North Korea tests most powerful nuclear bomb yet

As reported by CNN

North Korea carried out its most powerful nuclear test to date on Sunday, claiming to have developed an advanced hydrogen bomb that could sit atop an intercontinental ballistic missile.

The bomb used in the country's sixth-ever nuclear test sent tremors across the region that were 10 times more powerful than Pyongyang's previous test a year ago, Japanese officials said.

While the type of bomb used and its size have not been independently verified, if true, the pariah state is a significant step closer to being able to fire a nuclear warhead to the US mainland, as it has repeatedly threatened it could if provoked.

....

The device was more than eight times more powerful than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, according to NORSAR, a Norway-based group that monitors nuclear tests.

Based on the tremors that followed the test, NORSAR estimated it had an explosive yield of 120 kilotons. Hiroshima's had 15 kilotons.

But South Korean officials gave a more modest estimation, saying that Sunday's bomb had a yield of 50 kilotons.

Click to expand...

North Korea tests most powerful nuclear bomb yet - CNN


The CNN link may be broken so I will include a link to the same story reported by the Associated Press

News from The Associated Press

Unitedwestand13 said:

As reported by CNN


North Korea tests most powerful nuclear bomb yet - CNN


The CNN link may be broken so I will include a link to the same story reported by the Associated Press

News from The Associated Press

Click to expand...

We knew this was coming and I suspect that the military has worked out, what can and cannot be done. Now we must see, if China does anything effective. If not, we must decide to accept a criminal with a deliverable bomb or act.

joG said:

We knew this was coming and I suspect that the military has worked out, what can and cannot be done. Now we must see, if China does anything effective. If not, we must decide to accept a criminal with a deliverable bomb or act.

Click to expand...

Then one has to gamble on whether or not North Korea intends to use its nukes as a deterrent or as a weapon.

And one has to gamble with lives of South Korean American troops in korea

joG said:

We knew this was coming and I suspect that the military has worked out, what can and cannot be done. Now we must see, if China does anything effective. If not, we must decide to accept a criminal with a deliverable bomb or act.

Click to expand...

Act?

How?

Unitedwestand13 said:

Then one has to gamble on whether or not North Korea intends to use its nukes as a deterrent or as a weapon.

And one has to gamble with lives of South Korean American troops in korea

Click to expand...

"Gamble" implies a choice.

Are you claiming the U.S. has a choice in accepting his nuclear power? If so, what choice?

(for reference, I see no choice)

Chomsky said:

"Gamble" implies a choice.

Are you claiming the U.S. has a choice in accepting his nuclear power? If so, what choice?

(for reference, I see no choice)

Click to expand...

All life is a choice (ala Sophie's choice)

So we either accept the inevitable fact of North Korea having nuclear weapons and have that be the New status quo in the region.

Or we refuse to accept and seek ways to correct it.

First there is no reason to think that a 100 k-ton nuke is a fusion bomb instead of a fission bomb nor do we have any indication that of it weight or size would allow it to be a missile warhead.

All we know is that they set off a larger bomb then they had done to date.

BillRM said:

First there is no reason to think that a 100 k-ton nuke is a fusion bomb instead of a fission bomb nor do we have any indication that of it weight or size would allow it to be a missile warhead.

All we know is that they set off a larger bomb then they had done to date.

Click to expand...

We can make some reasonable assessments. Here is my assessment:

What they just developed are boosted A-bombs. They have not developed thermonuclear weapons. Nor are they close to doing so.

It is likely that this boosted A-bomb is small enough to fit on their ballistic missiles.

It is not likely that they have solved the problem of protecting the warhead as it reenters the atmosphere from space. However, they are probably somewhat close to solving this problem.

Toggle Almendro said:

We can make some reasonable assessments. Here is my assessment:

What they just developed are boosted A-bombs. They have not developed thermonuclear weapons. Nor are they close to doing so.

It is likely that this boosted A-bomb is small enough to fit on their ballistic missiles.

It is not likely that they have solved the problem of protecting the warhead as it reenters the atmosphere from space. However, they are probably somewhat close to solving this problem.

Click to expand...

One of the more interesting question to me is can they hit anywhere near what the are aiming for even if the missiles and warheads mainly work and are able to survive reentry.

GPS chips on the civil market for example are manufacture not to work within any device moving at the velocity of a missile.

BillRM said:

One of the more interesting question to me is can they hit anywhere near what the are aiming for even if the missiles and warheads mainly work and are able to survive reentry.

GPS chips on the civil market for example are manufacture not to work within any device moving at the velocity of a missile.

Click to expand...

True that their guidance systems are not likely to be very good.

But it might not be too hard for them to get to the point where they can land a warhead somewhere within a large urban area so long as they don't care what part of that urban area they destroy.

BTW, I just got suspended for a week from our old hangout. A certain obnoxious poster that we both know started one of his name-calling campaigns against me, and the moderators didn't take action until I started retaliating (at which point they quickly suspended us both).

One thing I like about DebatePolitics is that the moderators are quick to take action against name-callers. It's nice to have a venue where you can express yourself without being savaged with name-calling.

Unitedwestand13 said:

All life is a choice (ala Sophie's choice)

So we either accept the inevitable fact of North Korea having nuclear weapons and have that be the New status quo in the region.

Or we refuse to accept and seek ways to correct it.

Click to expand...

Seeking is fine, but I really don't see any way to de-nuke him now that he's in.

Maybe better minds than I have solutions, but to me it seems the cat's been let out of the bag.

(BTW - great movie reference - Meryl Streep at he finest)

Chomsky said:

Act?

How?

Click to expand...

That depends on the goals. If we have to attack to stop them from getting nuclear attack then it is a question of the trade-off between the costs of American and allied lives and treasure vs collateral damage to North Koreans and of course the precedent of protecting our allies and ultimately ourselves. We do want to make sure that the world understands that countries cannot break Security Council Resolutions and that the US will enforce the security of its allies and self with very grim consequence. We cannot give the North the time to attack Seoul. Given the restrictions the choice of weapons might be grim indeed.

The global community has not done, what was necessary to prevent the situation and so it has assumed a position of irrelevance. Laws that it does not enforce are also not legitimate. This is actually quite clear and the consequences are too. But it has to be explained to the world community. It is a vital interest of every country that we get a reliable communal grantor of international security and the protection of populations in place. If we do not, the probability of all out nuclear war will rise to near certainty by approximately mid century. The situation is really that bad. So, anything it takes to persuade the countries around the world to move on global security must be viewed as legitimate.

Sadly this will end up in military action, Kim will not back down because he knows the west will not use nukes (unless he has the nerve to do so) Guessing it will be an ICBM from NK to hit somewhere and then specific targets will be annihilated. It's obvious due to all the Russian and Chinese borders being bolstered up military wise.

joG said:

That depends on the goals. If we have to attack to stop them from getting nuclear attack then it is a question of the trade-off between the costs of American and allied lives and treasure vs collateral damage to North Koreans and of course the precedent of protecting our allies and ultimately ourselves. We do want to make sure that the world understands that countries cannot break Security Council Resolutions and that the US will enforce the security of its allies and self with very grim consequence. We cannot give the North the time to attack Seoul. Given the restrictions the choice of weapons might be grim indeed.

The global community has not done, what was necessary to prevent the situation and so it has assumed a position of irrelevance. Laws that it does not enforce are also not legitimate. This is actually quite clear and the consequences are too. But it has to be explained to the world community. It is a vital interest of every country that we get a reliable communal grantor of international security and the protection of populations in place. If we do not, the probability of all out nuclear war will rise to near certainty by approximately mid century. The situation is really that bad. So, anything it takes to persuade the countries around the world to move on global security must be viewed as legitimate.

Click to expand...

joG:

This crisis is a political and military crisis, not a legal one. International law does not supersede a state's sovereign right or ability to pursue a given line of policy. North Korea is free to make whatever policy decisions it sees fit to follow and the other states of the world are free to react to North Korea's choices according to their own priorities and interests. The UN Security Council and the UN are not the proper guarantor of security. Their resolutions carry no weight unless the states being ordered to behave agree to do so. Nor is the US military, acting as a monopolar superpower, the proper enforcer of peace and security. The best guarantor of international security is a consistent committment to vigorous diplomacy, fair negotiation in good faith and the capacity to compromise even when it conflicts with cherished ideals and deeply-held principles. This diplomacy should be backed up by broad-based cooperative international action to make any state resisting the international community's consensus more difficult and costly. Maintaining peace is a constant and time consuming burden which falls on all nations and states. Peace cannot be enforced, it can only be negotiated and agreed to by all parties involved in a dispute. Promoting security and peace should be a priority but it should not extend to pre-emptive military attack or demonstrations of force. Violence begets violence and violence shuts down the capacity to negotiate and make deals which all sides can live with.

If North Korea uses nuclear weapons then they should be punished by proportional nuclear retaliation. If they maintain their nuclear weapons as a deterrent against foreign military intervention then they should be left alone to wallow in the self-imposed misery that is their Hermit Kingdom. If North Korea attacks South Korea by conventional means then they should be opposed by a conventional defence based on the ROK's armed forces and an international coalition of allied states' expeditionary forces, fighting conventionally.

The realm of international politics and relations is not constrained by laws unless states have agreed and continue to agree to follow those laws. UN Resolutions are meaningless in the face of defiance. North Korea has refused to follow such laws and so they do not apply in North Korea. North Korea is no different from other states in ignoring international law and UN resolutions when it suits them. Russia, China, Israel, Iran, the USA, and many other states have done so in the past and will likely do so in the future. Thus relentless and untiring diplomacy backed by non-violent sticks and carrots, in order to keep states willing to follow international conventions and treaties, is the best course toward achieving global peace for all in the long run. It is slow and highly frustrating but it works. It may not be bold, decisive, exciting, glorious or emotionally satisfying and it may take time and cost lives and human suffering, but it is better than enforcing an unenforceable peace by military means and proliferating the desire to arm nations and states in order to fight the enforcers. Clubbing peoples and states doesn't change their minds, it just splatters them about, while their traumatised families and neighbours watch on in horror and grimly resolve to arm themselves in order to resist the club-wielder and to seek revenge. Militarism breeds more militarism in a pathological and escalating feed-back loop that ends in thermonuclear omega.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

joG:

This crisis is a political and military crisis, not a legal one. International law does not supersede a state's sovereign right or ability to pursue a given line of policy. North Korea is free to make whatever policy decisions it sees fit to follow and the other states of the world are free to react to North Korea's choices according to their own priorities and interests. The UN Security Council and the UN are not the proper guarantor of security. Their resolutions carry no weight unless the states being ordered to behave agree to do so. Nor is the US military, acting as a monopolar superpower, the proper enforcer of peace and security. The best guarantor of international security is a consistent committment to vigorous diplomacy, fair negotiation in good faith and the capacity to compromise even when it conflicts with cherished ideals and deeply-held principles. This diplomacy should be backed up by broad-based cooperative international action to make any state resisting the international community's consensus more difficult and costly. Maintaining peace is a constant and time consuming burden which falls on all nations and states. Peace cannot be enforced, it can only be negotiated and agreed to by all parties involved in a dispute. Promoting security and peace should be a priority but it should not extend to pre-emptive military attack or demonstrations of force. Violence begets violence and violence shuts down the capacity to negotiate and make deals which all sides can live with.

If North Korea uses nuclear weapons then they should be punished by proportional nuclear retaliation. If they maintain their nuclear weapons as a deterrent against foreign military intervention then they should be left alone to wallow in the self-imposed misery that is their Hermit Kingdom. If North Korea attacks South Korea by conventional means then they should be opposed by a conventional defence based on the ROK's armed forces and an international coalition of allied states' expeditionary forces, fighting conventionally.

The realm of international politics and relations is not constrained by laws unless states have agreed and continue to agree to follow those laws. UN Resolutions are meaningless in the face of defiance. North Korea has refused to follow such laws and so they do not apply in North Korea. North Korea is no different from other states in ignoring international law and UN resolutions when it suits them. Russia, China, Israel, Iran, the USA, and many other states have done so in the past and will likely do so in the future. Thus relentless and untiring diplomacy backed by non-violent sticks and carrots, in order to keep states willing to follow international conventions and treaties, is the best course toward achieving global peace for all in the long run. It is slow and highly frustrating but it works. It may not be bold, decisive, exciting, glorious or emotionally satisfying and it may take time and cost lives and human suffering, but it is better than enforcing an unenforceable peace by military means and proliferating the desire to arm nations and states in order to fight the enforcers. Clubbing peoples and states doesn't change their minds, it just splatters them about, while their traumatised families and neighbours watch on in horror and grimly resolve to arm themselves in order to resist the club-wielder and to seek revenge. Militarism breeds more militarism in a pathological and escalating feed-back loop that ends in thermonuclear omega.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Interesting, but not correct in some important things. This is a matter of military and political dimensions. But it also has legal ramifications in international law, which is in many respects strongly precedent driven.
It is also not a question, who is the "proper" guarantor of security. It is a question of how best organize security. At present it is up to the UN to see it it can. If it cannot, it becomes irrelevant in the precedent. In these cases it is the countries involved that are responsible for their own security. Sorrily international law is poorly defined in this respect leaving wide room for interpretation. This defines a rather dangerous game structure of great instability.

That is why we should be working to instill the UN with responsibility to protect far beyond the 2005 mandate. Without this, the dynamic structure of international security, proliferation and shifting relative wealth and correspondingly relative power will almost certainly bring about nuclear war within two or maybe three decades. This is the main reason to want to widen the UN mandate and a major reason to use this occasion to demonstrate how important it is for third parties to do so.

It is my firm belief that North Korea will not launch any nuclear attack other then an attempt at retaliation of any(most certainly U.S. backed) invasion on its soil. It can be clearly understood if someone threatens they are less likely to act upon their threats. The most successful attacks therefore come unprovoked and unexpected. Hitler established his Reich because nobody thought he would. As pertaining to North Korea they want to firmly establish themselves and are keen to appear powerful in order to attract more allies to combat the increasingly strict sanctions that plagues their government.As the saying goes,"if the people don't eat they will not work!".

joG said:

Interesting, but not correct in some important things. This is a matter of military and political dimensions. But it also has legal ramifications in international law, which is in many respects strongly precedent driven.
It is also not a question, who is the "proper" guarantor of security. It is a question of how best organize security. At present it is up to the UN to see it it can. If it cannot, it becomes irrelevant in the precedent. In these cases it is the countries involved that are responsible for their own security. Sorrily international law is poorly defined in this respect leaving wide room for interpretation. This defines a rather dangerous game structure of great instability.

That is why we should be working to instill the UN with responsibility to protect far beyond the 2005 mandate. Without this, the dynamic structure of international security, proliferation and shifting relative wealth and correspondingly relative power will almost certainly bring about nuclear war within two or maybe three decades. This is the main reason to want to widen the UN mandate and a major reason to use this occasion to demonstrate how important it is for third parties to do so.

Click to expand...

joG:

Unenforceable international "law" is not law at all. It is wishful thinking and/or talk/bombast. There is no way the international community can enforce the NNP Treaty on North Korea short of war (perhaps nuclear war) and no one is willing to do that. So it is a military and political issue. Political because that is the only way to resolve the problem and military because containment, rather than offensive preemptive strikes, will be needed to enforce sanctions and possible embargoes.

I agree that the UN is unable to organize security for the North Korean situation, but I think that's true for just about any state or organisation in the world today, including the USA. The resulting instability and risk of danger which you describe is a valid observation but both of these increase if any side moves toward a direct military solution such as preemptive strike against North Korea or Guam/Japan/South Korea.

A UN empowered with the means to effectively organize and marshal the means to implement an effective global security system is largely a pipe-dream, as the five most dangerous states to global peace historically have a defacto veto over anything which that security system might try to do. Just like the ICC, which can only prosecute criminals from Africa and the Balkans to date and cannot try criminals from the "big five", so the security system under the auspices of the UN would fail if one of the big five were up to no good.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

joG:

Unenforceable international "law" is not law at all. It is wishful thinking and/or talk/bombast. There is no way the international community can enforce the NNP Treaty on North Korea short of war (perhaps nuclear war) and no one is willing to do that. So it is a military and political issue. Political because that is the only way to resolve the problem and military because containment, rather than offensive preemptive strikes, will be needed to enforce sanctions and possible embargoes.

I agree that the UN is unable to organize security for the North Korean situation, but I think that's true for just about any state or organisation in the world today, including the USA. The resulting instability and risk of danger which you describe is a valid observation but both of these increase if any side moves toward a direct military solution such as preemptive strike against North Korea or Guam/Japan/South Korea.

A UN empowered with the means to effectively organize and marshal the means to implement an effective global security system is largely a pipe-dream, as the five most dangerous states to global peace historically have a defacto veto over anything which that security system might try to do. Just like the ICC, which can only prosecute criminals from Africa and the Balkans to date and cannot try criminals from the "big five", so the security system under the auspices of the UN would fail if one of the big five were up to no good.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

I hear you. But I have heard the arguments before.
- As to the enforcement in NK, I believe it must be done. No matter.
- As to the implementation of a reliable and robust international security system communally you are right that it will be difficult. The good new is that if we do not succeed, overpopulation will no longer be a problem.

Re: North Korea tests most powerful nuclear bomb yet
※→ joG, Evilroddy, et al,

You bring-up two issues here. They are not the only entangled considerations; but, they seem to be of huge concern among those who follow the world-wide stability and diplomacy [ie political-military affairs (POLMIL)].

joG said:

Evilroddy said:

joG:
Unenforceable international "law" is not law at all. It is wishful thinking and/or talk/bombast. There is no way the international community can enforce the NNP Treaty on North Korea short of war (perhaps nuclear war) and no one is willing to do that. So it is a military and political issue. Political because that is the only way to resolve the problem and military because containment, rather than offensive preemptive strikes, will be needed to enforce sanctions and possible embargoes.

I agree that the UN is unable to organize security for the North Korean situation, but I think that's true for just about any state or organisation in the world today, including the USA. The resulting instability and risk of danger which you describe is a valid observation but both of these increase if any side moves toward a direct military solution such as preemptive strike against North Korea or Guam/Japan/South Korea.
... ... ...

Click to expand...

I hear you. But I have heard the arguments before. ...

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

The application of the "unenforceable" concept, as it applies in this discussion, was to do with political will. There are a rather large number of model laws, as well as standards and customs of international trade (Trade Treaties and International Conventions) that are enforced everyday around the world; including, but not limited to: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea (SRM-ILAACS), and (of course) an entire array of International Commercial Law and Arbitration (ICLA). All of these are enforced daily, because their is an economic concern in play. Nowhere is this seen more than in the realm of International Banking Laws and Practices. The reason it appears, to the outside observer, that the Rome Statutes (RS) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) do not work, is that the political will (in some cases) simply is not strong enough or unified internationally. For instance, it is clearly the case that the Russian Federation violated Article 2(4), Chapter 1, of the UN Charter; relative to the Crimea. No one was willing to go to war over the Crimean Annexation. Similarly, no one was willing to engage the People's Republic in the matter of Tibet.

For the time being → based on the understanding held by the international community, no one is yet willing to engage the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on a POLMIL footing. While some diplomatic efforts and incentive distributions (political bribery) might be employed, the POLMIL Decision Making process has not yet made a determination as to whether a the risk threshold (by provocative moves by the DPRK) has been breached. This Decision Making process is dominated by economic considerations. The principle question becomes ⇒ at what point does the probability of an attack by the DPRK become imminent; and what is the potential loss to be experienced in the event of a DPRK First Strike. And then this is compared to the overall estimated cost of a preemptive intervention and post-combat phase to be expected. When the cost suffered by a DPRK First Strike or the allied political pressure reaches the threshold ⇒ the estimated savings of people and property, plus the cost of the preemptive strike, plus the cost of post-combat (less acquired reparations, ceased holdings and wealth, and restitution) THEN a potential for a preemptive intervention becomes feasible as one possible solution.

Until that time, the allied parties that are the most at-risk will use the application of the paperclip, band-aid and duck tape periodically reestablish regional security (until such time as it is no longer cost-effective).

Just one man's opinion and observations,

Most Respectfully,
R

Re: Nuclear Weapons

The world has largely ignored the truth about nuclear weapons. Such weapons cannot be considered as practical weaponry. The reasons are clear:
1. Nuclear weapons have a devastating effect on the entire planet, affecting the worldwide biosphere.
2. Neighboring neutral nations bordering a nuclear conflict would face health and economic effects for the long term. The world will direct anger at those nations responsible for the resulting worldwide suffering.
3. Both warring parties will face serious, lasting consequences.

Given these facts, it is no wonder that these weapons have not been utilized since 1945. Neither the recipient nor the attacker could endure the ramifications of their use:

It makes little sense therefore, to base your military on such weapons. It makes even less sense to waste your national budgets on amassing more and more weapons that can never be used. Currently, the USA has enough weapons to destroy the planet several times. How does this make us secure? Even when attacked in Sept, 2001, the USA dared not use a nuclear weapon to attack Osama Bin Laden’s lair at Tora Bora, resulting in his escape for 10 years. All that nuclear power was useless.

The facts demand a logical review of American military strategy:
• The American arsenal is glutted with these practically useless weapons. Rather than building more of them, we ought to invest the military budget in weapons that can be used, particularly defensive weapons that could counter missile attacks, and weapons with surgical precision rather than massive and blunt devastation. We don’t need to kill everybody.
• Resist the illogical urges to waste more funds on the nuclear arsenal, particularly in regard to beefing its numbers. It makes sense to secure the arsenal, but not to continue building it up. We have more than enough impractical weaponry.

A worldwide discussion on nuclear weapons needs to occur. The ultimate, though lofty goal would be to ban them from warfare. But such a lofty goal could not be achieved readily. Rather, more modest goals would be appropriate in the short term. Here are some examples:
1. The USA could consider making a restraint pledge (or treaty) not to be first to use such weapons against any nation that signed a similar restraint pledge. They would only be used in response to a nuclear attack.
2. The USA should initiate a discussion on nuclear weapons in the public arena, first at home, and then globally. The intent is to build up world opinion toward a comprehensive ban of such weapons. Those nations who refused to cooperate would show their true colors as aggressors, and would not be protected by a restraint treaty.

These suggestions may sound risky. But the current situation is already beyond risky. More nations are bent on developing nuclear weapons. Without worldwide controls in place, it is a matter of time before someone sets off the conflagration. Of course, no treaty is perfect, but treaties do work to some degree.

This course of action does not suggest that current nuclear nations should disarm. No one would agree to that option, so it makes no sense to pursue it. But nations could agree not to refrain from first use. This alone would reduce the threat, and may lessen the proliferation pressure significantly. At the very least, nations who opt to develop such weapons anyway may be less likely to stockpile them to any large degree, since they are very costly and there would be no way to use them without becoming a worldwide pariah.

Nuclear weapons cannot be neutralized. They can only be addressed with diplomacy, treaties, and sanctions against their use. Some people have no faith is such an option, preferring to believe that the adversary “only understands one thing…” In my opinion, that attitude will get us all blown up. These weapons are already useless from a practical standpoint, because the devastation they cause extends around the planet. Let’s work to make them even further useless by treaty.

Of course, no treaty can guarantee that someone won’t violate it. But a nuclear response would be expected to result from such a violation, and that deterrence has proven to be effective so far. With a treaty or ban in place, there would be diplomatic deterrence as well. Treaties are interesting. Nations do violate them, but they must avoid being caught. There is no way to hide a violation against use of nuclear weapons. And there no effective excuse for not cooperating with a worldwide restraint treaty. In addition, such a treaty would tend to move nations toward investing in other types of defensive strategies, and reduce the pressure toward more globally destructive weapons.

RoccoR said:

Re: North Korea tests most powerful nuclear bomb yet
※→ joG, Evilroddy, et al,

You bring-up two issues here. They are not the only entangled considerations; but, they seem to be of huge concern among those who follow the world-wide stability and diplomacy [ie political-military affairs (POLMIL)].


(COMMENT)

The application of the "unenforceable" concept, as it applies in this discussion, was to do with political will. There are a rather large number of model laws, as well as standards and customs of international trade (Trade Treaties and International Conventions) that are enforced everyday around the world; including, but not limited to: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea (SRM-ILAACS), and (of course) an entire array of International Commercial Law and Arbitration (ICLA). All of these are enforced daily, because their is an economic concern in play. Nowhere is this seen more than in the realm of International Banking Laws and Practices. The reason it appears, to the outside observer, that the Rome Statutes (RS) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) do not work, is that the political will (in some cases) simply is not strong enough or unified internationally. For instance, it is clearly the case that the Russian Federation violated Article 2(4), Chapter 1, of the UN Charter; relative to the Crimea. No one was willing to go to war over the Crimean Annexation. Similarly, no one was willing to engage the People's Republic in the matter of Tibet.

For the time being → based on the understanding held by the international community, no one is yet willing to engage the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on a POLMIL footing. While some diplomatic efforts and incentive distributions (political bribery) might be employed, the POLMIL Decision Making process has not yet made a determination as to whether a the risk threshold (by provocative moves by the DPRK) has been breached. This Decision Making process is dominated by economic considerations. The principle question becomes ⇒ at what point does the probability of an attack by the DPRK become imminent; and what is the potential loss to be experienced in the event of a DPRK First Strike. And then this is compared to the overall estimated cost of a preemptive intervention and post-combat phase to be expected. When the cost suffered by a DPRK First Strike or the allied political pressure reaches the threshold ⇒ the estimated savings of people and property, plus the cost of the preemptive strike, plus the cost of post-combat (less acquired reparations, ceased holdings and wealth, and restitution) THEN a potential for a preemptive intervention becomes feasible as one possible solution.

Until that time, the allied parties that are the most at-risk will use the application of the paperclip, band-aid and duck tape periodically reestablish regional security (until such time as it is no longer cost-effective).

Just one man's opinion and observations,

Most Respectfully,
R

Click to expand...

Though, I would discuss the variables adding atleast dimensions such as precedent, I would say that just one man's opinion and observations was a useful post.

joG said:

That depends on the goals. If we have to attack to stop them from getting nuclear attack then it is a question of the trade-off between the costs of American and allied lives and treasure vs collateral damage to North Koreans and of course the precedent of protecting our allies and ultimately ourselves.

Click to expand...

Some of you are such callous, unfeeling folks. People in the north of Korea are human beings. The usa has already committed massive war crimes against them and the people of the south of Korea.

What don't you folks understand about this?

The Korean War: The “Unknown War”. The Coverup of US War Crimes

The Korean War, a.k.a. the “Unknown War,” was, in fact, headline news at the time it was being fought(1950-53). Given the Cold War hatreds of the combatants, though, a great deal of the reportage was propaganda, and much of what should have been told was never told. News of the worst atrocities perpetrated against civilians was routinely suppressed and the full story of the horrific suffering of the Korean people—who lost 3-million souls of a total population of 23-million— has yet to be told in full. Filling in many of the blank spaces is Bruce Cumings, chair of the Department of History at the University of Chicago, whose book “The Korean War”(Modern Library Chronicles) takes an objective look at the conflict.

...

Though the North Koreans had a reputation for viciousness, according to Cumings, U.S. soldiers actually engaged in more civilian massacres. This included dropping over half a million tons of bombs and thousands of tons of napalm, more than was loosed on the entire Pacific theater in World War II, almost indiscriminately.

...

“Rapes were extremely common. Koreans in the South will still say that that was one of the worst things of the war (was how)many American soldiers were raping Korean women.”

...

Atrocities by “our side, the South Koreans (ran) six to one ahead of the North Koreans in terms of killing civilians, whereas most Americans would think North Koreans would just as soon kill a civilian to look at him.” The numbers of civilians killed in South Korea by the government, Cumings said, even dwarfed Spaniards murdered by dictator Francisco Franco, the general who overthrew the Madrid government in the 1936-1939 civil war. Cumings said about 100,000 South Koreans were killed in political violence between 1945 and 1950 and perhaps as many as 200,000 more were killed during the early months of the war. This compares to about 200,000 civilians put to death in Spain in Franco’s political massacres. In all, Korea suffered 3 million civilian dead during the 1950-53 war, more killed than the 2.7 million Japan suffered during all of World War II.

The Korean War: The ?Unknown War?. The Coverup of US War Crimes | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Click to expand...

joG said:

We do want to make sure that the world understands that countries cannot break Security Council Resolutions and that the US will enforce the security of its allies and self with very grim consequence. ...

The situation is really that bad. So, anything it takes to persuade the countries around the world to move on global security must be viewed as legitimate.

Click to expand...

You, Americans, of all people, "do want to make sure that the world understands that countries cannot break Security Council Resolutions"! I suppose that also includes international law and being held accountable for massive breaches of international law such as over 70 illegal invasions since WWII, tens of millions of innocents slaughtered, US organized and sponsored genocide after genocide after genocide.

Yes, "The situation is really that bad". In Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Palestine, Vietnam is still dealing with Agent Orange, Iraq is dealing with depleted uranium, all the countries the US has invaded are still dealing with cluster bombs and land mines which kill and maim daily.

"The situation is really that bad" and the sole cause is the USA!!!! Get your heads out of your behinds!

camlok said:

Some of you are such callous, unfeeling folks. People in the north of Korea are human beings. The usa has already committed massive war crimes against them and the people of the south of Korea.

What don't you folks understand about this?





You, Americans, of all people, "do want to make sure that the world understands that countries cannot break Security Council Resolutions"! I suppose that also includes international law and being held accountable for massive breaches of international law such as over 70 illegal invasions since WWII, tens of millions of innocents slaughtered, US organized and sponsored genocide after genocide after genocide.

Yes, "The situation is really that bad". In Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Palestine, Vietnam is still dealing with Agent Orange, Iraq is dealing with depleted uranium, all the countries the US has invaded are still dealing with cluster bombs and land mines which kill and maim daily.

"The situation is really that bad" and the sole cause is the USA!!!! Get your heads out of your behinds!

Click to expand...

You use a broad brush, you do. Good emotional colors and daring lines. Just the thing to catch young, inexperienced and uneducated. Possibly you believe it yourself. But it is sad, you see. Your technique covers over every relevant detail.

joG said:

You use a broad brush, you do. Good emotional colors and daring lines. Just the thing to catch young, inexperienced and uneducated. Possibly you believe it yourself. But it is sad, you see. Your technique covers over every relevant detail.

Click to expand...

Jo, you know what the color was for - the same thing as the quote feature.

If the brush fits, wear it. Your response illustrates that you are exactly what you describe. The sources are US sources, it isn't me so stop trying to make it about me. That is a childish ploy.

Note that in your reply you addressed nothing as relates to the issues.

camlok said:

Jo, you know what the color was for - the same thing as the quote feature.

If the brush fits, wear it. Your response illustrates that you are exactly what you describe. The sources are US sources, it isn't me so stop trying to make it about me. That is a childish ploy.

Note that in your reply you addressed nothing as relates to the issues.

Click to expand...

Nope. The sources are mostly internatiinal.