want nukes" can't have 1,000 of them by June.

It's 2018, not 1948.

Because we can stop them.

 

[User 11148]

I've always wondered why a country that, say, decides on Jan. 1 "we want nukes" can't have 1,000 of them by June.

It's 2018, not 1948.

That ****'s waaaaaaaaay harder than you think.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

North Korea's conventional military has been enough to deter any attack from the US for 65 years. The nukes don't change that equation all that much unless we get irrational. Pakistan and India fought like four conventional wars, but since each got nukes, they have kept a most uneasy peace (albeit with plenty of provocations by both countries).

 

[BTExpress]

Because we can stop them.

That wasn't my question. See DQ's response.

That ****'s waaaaaaaaay harder than you think.

Obviously. It's the "what are the hardest parts" that I'm curious about. The U.S. built 16,216 of them between 1955-60, so building 1,000 in 6 months is doable, even with Howdy Doody-era technology.

 

[User 11148]

Obviously. It's the "what are the hardest parts" that I'm curious about. The U.S. built 16,216 of them between 1955-60, so building 1,000 in 6 months is doable, even with Howdy Doody-era technology.

From scratch? Are you kidding me?

When the U.S. started building nuclear weapons, output of the fissile material was ridiculously slow (as in, measured in grams per week). And that was after years of ramping-up. By 1955, all of that infrastructure was already in place. And we're not even considering the capability to engineer/manufacture all the other ****.

There's no way a non-nuclear power -- especially a "rogue" country with few/no real allies (a la DPRK) -- could become one in that short a timeframe. No way.

 

[Dick Whitman]

That wasn't my question. See DQ's response.

Got it. I thought you were talking geopolitically.

 

[BTExpress]

I just don't know when "from scratch" begins with some of these places.

This is from 1994. Stuff's been on their minds (if not in their laboratories) a long time.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

We have a timeline on nuke development from Iran's program. The building and maintenance of the centrifuges to create fissionable materials is a slow process. But it is true that from the DPRK's perspective, they don't need a 1000 nukes for deterrence. Four or five (one would get through) capable of hitting the US mainland would do.

 

[Neutral Corner]

"We're not going to allow North Korea to become a nuclear power."

Bull****. They are now, and the sooner we get our heads wrapped around that the better. We can take a shot at decapitating the regime, or we can attempt to disable their nuclear manufacturing, missile launching and warhead storage, but there is absolutely zero assurance that we'd be successful at getting it all. NK has know that was possible for years and has built hardened facilities and played shell games with camouflage. We can hit out best bets - but I remember how we were going to take out Saddam Hussein at the start of the Gulf War. If any are left after we have made that kind of strike, they'll be trying very hard to find a way to strike back, and we cannot afford any mistakes or oversight if they do. And sometimes, **** happens.

We're better off to realize that they have them but don't really want to use them any more than anyone else who has them does. They are a small country, and if they shoot first they can be functionally annihilated very quickly. They know the balance of power better than we do - but they also understand the balance of terror.

Ask people in Hawaii if they think we should take a crack at NK and see what answers you get.

 

[User 11148]

I just don't know when "from scratch" begins with some of these places.

This is from 1994. Stuff's been on their minds (if not in their laboratories) a long time.

It is a ridiculously long slog, but if you're interested I suggest Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb ... figuring out how to make the damn thing was in some ways the least of their troubles.

To put in context just how difficult manufacturing the fissile content is ... A quick swipe at The Google suggests Israel's been making plutonium at its Dimona reactor since 1963. In 2010, it was estimated that cumulative production from that reactor was in the neighborhood of 800 kg. That's about 20 kg a year, enough for 5 to 10 implosion weapons. So a year from starting, you could have 5 to 10 weapons. But that's ridiculous, because to have those 5 to 10 weapons, A) you've got to have everything else lined up; and B) you have to start producing plutonium at your peak rate on day one.

I don't doubt the DPRK has something, and as @Michael_ Gee notes something is probably enough for its purposes. But there's no way in hell it's got some stockpile of dozens (or more). No way.

 

[Neutral Corner]

All they really need is a couple, and functionally, they could get away with not even having one since the tests which they have conducted are convincing evidence that they do have them. I can't see that though - I think they've get at least a few real weapons built and stored, and are working to make better ones.

 

[QYFW]

Can't they just order a few from Amazon?

 

[Songbird]

Can't they just order a few from Amazon?

Alibaba. It's closer.

 

[Shropshire Slasher]

Wag The Dog!