Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-would-YOU-do? dept.

A confidential Defense Intelligence Agency intelligence asessment has concluded that North Korea has miniaturized a nuclear warhead to make it capable of being launched by its ballistic missiles:

The analysis, completed last month by the Defense Intelligence Agency, comes on the heels of another intelligence assessment that sharply raises the official estimate for the total number of bombs in the communist country's atomic arsenal. The United States calculated last month that up to 60 nuclear weapons are now controlled by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Some independent experts think the number is much smaller.

[...] Although more than a decade has passed since North Korea's first nuclear detonation, many analysts thought it would be years before the country's weapons scientists could design a compact warhead that could be delivered by missile to distant targets. But the new assessment, a summary document dated July 28, concludes that this critical milestone has been reached.

"The IC [intelligence community] assesses North Korea has produced nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery, to include delivery by ICBM-class missiles," the assessment states, in an excerpt read to The Washington Post. Two U.S. officials familiar with the assessment verified its broad conclusions. It is not known whether the reclusive regime has successfully tested the smaller design, although North Korea officially claimed last year that it had done so.

Meanwhile, President Trump and Kim Jong Un have traded barbs:

President Donald Trump appears to have painted himself into a corner: He must now follow up on his pledge of hitting North Korea with "fire and fury," or he risks further blowing U.S. credibility.

Kim Jong-un's regime said late on Tuesday that it may strike Guam. That came shortly after Trump warned Pyongyang it would face "power, the likes of which this world has never seen before" if the renegade state continued to threaten the U.S.

"If the red line he drew today was 'North Korea cannot threaten the U.S. anymore,' that line was crossed within an hour of him making that statement," said John Delury, associate professor of Chinese studies at Seoul-based Yonsei University.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:36PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:36PM (#551641)

    -1, Flamebait? Please! More politically correct bullshit that will be our downfall. These assholes declared was on the US. We should bomb them now, but letting them fire the first shot makes it more justifiable and easier to sell to the public. I say we eliminate the threat! I hope Trump feels the same. He will be a hero if he does the right thing, and all the vets from the previous war won't have died in vain. Let's fight for victory for a change!

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=1, Funny=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:07PM (8 children)

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:07PM (#551654) Journal

    You are pretty fucking cavalier about "letting them draw first blood". So you'd happily let Kim wipe out Guam just so you can feel better about stroking your nuclear rage-boner? If it's so damned important and "political correctness" means so little to you, why not save a bunch of american lives and strike first?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:14PM (#551660)

      I hate to say it, but the other AC absolutely right - an attack on American soil historically does absolute wonders for getting the general public to accept military action. Trump attacking first would be a significantly worse move politically.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:09PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:09PM (#551698)

      why not save a bunch of american lives and strike first?

      I would prefer that, but sometimes sacrifices must be made for good public relations. We don't want the whole world turning against us. And besides, we have over 7.5 billion people on the planet. So what if we lose 3 or 4 billion? Personally, I would prefer to get rid of about 5 or 6. We just need to spare Europe (the white countries in the north) and the U.S. That would give the rest of us some breathing room.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:40PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:40PM (#551759)

        Personally, I would prefer to get rid of about 5 or 6.
        You do realize the odds you are giving yourself here. Not a great chance that you would be in the remaining 1.5-2.5, and even then you might wish you were part of the 5/6.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:57PM (#551864)

          No, like I said, you spare the U.S. and white Europe. The rest are animals, turn 'em into shark bait... We'll all be better off.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:50PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:50PM (#551828)

      The Norks' first atomic detonation was a fizzle.
      It barely registered on seismographs.
      The yield was so small that there was some thought that the Norks had amassed a stockpile of conventional explosives and set that off all at once as a propaganda exercise.

      The USA's first gun-type uranium fission weapon was also a dud.
      (The concept is so "simple" that they didn't bother to test the mechanism.)
      They expected 19kt and the misfire over Hiroshima yielded 9kt.

      USA's "explosive lens" tests for the plutonium implosion weapon failed multiple times before they got that working right.

      The USA's first plutonium weapon was the size of a Volkswagen and weighted 5 tons.
      The Norks are still at this level of development (and don't have the resources USA put into nuclear development in 1945).
      Them having something that works and can be fitted to a missile at this point seems highly unlikely.

      The Norks aren't known for the quality of their manufacturing.
      Them getting something that works first time, every time is a long shot.

      The Norks "intercontinental" ballistic missile traveled 400 miles at an altitude so low that nobody knew about it until the Norks announced it.
      (Note here that 400 miles isn't even "intermediate-range".)

      Every one of USA.gov's ballistic missile submarines has 24 missile tubes, with each missile carrying 4 independently-targetable nuclear warheads.
      One sub can take out 96 city-sized targets.
      USA has 14 of these weapons systems with 12 of them on station at any given time. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [aps.org]
      You can bet that 2 of those are currently off North Korea.

      The Axis of Evil speech and its consequences have already been mentioned in the (meta)thread.
      All of this stuff is saber rattling--with USA.gov being by far the prime exponent of that.

      If USA strikes first (AKA "The Bush Doctrine", a cowardly meme), it loses what credibility it has as a "peacekeeper".
      That will also incur great loses to one or more of USA.gov's allies in that region.

      If the Norks fire the first round, that nation ceases to exist within the hour.

      What we have here is what's called a Mexican Standoff also called a Balance of Terror.
      For the latest version, you can thank Dubya (that great military genius--sometimes referred to as The Deserter-in-Chief) yet again.

      Trump (who took 4 student deferments from military service during USA's engagement in Vietnam, followed by a medical exemption for "bone spurs"--which have never seemed to affect his lifestyle--and could be called The Draft-Dodger-in-Chief, never having served) is now very cavalier about warfare and is further pushing unwarranted aggression.

      The greatest threat to world peace since September 2, 1945 has been USA.gov.
      The greatest practitioner of terrorism on the planet is USA.gov.
      The Narcissist-in-Chief and his "hair" trigger has made things even worse.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 2) by fnj on Thursday August 10 2017, @10:57PM (2 children)

        by fnj (1654) on Thursday August 10 2017, @10:57PM (#551925)

        The USA's first gun-type uranium fission weapon was also a dud.
        (The concept is so "simple" that they didn't bother to test the mechanism.)
        They expected 19kt and the misfire over Hiroshima yielded 9kt.

        Idiot. Hiroshima was 15kt, slam bang center of expected yield. Even if it HAD been only 50% of expected, that's far from a fizzle. A fizzle is less than 1%.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @12:03AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @12:03AM (#551958)

          Thanks for giving us USA.gov's propaganda version.

          Everything that was released about the bomb was misinformation, from the fact that murdering tens of thousand of children was necessary in order to end the war, right on to the tech details.

          If you're still repeating the discredited MacArthur-era swill, it simply shows how gullible and willing to accept the official line you are.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 12 2017, @02:57PM

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday August 12 2017, @02:57PM (#552860) Homepage
            The officially announced yield was 20kt (for them both, which was a red flag that at least one of the numbers were bogus, and most likely little boy).

            The most reliable source should be the scientists who knew that they would be shitting on their own research lawn if they fudged the figures, and they've said 15+/-3 kt.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:30PM

    by Sulla (5173) on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:30PM (#551671) Journal

    Go back to the hospital McCain, we are tired of your boomer warmongering.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam