North Korea Strike

admin: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=10&lat=37.5712144&lng=126.9775398&hob_opt=1&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=2207&zm=15

10kt North Korean nuclear bomb simulated over Seoul.

Ground zero and the blast radius take out downtown Seoul. The radiation and heat reach every major district of the city.

@admin

Stop deflecting. Provide a source.

Crow: Great. Map proves it would take out about 5ish blocks, where considerably less than that number of people live. Now prove they have a 10kt bomb.

admin: Great. Map proves it would take out about 5ish blocks, where considerably less than that number of people live

It was one bomb. Radioactive fallout can reach hundreds of miles, stays stagnant for a long period of time, and can actually be blown by wind currents.

The casualties come to about 75,000 with one bomb, not including the radioactive fallout which is capable of killing millions.

The bomb is speculated to be 7-10kt depending on your source. The exact number is HIGHLY irrelevant, because we are still talking about killing ridicolous loads of people.

Your argument sucks, because you are trying to play with semantics when it comes to mass murder and permanent environmental damage. You are also ignoring the argument that North Korea's nuclear program is expanding overtime, which has been mentioned several times.

I would appreciate it if you provided your sources now.

@admin

And North Korea's non-nuclear tactical ballistic missiles are capable of destroying any city in South Korea, while its artillery armaments can destroy all standing property in Seoul in about a week.

Crow: Speculation means nothing, and none of what you just said was sourced either.

Here is a brief primer on their claimed tests: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-17823706
Note none of the tests involved a check on whether they could deliver a bomb to the US. Note also that they only claim 4 tests which actually detonated a nuclear weapon. Of the 4, the one in Jan of this year clearly was not an H-bomb as they claimed - that seismograph is not an H-bomb pattern and it isn't big enough anyway to have reached fusion. And the first one also had a yield far, far less than would otherwise have been expected given the amount of material used. Both are noted briefly in the article, though obviously there's more to the analysis of both.

The 2016 blast was their biggest ever and the top seismologists in the world say it wasn't bigger than 7 kilotons of explosive: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-confusion-the-data-suggest-north-korea-s-h-bomb-isn-t/

N Korea themselves claimed it was 9 kilotons. By contrast Little Boy was 15 kilotons. These are the only tests N Korea has done of nuclear weapons, and I personally believe the results can't be trusted. The first test looks like a reliable effort, the second looks like it was 90% staged to come just before the death of their former leader, and the most recent 2 are little more advanced than the second. Hence why none of the blasts generated any radioactivity that could be measured.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699
They claim to be testing miniaturization, which is required to make a warhead. They have the actual missiles down pat, the problem is that their "nuclear bombs" are probably bigger than your house. IF they are - and it sounds more like an h-bomb claim than a real one - then clearly those tests are going poorly. All tests continue to be done in highly controlled conditions, deep underground. Only one reason to test there - because above ground tests aren't working.

The whole thing is a bluff. N Korea wants to intimidate people. Not attack them.

A brief list of DMZ misfires that have not caused a war are here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea

Note that this generally only lists the most notable ones ie where somebody died or something major happened. People accidentally fire flares etc etc all the time over there. It's almost embarrassing for both sides.

admin: The whole thing is a bluff. N Korea wants to intimidate people. Not attack them.

You are playing the cards on a lot of lives, using nothing more than baseless psychology.

Do you recognize that North Korea's nuclear program is growing?

Do you acknowledge that simply passing artillery fire and ballistic missiles would cause massive destruction?

Do you acknowledge that North Korea's current nuclear arsenal can kill a lot of people?

Answer all these questions. These questions are important.

Crow: No they're not. You're asking them to cover for the fact that you didn't expect me to have researched this previously.

It grew to 2004, scaled back around 05-12, and the last few years has grown again a bit. They're only working off one reactor and their scientific understanding isn't the greatest. Long term, it's nothing.

Depends on where those missiles were fired. Neither side will fire intentionally fire missiles at cities.

Currently it couldn't kill anyone. They can't launch it, and even if they could huddle together lots of people in one of the tunnels they use for the tests, it's not like these are objectively big blasts. Heck they're not that much bigger than the mining blasts used to create those tunnels in the first place. And they're not small because they're tactical bombs, they're small because they're super inefficient. Like unbelievably so.

admin: No they're not. You're asking them to cover for the fact that you didn't expect me to have researched this previously.

So the progressively larger nuclear weapons and technological research that you admitted to, is not evidence that their nuclear program is growing?

They're only working off one reactor and their scientific understanding isn't the greatest. Long term, it's nothing.

What is this based on?

Hope? Speculation? Conjecture?

Depends on where those missiles were fired. Neither side will fire intentionally fire missiles at cities.

What is this based on?

Hope? Speculation? Conjecture?

You need to back up your claims.

. They can't launch it, and even if they could huddle together lots of people in one of the tunnels they use for the tests, it's not like these are objectively big blasts.

The size of the blast does not matter if you recognize that they kill a lot of people.

Earlier you stated that North Korea did four nuclear tests and two succeeded.

Of the nuclear tests they did do, they were capable of launching missiles a longer distance than the capital of Seoul.

Crow: No, larger blasts just mean they've stockpiled more material / saved it up for longer. Or that they've masked their results more.

The NPA has limited their scientific understanding significantly - and atomic weapons aren't exactly easy to build. They only have one reactor - that's known already - how much it can generate is a matter of guesswork but it's unlikely to be a huge amount.

The second claim is based on the resource-based view of management theory. It serves the interest of nobody to do so, therefore nobody will.

North Korea could probably kill more considerably people with the amount of air pollution it generates in one year, than all of its present nuclear capability. Which is to say, basically nobody. They couldn't take out more than 1 city block and that's given ideal conditions.

And to be clear, they have not launched ANY nuclear missiles. These were controlled underground detonations of nuclear material. Even calling it a bomb is a bit generous.

admin: Definitely not
If they were a serious threat then would you agree we should strike?

I would support a surprise assault if it succeeded in immediately decapitating North Korea's ability to launch nuclear missiles from land-based silos and sunk its submarines which were carrying such weapons.

Dassault Papillon: Do you believe North Korea is a serious threat?

Bi0Hazard: Any hostile country with nuclear weapons is a threat.

Admin has defended North Korea in the past, but relative to the actual government.

This really does not come as a surprise to me.

Bi0Hazard: No because I don't believe in striking. Big fan of being nice to people, even enemies.

It's just that it's so much stupider to strike when your justification for striking doesn't add up.

admin: What if the enemy threatens to attack? Do you support a military for defense purposes?
If striking may prevent many more casualties, then it might be justified.

Bi0Hazard: Well, I've said it before - weapons aren't defense. If nations have any defense forces against foreign attack, they should be hospitals etc. Not instruments of war.

Notwithstanding that, N Korea has threatened to attack since forever, they're clearly not going to.

I have no doubt in my mind that pacifists like Gandhi would think admin was a moron.

admin: THAAD isn't a form of defense?