Nuclear weapons

[a_unique_person]

All you need is a centrifuge, a Geiger counter, and at least one graduate student.

Thousands, that should read.

 

[Bruce]

To get the full yield, you need to get the lumps to stay together long enough for all the uranium to fission.

Who says you need full yield to make an effective nuclear weapon?

So you take out a city block instead of a city. It would still count as a nuclear bomb and scare the piss out of everyone.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes. And that it did so it self defense and defense of others, rather than just self-interest.

Okay, well, let's pick an example. Suharto. Explain how assisting his coup was an act of self defence and defence of others.

So because China attacked US forces, that means that the US was engaged in expansionism?

More straw.

The most bellicose words have been coming from NK, not the US.

How does a missile test compare to invading Iraq (a fellow member of the "axis of evil" hit list) on the scale of bellicose actions?

No, you said "the USA has never been any more principled than the nations you are criticisng when it comes to getting into bed with ratbags".

Yes. You decided this meant "The US is no better than China". That statement was and is a straw man.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Who says you need full yield to make an effective nuclear weapon?

So you take out a city block instead of a city. It would still count as a nuclear bomb and scare the piss out of everyone.

Well, it would be a strong competitor for the title of the least efficient city-block taking-out in history.

 

[gumboot]

How does a missile test compare to invading Iraq (a fellow member of the "axis of evil" hit list) on the scale of bellicose actions?

How does "The US invades Iraq" equate to "The US is going to invade North Korea"?

On the other hand North Korea has said they would regard the imposing of sanctions as a declaration of war.

I guess since the UN Security Council has unanimously decided to impose sanctions, we're now at war with North Korea. Oh that's right, we've been at war with them for 60 years. Nevermind.

-Andrew

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Just historical fact, Art. China pushed the US forces back down to the current border, and it's been a fortified line ever since. Now little Bush has given notice that North Korea is on his hit list and that reopening hostilities on that front is an option. What would you do if you were China?

Hate to butt in here, but your original assertion that Korea was where China checked "US expansion-by-proxy" is absurd. Prior to the Korean War the United States had a very little interest in Korea at all, and had pretty much accepted the 38th parallel division. The U.S. had withdrawn the vast majority of its forces from the Korean peninsula, except for a couple hundred observers, and barely supplied the Korean Army with enough weapons to even call itself an Army. They had no tanks, no attack aircraft -- next to nothing except some WWII surplus small arms. In 1950, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson famously excluded Korea from his description of the U.S. defensive perimeter. Although this is often erroneously cited as actually causing the North Korean attack on the South, it certainly illustrates quite well how interested the U.S. was in Korea -- which was not very much. The U.S. had very little desire to be engaged in another hot war so soon after WWII. Like Kim Il-Sung, Syngman Rhee hoped to reunify the Korean peninsula under his rule. Unlike Kim Il-Sung and the USSR, however, Syngman Rhee was given very limited support from the United States, who intentionally restrained Rhee from starting a war of unification. By contrast, the USSR supplied Kim Il-Sung with advanced tanks, aircraft, and other weaponry. Thus, when he got the green light from the USSR to invade, he was able to very quickly defeat South Korea's military and nearly take over the entire peninsula.

I am not sure how you could even claim that the Korean War was "US expansion-by-proxy" if you knew anything about it. The by-proxy aspect doesn't even make sense, since U.S. forces were directly engaged in the war, and the U.S. had effective operational control of the UN Forces. The Korean War was not, by any means, a desired battlefield for the U.S. It was a Soviet war of expansion-by-proxy.

The Chinese, for their part, certainly didn't want a U.S. friendly regime on their border. Strategically, they were protecting their own interests when they attacked. But they were not checking a deliberate U.S. expansion, and certainly not an expansion-by-proxy. Had the United States removed that North Korean regime and unified the peninsula under a U.S.-friendly regime, it would have probably done the same thing it was doing before: been generally disinterested in Korea. What drew the U.S. to be significantly interested in Korea was the Soviet-backed invasion followed by Chinese intervention. It was not the other way around.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Okay, well, let's pick an example. Suharto. Explain how assisting his coup was an act of self defence and defence of others.

According to this logic, since that DC sniper was black, all black people are criminals.

More straw.

First you post a bunch of lies about the US, then you post a non sequitur response to my debunking, then when I ask you to explain it, you declare my REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION a stawman. Are you psychotic or something?

How does a missile test compare to invading Iraq (a fellow member of the "axis of evil" hit list) on the scale of bellicose actions?

Now who's posting straw?

Yes. You decided this meant "The US is no better than China".

So what's the difference between that and what you said?

Had the United States removed that North Korean regime and unified the peninsula under a U.S.-friendly regime, it would have probably done the same thing it was doing before: been generally disinterested in Korea.

I think that a better word would have been "uninterested". "Disinterested" means "has nothing at stake". "Uninterested" means "not paying attention".

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I think that a better word would have been "uninterested". "Disinterested" means "has nothing at stake". "Uninterested" means "not paying attention".

Yes, good point, uninterested. Although the U.S. would have been uninterested because it would be mostly disinterested.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I am not sure how you could even claim that the Korean War was "US expansion-by-proxy" if you knew anything about it. The by-proxy aspect doesn't even make sense, since U.S. forces were directly engaged in the war, and the U.S. had effective operational control of the UN Forces. The Korean War was not, by any means, a desired battlefield for the U.S. It was a Soviet war of expansion-by-proxy.

If the USA had stopped at the 38th parallel, as per the Chinese ultimatum, China probably would have stayed out of the war.

In my opinion you cross the line between "maintaining the status quo" and "expansion" when you start pushing into the territory of the other state and look intent on conquering it.

The Chinese, for their part, certainly didn't want a U.S. friendly regime on their border. Strategically, they were protecting their own interests when they attacked. But they were not checking a deliberate U.S. expansion, and certainly not an expansion-by-proxy. Had the United States removed that North Korean regime and unified the peninsula under a U.S.-friendly regime, it would have probably done the same thing it was doing before: been generally disinterested in Korea. What drew the U.S. to be significantly interested in Korea was the Soviet-backed invasion followed by Chinese intervention. It was not the other way around.

I think there has to be an element of doublethink here. The USA didn't care about Korea, then they suddenly cared enough to fight a war, but if they'd won they would have stopped caring again? How can the Chinese have a strategic interest in preventing a US-friendly state pushing up to their border, but the US have no strategic interest in a US-friendly state doing so? I don't think you can have it both ways.

What it boils down to is that China already fought a war to keep a buffer between themselves and US-friendly South Korea, and the USA has been making threatening noises about that buffer they fought for. Calling China names for not liking that is, at best, naive.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

According to this logic, since that DC sniper was black, all black people are criminals.

In other words, you can't. Thanks for playing.

First you post a bunch of lies about the US, then you post a non sequitur response to my debunking, then when I ask you to explain it, you declare my REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION a stawman. Are you psychotic or something?

No, but I've stopped beating my wife.

Now who's posting straw?

It's not a straw man, I'm just pointing out that you framed your statement in such a way as to exclude actions from consideration, in favour of comparing words. That's misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

So what's the difference between that and what you said?

If I have to explain it to you, you don't understand plain English.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

If the USA had stopped at the 38th parallel, as per the Chinese ultimatum, China probably would have stayed out of the war.

Yeah, and North Korea would have rebuilt its military to one of the largest in the world, created an insular, dynastic regime that starved millions of its own people, and built nuclear weapons. Had the US successfully gotten rid of the Kim regime, it probably wouldn't be the headache it is today.

In my opinion you cross the line between "maintaining the status quo" and "expansion" when you start pushing into the territory of the other state and look intent on conquering it.

Well yeah. And given that the North was the country that pushed into the territory of the other state with the intent of conquering it, it became pretty clear to the United States that the status quo was not working. Given how clear the North and the USSR made it that they had no intention of maintaining the status quo (and I don't think you get more clear than an all-out invasion), it wasn't unreasonable for the United States to try and ensure that the war ended on the best possible terms for them. It was that, or stop at the 38th parallel and allow North Korea to continue to threaten to invade the South, which would force the United States to continually station thousands of troops in Korea and spend billions of dollars there -- you know, what actually happened.

I think there has to be an element of doublethink here. The USA didn't care about Korea, then they suddenly cared enough to fight a war, but if they'd won they would have stopped caring again?

You think wrong. The USA didn't care about South Korea very much because it assumed that the USSR and North Korea would adhere to the 38th parallel division that was agreed upon. The U.S. was fine with that, and didn't care about Korea enough to try and reunify the peninsula under a U.S. friendly regime. In other words, it recognized the Chinese/Soviet buffer state. The USSR did not reciprocate. The U.S. was uninterested in Korea until there was an actual invasion attempt by the North. A Soviet-backed Army invading another country will generally grab attention. Had the U.S. been able to remove the Kim regime and hang on to the rest of the North, it would probably have gone back to being fairly uninterested in Korea. The U.S. didn't see much strategic value in stationing troops in Korea -- in fact, in many respects it still doesn't. The main U.S. ally in East Asia was intended to be Japan.

There is no "doublethink." The U.S. didn't care about Korea as long as the status quo remained. When the status quo was broken by the North, the U.S. decided the best thing to do was to ensure that the North couldn't try to invade again. Had they been successful, Korea would be a non-communist state. As long as China didn't threaten to invade, the U.S. could have gotten away with simply having a few observers in South Korea and providing them very limited aid. In fact, had that happened, China may have been able to influence the whole of Korea a lot more than they do today.

How can the Chinese have a strategic interest in preventing a US-friendly state pushing up to their border, but the US have no strategic interest in a US-friendly state doing so? I don't think you can have it both ways.

The U.S. strategic interest was in not having to constantly worry about whether or not South Korea would be invaded by a USSR-backed regime in the North. The U.S. would have accepted either a benign Soviet-backed regime in the North, or an entire peninsula unified under a non-Communist regime. What was against American strategic interests was to have a country in the North that would clearly try to destabilize and invade the South at every opportunity and require the U.S. to expend a lot of resources to build up and defend South Korea.

What it boils down to is that China already fought a war to keep a buffer between themselves and US-friendly South Korea, and the USA has been making threatening noises about that buffer they fought for. Calling China names for not liking that is, at best, naive.

And that was nearly 60 year ago when China was a sworn enemy of the United States. Now, China claims to not be an enemy. For a country that is no longer an enemy, it is certainly curious why China feels the need for a dictatorial "buffer state" between themselves and South Korea -- especially given that China is South Korea's #1 trading partner. Moreover, if North Korea were to ever join the South in a democratic government, not only would you have millions of North Koreans, far more sympathetic to China than the U.S., participating in the government, the main reason for the U.S. presence in South Korea would be gone.

North Korea represents far more than a "buffer state." It represents a country that can threaten both the United States and, more importantly, Japan. It represents a bargaining chip for China in East Asia. It also represents an old ally that China does not want to give up.

It may be naive to call China names for continuing to support North Korea, but it is equally naive to assume that China is simply trying to protect its "buffer state." North Korea, for all the times that it embarrasses China, still represents a strong Chinese ally. It is a card China could play if, say, there were ever an issue over Taiwan, and it is a card that gives China leverage over the United States. If North Korea goes away, so goes that leverage.

 

[mrfreeze]

Now you listen to me Azure, and you listen good. The only time nuclear weapons should ever so much as to even be considered being used is in Sid Meier's Civilization.

Or Alpha Centauri. Especially when no one else has them and you have a big enough budget to crank them out en masse. God that game was awesome.

 

[Kerberos]

I think you misread me. I was basically saying the SC would be in breach of the UN Charter if it tried to stop a nation using force under Article 51 (self defence).

Ahh, OK.

 

[mrfreeze]

Funnily enough, I remember recently reading the findings of a study done on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If you happen to have the time at some point, could you drop me a link to that study if you still have it? I would be interested in reading it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yeah, and North Korea would have rebuilt its military to one of the largest in the world, created an insular, dynastic regime that starved millions of its own people, and built nuclear weapons. Had the US successfully gotten rid of the Kim regime, it probably wouldn't be the headache it is today.

The discussion was just about whether "expansion" was a legitimate term to use with regard to attempts to push past the 38th parallel, not whether with hindsight you can justify an attempt at expansion.

You think wrong. The USA didn't care about South Korea very much because it assumed that the USSR and North Korea would adhere to the 38th parallel division that was agreed upon. The U.S. was fine with that, and didn't care about Korea enough to try and reunify the peninsula under a U.S. friendly regime. In other words, it recognized the Chinese/Soviet buffer state. The USSR did not reciprocate. The U.S. was uninterested in Korea until there was an actual invasion attempt by the North. A Soviet-backed Army invading another country will generally grab attention. Had the U.S. been able to remove the Kim regime and hang on to the rest of the North, it would probably have gone back to being fairly uninterested in Korea. The U.S. didn't see much strategic value in stationing troops in Korea -- in fact, in many respects it still doesn't. The main U.S. ally in East Asia was intended to be Japan.

So in other words the US was interested in expanding north, but you can justify it. We don't disagree.

And that was nearly 60 year ago when China was a sworn enemy of the United States. Now, China claims to not be an enemy. For a country that is no longer an enemy, it is certainly curious why China feels the need for a dictatorial "buffer state" between themselves and South Korea -- especially given that China is South Korea's #1 trading partner.

Times can change, and it's not too far from the North Korean border to Beijing. Taiwan has been a potential flashpoint for US/Chinese conflict for ages, and NK is one now. Both sides of necessity plan for worst-case scenarios, and I'm sure one of the things China worries about in the event of a blow-up with Taiwan is the threat of land forces coming in from the Korean direction if a unified and US-friendly Korea existed.

North Korea represents far more than a "buffer state." It represents a country that can threaten both the United States and, more importantly, Japan. It represents a bargaining chip for China in East Asia. It also represents an old ally that China does not want to give up.

It may be naive to call China names for continuing to support North Korea, but it is equally naive to assume that China is simply trying to protect its "buffer state." North Korea, for all the times that it embarrasses China, still represents a strong Chinese ally. It is a card China could play if, say, there were ever an issue over Taiwan, and it is a card that gives China leverage over the United States. If North Korea goes away, so goes that leverage.

Indeed.

 

[gumboot]

Or Alpha Centauri. Especially when no one else has them and you have a big enough budget to crank them out en masse. God that game was awesome.

I remember a really old game called "Global Thermo-nuclear War" (I guess it was a tie-in to the movie "War Games"). It's odd to think now that there used to be a computer game in which the objective was to wage a MAD style nuclear war against another country.

Would be completely un-PC now.

-Andrew

 

[David Swidler]

I remember a really old game called "Global Thermo-nuclear War" (I guess it was a tie-in to the movie "War Games"). It's odd to think now that there used to be a computer game in which the objective was to wage a MAD style nuclear war against another country.

Would be completely un-PC now.

-Andrew

I'm remembering a darkly humorous ad from Robocop for a "family" game: Nukem. "Get them before they get you. Another quality home game from Butler Brothers."

 

[gumboot]

If you happen to have the time at some point, could you drop me a link to that study if you still have it? I would be interested in reading it.

Off the top of my head... it was a newspaper article. No doubt I can find a link to the study somewhere... may take a lil while... It was fairly recently released, however.

I'll try remember to have a look tomorrow.

For now, there is this book:

Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki by William J Schull which reflects the same general findings - nuclear bombs do not produce birth defects in population groups after the event, or continuing long-term health issues.

This may, in fact be the same study (the book is from 1995 IIRC, but no doubt their study would be ongoing) or it could be another study. Unfortunately I'd need to find the stuff I read to confirm this. Will keep you posted.

-Andrew

 

[mrfreeze]

I remember a really old game called "Global Thermo-nuclear War" (I guess it was a tie-in to the movie "War Games"). It's odd to think now that there used to be a computer game in which the objective was to wage a MAD style nuclear war against another country.

Would be completely un-PC now.

-Andrew

Well it seems that in '01 a game came out called "MAD: Thermonuclear War". That's the closest I can find though.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The discussion was just about whether "expansion" was a legitimate term to use with regard to attempts to push past the 38th parallel, not whether with hindsight you can justify an attempt at expansion.

That is an odd twist on the word "expansion." The term you used orginally was a "expansion-by-proxy," which in most usage refers to a war of expansion -- an intentional grab for land with an intent to occupy permanently -- not a counterattack against a country that was the aggressor to begin with, likely followed by an almost complete withdrawal of troops. I rarely hear of the Allied march into Germany in WWII as a war of "expansion." The goal of the United States was to get rid of the aggressive regime, not to grab land that the U.S. had very little desire to be in to begin with.

*** Edited to clarify

Times can change, and it's not too far from the North Korean border to Beijing. Taiwan has been a potential flashpoint for US/Chinese conflict for ages, and NK is one now. Both sides of necessity plan for worst-case scenarios, and I'm sure one of the things China worries about in the event of a blow-up with Taiwan is the threat of land forces coming in from the Korean direction if a unified and US-friendly Korea existed.

If a unified US-friendly Korea existed being the key. China has as much chance, and probably more given their cultural and current economic ties, to sway Korea onto its side if it were unified. But why risk letting the Korean people decide when the dictator decided for them. China has more options on the table than just letting North Korea fester, but North Korea has an effective purpose for them right now. Much like with the USSR, North Korea, in many respects, works as a proxy state for China, even if they don't know it. They may be worried in the long-term about a land invasion, but it would take a drastic change in the world for the U.S. to seriously consider a land invasion of China -- especially via that route. The terrain in that area is a guerilla's heaven. The Japanese found that out 70 years ago.