Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Is North Korea a Nuclear Threat?

  1. Jun 25, 2006 #1
    I don't know one way or the other. I mean I know what the news says, I just don't know if all of this adds up to an actual threat. I have to plead ignorance on this one which is why I'm asking so I can know what other people around the world feel about it.

    I am wondering if North Korea is able to continue their nuclear weapons program, then is another country going to then wind up being nuked?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 25, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I have an extremely difficult time imagining any country actually striking another using nuclear weapons. On the other hand, given what little those of us outside of Kim Jong Il's immediate circle of friends knows about him, he seems pretty damn insane. Lord knows what he might do. I certainly would not want to be in South Korea or Japan with him around, but I definitely do not feel threatened here in California.
  4. Jun 25, 2006 #3
    Perhaps to South Korea.

    The missle they are getting ready to test is a 2 stage version ICBM. If the are successful and then test a third stage...... Well Kim jong Il is more of a loose cannon than Bush and Shooter.
  5. Jun 25, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not specifically a nuclear threat to the South. Seoul is likely in much greater danger from their artillery batteries than their nukes.
  6. Jun 25, 2006 #5
    Ya , I don't think the North Koreans would want to occupy a radioactive Hyundai factory.

    North Korea is a good example of how one deranged leader can maintain control over an entire country by convincing them that they have an enemy.

    Ironically that works both ways. ie American defense contractors must love that little North Korean nad man.
  7. Jun 25, 2006 #6
    I'd wager that even being the nut that he obviously is, Kim Jong still has enough sense to know that any such attack would get his country summarily flattened.
  8. Jun 26, 2006 #7
    I hear that kind of thing about Kim jong a lot, but I don't actually know why everyone thinks that. What exactly makes him a loose canon?
  9. Jun 26, 2006 #8


    User Avatar

    I thought this was standard policy in all countries these days...

  10. Jun 26, 2006 #9
    That sounds like a flow of energy in daily human relations
  11. Jun 26, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Well, the claim of the "nuclear club", those nations which already have nuclear weapons, is that "We have proven that we can have these weapons and not use them." Note that now includes India and Pakistan, which were formerly treated as outlaws, since they cooled their latest confrontation over Kashmir, precisely because they both now have nuclear capability. So now they are accepted in the "sane and sensible" category.

    The general rule seems to be, you are assumed to be a wild man until you prove otherwise. And since you can't prove otherwise until you have the weapons, are provoked, and don't use them, there seems to be a Catch-22.
  12. Jun 26, 2006 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I would consider NK a potential threat with nuclear weapons. SelfAdjoint makes some very good points.
  13. Jul 8, 2006 #12
    Its scary all these new countries developing nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them but turning around to these countries an saying your not allowed to do that is not the anwser, what right have we got to prevent any country in the world from developing anything which we have developed and are still independently maintaining. We can only do that if we were to hand all of ours over to an organisation like NATO and at the same time relinquished all independent controls over them.
    Not only that but if north korea had nuclear weapons they would never use them because if they did korea would be wiped off the face of the earth
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2006
  14. Jul 8, 2006 #13
    I agree with most of you on that crazy as he may be i dont think hes dumb enough to actually launch nukes at any country. And if that articl is true i dont understand why we havent now done anything, its going way over the line to launch ANYTHING fake or not at anyone.
  15. Jul 8, 2006 #14
    http://www.adn.com/front/story/2719687p-2767626c.html [Broken]

    There is al lot of space junk out there, but it would have to survive re-entry. It might have even been a piece of our own space junk that was found. But how the Korean Times got the information is a big ????

    To date North Koreas nuttly little leader has been more involved in blackmail than anything. The U.S. has given N.K over $2 billion in the last 10 years. On the other hand if NK ups the stakes to the threat of using or use of a nuclear weapon, all hell is going to break loose. They havwe been pushing the edge during this past week.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  16. Jul 8, 2006 #15
    WOW you nailed that one.
  17. Jul 8, 2006 #16

    Does that mean America's not a member of the club, seeing as they are the only nation to have used them in anger.:rolleyes:
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2006
  18. Jul 8, 2006 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The first axiom of US political posturing is, "The rules don't apply to us." This is known as "American Exceptionalism" and it's an attidude we inherited from the British.
  19. Jul 8, 2006 #18
    Well we proved to ourselves along with the rest of the world why no one should use them, that mostly settled the debate.
  20. Jul 8, 2006 #19
    So you did twice,maybe third time will be lucky.:smile:
  21. Jul 8, 2006 #20
    Basically it is as long as the "good guys" like the US, Europe and Israel have them it is ok. Even when the "good guys" use them you can be assured it is for an even greater good. However the "bad guys" should not even be able to have a technology that can potentially make them, because of course that is all bad, because they are bad guys. This is of course obviously logical and reasonable. And if you don't understand that flawless logic, well then, by golly, you must be a bad guy!
  22. Jul 8, 2006 #21
    This is a complex issue. The bad guys now actually think that they are the good guys and I am not so sure that the original good guys, if there ever were any, have their heads screwed on straight.:smile:
  23. Jul 8, 2006 #22
    Its not complex its quite simple. Basically the good but occasionally bad people who have the power and status that comes with the weapons dont want the bad but occasionally good people to join their club because their not good enough to be bad ok. :uhh:
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2006
  24. Jul 9, 2006 #23
    With the whole thing about we not letting them have nukes, arent we currently trying to get ride of them in the world? Its also the same reason we dont let everyone carry around guns on the streets and limit the types of guns one can own. Some people will abuse them, use them to rob stores ect, kind of like i think why North Korea wants them. What could they possible want with nukes besides to have people fear them and to use them to threatin to help them become a superpower? There is none. Now i think if they had tried getting them years ago it wouldnt be such a big deal with some of the other countrys who got them. The countrys that had nukes back then actually had reasons for them, self defense and counter-attacks. Just imagin if every country had nukes, espically alot of these middle east ones who are constantly having civil wars, with some of the crazy leadership over there whats stoping them from shooting a missile that will demolish there enemy? I dont think we should totally erase nukes from every country also, the countrys that currently have them correct me if im wrong are all pretty much friendly and have the brians to never launch them, i dont think countrys like US or Russia would actually launch nukes at eachother unless lauched back. So you people that are thinking it stupid for countrys like the US to police others form getting nukes just think to your self if you really want countrys who want to launch them to actually have them.
  25. Jul 9, 2006 #24


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    North Korea is a very weak country, depenedent on its neighbors for basic food and energy. To be in such a position is shaming for human beings and it is understandible that they should want to command the greatest military power to show they are not the wimps they seem. If you think this is an unworthy motive consider that the French, and I really suspect also the British, developed nuclear and thermonuclear weapons partly to deny that they had been sidelined on the world stage by the US. That doesn't mean I think NK should have nuclear weapons (I don't) but it is another way of looking at the issue.
  26. Jul 9, 2006 #25
    This brings me to what has been being said all along, they are trying to become a superpower but going about the entirely wrong way of doing it, there is other ways then having nukes and pissing off every country. You can have all the technology and nukes in the world but that wont make you a superpower if you have no allies and people dont want to trade goods with you.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook