North Korea - another nuclear weapon test

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear Test
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on North Korea's recent nuclear weapon test and its implications for international relations, particularly regarding the United States and its military stance. Participants explore the nature of the conflict, the feasibility of North Korea's missile capabilities, and the historical context of warfare definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the US is effectively at war with a nuclear power, suggesting that North Korea's actions could lead to significant military responses.
  • Others argue that North Korea's ability to deploy a nuclear warhead on a missile is questionable, citing the mass and payload limitations of their current missile designs.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of war, with some suggesting that the current situation resembles a "cold war" rather than traditional warfare.
  • Participants note the historical context of American military engagements, contrasting past "all-out" wars with more recent limited military actions.
  • Some mention the ongoing technical state of war with North Korea, referencing the unresolved status of the Korean War and the implications of captured US Navy ships.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the conflict with North Korea, with some agreeing on the "cold war" characterization while others emphasize the potential for direct military engagement. The feasibility of North Korea's nuclear capabilities remains contested.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexities of defining war and the implications of historical military engagements, noting that the current situation may not fit neatly into traditional categories of warfare.

Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2025 Award
Messages
22,525
Reaction score
7,502
North Korea apparently detonated a nuclear weapon - again.

M5.3 Explosion - 19km ENE of Sungjibaegam, North Korea
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us10006n8a#executive
2016-09-09 00:30:01 UTC 41.298°N 129.015°E 0.0 km depth

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea on Friday conducted its fifth atomic test, producing its biggest-ever explosive yield, South Korean officials said after monitors detected unusual seismic activity near the North's northeastern nuclear test site.

South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement that "artificial seismic waves" from a quake measuring 5.0 were detected near the Punggye-ri test site.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/monitors-report-unusual-seismic-activity-north-korea-005818504.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/key-dates-north-korean-history-weapons-development-052748683.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Thus: the US is at war with a nuclear power.
 
.Scott said:
Thus: the US is at war with a nuclear power.

That's correct. And if DPRK keeps with launching rockets at Japan that may or may not contain a nuclear warhead, sooner or later it may well become the beneficiary of some rapid US disarmament, and turned into 46,000 square miles of glass inhabited by a few dozen glowing cockroaches. And China will then have its long desired buffer zone.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: edward and mheslep
It doesn't seem feasible to me that the DPRK could manage a missile with a nuclear warhead in the next couple decades. The uranium weapon Little Boy had mass five tons, while the DPRK missile designs apparently have a payload of less than one ton. I suspect getting into the nuclear missile business requires lower mass thermonuclear weapons, or much higher missile payloads, or both. DPRK is not close to either. If that maniac is determined to attack Japan or S Korea, then floating a barge into a harbor seems more likely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: OCR
.Scott said:
Thus: the US is at war with a nuclear power.
*Cold* war perhaps. Otherwise the definition of war has lost touch with what it meant in WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
 
mheslep said:
*Cold* war perhaps. Otherwise the definition of war has lost touch with what it meant in WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
There was a big difference between (WWI and WWII) versus (Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan). Those first two wars were "all out" and involved life changes to almost all Americans.

By comparison, the later three were (along with many others) were limited expeditions. We sent troops over while keeping a wary eye on other global powers.

So, including "cold", I would say there are at least three types of "war".

And then there were the half wars - where a neighbor attacks Israel, Israel defends too well, and the superpowers decide the war needs to end before it is resolved on the battle field. Q: What's worse than finding a worm in your apple? A: Fighting half a war!
 
I start with American troops being sent into harms way. The other differences are a matter of degree. These are significant but secondary.
 
mheslep said:
I start with American troops being sent into harms way. The other differences are a matter of degree. These are significant but secondary.
I believe @.Scott is referring to the paperwork issue whereby we are still technically engaged in The Korean War.
 
russ_watters said:
I believe @.Scott is referring to the paperwork issue whereby we are still technically engaged in The Korean War.
Thanks, I'd forgotten.
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
I believe @.Scott is referring to the paperwork issue whereby we are still technically engaged in The Korean War.
To add to the "paperwork", they are currently holding a fully commissioned US Navy Ship.
 
  • #11
.Scott said:
To add to the "paperwork", they are currently holding a fully commissioned US Navy Ship.
That's part of the same paperwork issue. I doubt anyone is expecting we are going to get it back. We also have a handful of captured ships (subs) of about the same age that the Germans aren't asking to have back. When the peace treaty gets signed, they'll just strike it from the register as a casualty of the war.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K