North Korea has just tested their first hydrogen bomb

[Destination]

Why is it when other countries have supposed chemical weapons the US and UK where there having a war immediately, but with NK all the countries are condoning it but doing nothing.

They have the second largest standing army in the world, a starving people indoctrinated by generations of media BS. Led by a dictator.
It is the number one place that should have been invaded, but last time the US tried, they have to call it a draw and leave.

It would be an unholy mess, with very few brass dying and lots of mostly dumb and relatively innocent inoffensive military boys being slaughtered.

If they could shoot about 1-2K brass through the head one night, the whole place could easily be swapped over to some from of Chinese substate. As no one else would want the rebuilding cost, but the US wouldn't want to give China such a gift.

 

[Dis86]

The us only had to call it a draw as otherwise it would have meant all out war with China and likely Russia.

 

[Rroff]

The North Vietnamese were desperate and starving and backed by the USSR. Which is not a small point. The Vietnam War was as much a proxy war as anything else; that's unlikely to happen in North Korea.

It's hard to say how brainwashed the North Koreans are but I rather suspect less so than their dictatorship would like to believe. I suspect that things there are closer to East Germany where everyone pays lip service to the regime but knows better underneath.

There is a fairly significant degree of indoctrination - the terrain also heavily favours the defenders - especially with the network of bunkers and underground connections between valleys, sunken railroads, etc. makes it a lot harder to utilise air strikes, artillery/mortar and so on and much more messy ground warfare with a lot of potential for hit and run attacks and so on (plus the terrain doesn't favour the use of heavy armour either).

 

[physichull]

If they could shoot about 1-2K brass through the head one night, the whole place could easily be swapped over to some from of Chinese substate. As no one else would want the rebuilding cost, but the US wouldn't want to give China such a gift.

I've often thought, what if it were possible to overthrow NK leadership and maintain the security of the nuclear weapons (i.e. ensure NK don't use them) that giving NK to China is a small price to pay for a potentially stable nation. Not to mention the emancipation of its people. Alas, I fear that is just a pipe dream. But why would the USA (or anybody!) be bothered about having sovereignty over NK?

I just feel so sorry for the ordinary people of NK. The things in life they will miss out on. Its desperately sad.

 

[N17]

Oh the irony, the countries telling North Korea not to test Nukes, all have............... Nukes

 

[beh]

Aren't anti-ballistic missile systems fairly polished these days? Or at least relative to DPRK's primitive efforts.

 

[wordy]

what international conflict has he started?

I mean if we're judging stability by number of wars started/disruption to the world, then NK is pretty stable.

It does the exact same thing every year for decades

We don't though, we judge the guy's stability by how stable he is.

 

[Dis86]

Oh the irony, the countries telling North Korea not to test Nukes, all have............... Nukes

And have learned from experience...

 

[physichull]

Oh the irony, the countries telling North Korea not to test Nukes, all have............... Nukes

Its not though is it. A very simplistic view.

 

[Tefal]

We don't though, we judge the guy's stability by how stable he is.

i was talking abouit the country more than the man.

after all its the country we'd be invading

 

[Tefal]

Aren't anti-ballistic missile systems fairly polished these days? Or at least relative to DPRK's primitive efforts.

no they're hilariously in adequate.

they also dont work ona nuke in shipping container sailing into new york docks

 

[Orionaut]

I have said this before,

If you put together the relatively low yields (5-10Kt) and the claims of fusion bombs.

(Do not act surprised, Nuclear weapons, even fusion ones, are a very old technology, The technology was essentially mature at a time when a car radio was bleeding edge consumer technology! There is no reason why NK could not have achieved this)

NK, IMO, is working to develop "Neutron Bombs", And they are developing them, primarily, for defence.

(If the USA attempted to invade NK and NK used low yield nuclear weapons to destroy the invading forces on their own territory, What would (Could?) be the response??)

They may also have plans (as I am sure they do) for a possible assault on SK where low yield neutron bombs might also be tactically useful. But I do not see any realistic possibility of them launching an attack further afield except as a matter of MAD retaliation if they were already badly losing a War.

There are other ways of using space capable missiles that would actually have far more globally serious consequences than nuking a couple of square miles of LA.

 

[opethdisciple]

Some how we need ISIL and the DPRK to became hostile to each other. One will lose.

 

[Tefal]

NK, IMO, is working to develop "Neutron Bombs", And they are developing them, primarily, for defence.

Why would anyone do this?

Neutron bombs where obsolete almost as soon as they where invented.

They were designed mainly to kill tank crews inside thier tanks with hard radiation because even old tanks can survive the actuall blast from a nuclear weapon even at relatively close distances (see the atomic centurion)

However the next generation of tanks that came out where sufficently armoured and sealed that a neutron bomb wouldnt affect them (so every modern battle tabk that could be used against NK)

Neutron bombs are now just crappier nuclear bombs effectively.

They might make salted bombs to turn the DMZ into a radioactive wasteland but thats not really a difficult development from normal nukes its just adding isotopes.

 

[datalol-jack]

I think the North Korea sabre rattling is just that. All bark and no bite. NK is so isolated and insular. China will whip them up if they ever became bellicose.

Well, let's be generous and grant them their first strike. The state of their rocketry leaves much to be desired, but suppose they do something stupid and plonk one payload into Japan or their southern neighbour. A coalition of the most developed countries on Earth invades, and NK's war machine runs out of resources before you could say 'blockade'. Indeed, for China it'd make more sense in its state-capitalist phase to let Korea reunite, help rebuild the north and sign a skewed trade deal with the new country (a similar pattern to that followed in Africa). A fact that doesn't escape the fidgety leadership in Pyongyang. Hence the purges, bluster and general comedy; they want a credible way out that leaves them in power, I think they are getting past the point of getting it, tbh.

 

[Orionaut]

Why would anyone do this?

Neutron bombs where obsolete almost as soon as they where invented.

They were designed mainly to kill tank crews inside thier tanks with hard radiation because even old tanks can survive the actuall blast from a nuclear weapon even at relatively close distances (see the atomic centurion)

However the next generation of tanks that came out where sufficently armoured and sealed that a neutron bomb wouldnt affect them (so every modern battle tabk that could be used against NK)

Neutron bombs are now just crappier nuclear bombs effectively.

They might make salted bombs to turn the DMZ into a radioactive wasteland but thats not really a difficult development from normal nukes its just adding isotopes.

You are correct that the problem with neutron bombs is that their utility is rather limited. That is why they were not deployed by NATO on any significant scale.

Once you go over 10Kt, the blast effects exceed the radiation ones. so they are only an advantage when low yields (ISTR, around 5Kt is considered more optimum) are used against small, soft, targets.

However, In the Korean theatre I think that they would actually be a very useful defensive weapon for the north.

North Korea is not good tank country and tanks need infantry support otherwise even mighty Abrams are easy meat for starving peasants with an RPG

As for salted bombs, most unlikely. NK's aims have always been "Reunification" they will not want to devastate the land they want to be their own. Low yield neutron bombs do have the advantage of being tactically useful while being, erm, less destructive, in the long run.

BTW, I do not see NK attempting to invade the south. Most of this is posturing (For now). The defensive position I do take very seriously however. In the unlikely event of the USA being insane enough to attempt to invade NK, they will get Nuked. It is a political game and I am not convinced that NK might not end up winning it in this scenario.

 

[helpimcrap]

Oh the irony, the countries telling North Korea not to test Nukes, all have............... Nukes

And the countries stating that do not have irrational dictators in charge....

Personally I think this could be another ISIS if we leave it and do nothing like we did with them by allowing the radicalisation to grow and people die as a result of the ignorance. The world is quite a scary place to be.

 

[Feef]

Beyond "people are poor", what parallels can you possibly draw to say they could become another ISIS?

 

[datalol-jack]

How would NK operatives even begin to radicalise people abroad? Their particular brand of anti-western propaganda and communism died decades ago, including at communist conventions.

 

[Tefal]

You are correct that the problem with neutron bombs is that their utility is rather limited. That is why they were not deployed by NATO on any significant scale.

Once you go over 10Kt, the blast effects exceed the radiation ones. so they are only an advantage when low yields (ISTR, around 5Kt is considered more optimum) are used against small, soft, targets.

However, In the Korean theatre I think that they would actually be a very useful defensive weapon for the north.

North Korea is not good tank country and tanks need infantry support otherwise even mighty Abrams are easy meat for starving peasants with an RPG

As for salted bombs, most unlikely. NK's aims have always been "Reunification" they will not want to devastate the land they want to be their own. Low yield neutron bombs do have the advantage of being tactically useful while being, erm, less destructive, in the long run.

BTW, I do not see NK attempting to invade the south. Most of this is posturing (For now). The defensive position I do take very seriously however. In the unlikely event of the USA being insane enough to attempt to invade NK, they will get Nuked. It is a political game and I am not convinced that NK might not end up winning it in this scenario.

Loe yeild normal nuclear bombs however would be much more useful than neutron bombs as they'd kill infrantry just as easily without the extra radiation.

But if we expected nuclear weapons everything would be air or mechanised infrantry.

Or more likley not at all.