• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

N. Korea Says It Has Restarted Nuclear Facilities

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea has restarted its nuclear facilities to harvest weapons-grade plutonium, an official said Saturday, in an escalation of the communist state's standoff with the international community over its nuclear and missile programs.

The move "will contribute to bolstering the nuclear deterrence for self-defense in every way to cope with the increasing military threats from the hostile forces," the North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said in comments carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.
FOXNews.com - N. Korea Says It Has Restarted Nuclear Facilities - North Korea | Map | Government

Answer me this Obama fans, N. Korea has restarted it's nuclear plant, and clearly states they are developing nuclear weapons. They can lob missiles into Japan, and Theoretically hit Alaska, Guam and Hawaii, if they can fine tune it, they could hit the western seaboard.

Now, your favorite best president ever, is looking to slash missile defense and make big cut backs in defending our nation.

Does this seem very prudent to anyone?

I know, what's the likiehood N. Korea will launch a nuclear weapon at us, why should we worry right?

History is full of situations where tragedy struck because people thought they were immune, that "it cannot happen to us".

Barak Obama has not been a very strong leader, and again, history shows weakness leads to disaster.
 
We should worry because their likely target, South Korea, is an ally and home to several thousand Americans.
 
We should worry because their likely target, South Korea, is an ally and home to several thousand Americans.

Several thousands? Try over 30k troops for starters.
 
Several thousands? Try over 30k troops for starters.

30 would fall into the category of several.

Having been stationed on Okinawa for 5+ years, I'm aware of the number of Americans in South Korea. I didn't realize one was required to display precise numerical accuracy when trying to make a larger point. :2razz:
 
FOXNews.com - N. Korea Says It Has Restarted Nuclear Facilities - North Korea | Map | Government

Answer me this Obama fans, N. Korea has restarted it's nuclear plant, and clearly states they are developing nuclear weapons. They can lob missiles into Japan, and Theoretically hit Alaska, Guam and Hawaii, if they can fine tune it, they could hit the western seaboard.

Now, your favorite best president ever, is looking to slash missile defense and make big cut backs in defending our nation.

Does this seem very prudent to anyone?

I was curious to see the extent of the Obama "big cut backs in defending our nation", so I did a little research. For 2009 under the Bush Administration, our defense budget rose to $515.4 billion, with an additional emergency, discretionary, and supplemental allocation of $135 billion, bringing the total defense budget to $651.2 billion (source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf ). Obama proposed increasing - not decreasing, or "making big cut backs" - the total amount of defense spending done by the Bush Administration to $663.7 billion for 2010 (source: AFP: Obama seeks 663.7 bln for 2010 defense spending ). The base defense budget Obama proposed is higher than 2009 as well, around $533.7 billion. Obama called for the addition of $130 billion to this figure a few months ago ( Source: Obama Seeks $75.5 Billion in Emergency War Funding for Rest of Fiscal Year - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com ).

So what you have is a base defense spending increase and an additional funding increase by the Obama Administration of roughly what, around $18 billion and (a proposed) $12.5 billion respectively?

Despite Obama's call for increased defense spending, the argument for missile defense stands. Is it a good idea to reduce funding, especially given the recent actions of North Korea? I'd say no. But I think it's unfair to paint Obama as a President who seeks to cut defense spending overall, as he's demonstrated the opposite.
 
30 would fall into the category of several.

Having been stationed on Okinawa for 5+ years, I'm aware of the number of Americans in South Korea. I didn't realize one was required to display precise numerical accuracy when trying to make a larger point. :2razz:

People have a hard time with numbers, I wasn't meaning to be a jerk to you honestly, I was just clarifying, and I came of snarky, sorry.
 
I was curious to see the extent of the Obama "big cut backs in defending our nation", so I did a little research. For 2009 under the Bush Administration, our defense budget rose to $515.4 billion, with an additional emergency, discretionary, and supplemental allocation of $135 billion, bringing the total defense budget to $651.2 billion (source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf ). Obama proposed increasing - not decreasing, or "making big cut backs" - the total amount of defense spending done by the Bush Administration to $663.7 billion for 2010 (source: AFP: Obama seeks 663.7 bln for 2010 defense spending ). The base defense budget Obama proposed is higher than 2009 as well, around $533.7 billion. Obama called for the addition of $130 billion to this figure a few months ago ( Source: Obama Seeks $75.5 Billion in Emergency War Funding for Rest of Fiscal Year - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com ).

So what you have is a base defense spending increase and an additional funding increase by the Obama Administration of roughly what, around $18 billion and (a proposed) $12.5 billion respectively?

Despite Obama's call for increased defense spending, the argument for missile defense stands. Is it a good idea to reduce funding, especially given the recent actions of North Korea? I'd say no. But I think it's unfair to paint Obama as a President who seeks to cut defense spending overall, as he's demonstrated the opposite.

Obama has called to cut back our nuclear weapons, slow or stop new weapon systems, cut back on missile defense.

He's been forced, by the reality of "oh ****, I'm President and these war thins gonna cost money", so he's forced to spend more then he wanted too. He said he'd focus the war on Afghanistan and the Taliban, what you're seeing is the increased costs associated with refocusing the military to that end, and the draw down in Iraq will not come cheap.
 
FOXNews.com - N. Korea Says It Has Restarted Nuclear Facilities - North Korea | Map | Government

Answer me this Obama fans, N. Korea has restarted it's nuclear plant, and clearly states they are developing nuclear weapons. They can lob missiles into Japan, and Theoretically hit Alaska, Guam and Hawaii, if they can fine tune it, they could hit the western seaboard.

Now, your favorite best president ever, is looking to slash missile defense and make big cut backs in defending our nation.

Does this seem very prudent to anyone?

I know, what's the likiehood N. Korea will launch a nuclear weapon at us, why should we worry right?

History is full of situations where tragedy struck because people thought they were immune, that "it cannot happen to us".

Barak Obama has not been a very strong leader, and again, history shows weakness leads to disaster.

With N. Korea in the shadows of big daddy China this is a no win situation for the U.S. I honestly don't think there will be a thing we can do except deal with them having big weapons. If we put any more pressure then we may create situation worse than the cold war.
 
Obama has called to cut back our nuclear weapons, slow or stop new weapon systems, cut back on missile defense.

Yet he has called for an increase in troop size, increased pay and benefits for the troops, improved care for wounded servicemembers, expanded pay for retired military personnel and Veterans Disability Compensation, and full monetary support for our troops in Afghanistan. And to accomplish this, he has increased - not cut back - defense funding (Source: About.com: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Defense.pdf).

I'd hardly call those "big cut backs", especially given the fact he's increased funding for defense in 2010.


He's been forced, by the reality of "oh ****, I'm President and these war thins gonna cost money", so he's forced to spend more then he wanted too. He said he'd focus the war on Afghanistan and the Taliban, what you're seeing is the increased costs associated with refocusing the military to that end, and the draw down in Iraq will not come cheap.

Sounds like to me you're making a case for Obama here. Now, if he had said, "I refuse to spend another dime on defense; in fact, I am going to cut defense spending in 2010", you'd have a point. But Obama has increased defense spending for 2010, not curtailed it. Obama recognized and reacted to the reality of the situation, according to your post. I'd say that's one mark of a pretty good leader.
 
Last edited:
You are looking at the raw numbers, they impress easily.

Where is the money going and how will that help us moving forward against such threats as a nuclear armed N.Korea?
 
You are looking at the raw numbers, they impress easily.

Where is the money going and how will that help us moving forward against such threats as a nuclear armed N.Korea?

No, i'm looking at the entire defense budget, not just the raw numbers. In addition, the budget shows where Obama and company want to spend the money allocated towards defense. If you wish to take a look at the military budget for yourself, I provided the direct link to the budget as well as numerous news articles discussing it.

I answered your question in my previous post, and provided the link to the actual DOD abstract. To repeat, "He (Obama) has called for an increase in troop size, increased pay and benefits for the troops, improved care for wounded servicemembers, expanded pay for retired military personnel and Veterans Disability Compensation, and full monetary support for our troops in Afghanistan. And to accomplish this, he has increased - not cut back - defense funding (Source: About.com: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Defense.pdf)." That's where the money is going.

As for how all this helps against a nuclear armed North Korea, I couldn't tell you. Perhaps the Obama Administration believes an increase in troops and funding to be the answer as opposed to the increased stockpile of new weaponry or nuclear missiles. The real debate is over the issue of where you think the defense money is best allocated, not that Obama "wants to cut back on defending our nation", because that's a falsehood.
 
Last edited:
Obama has called to cut back our nuclear weapons

About time. Why should any country in the world abide to the NPT when the US, one of the leading signers of it blatantly refuses to live up to its own obligations? And the notion that we need more nukes is insane.
 
Obama didn't even back up his mouth with a diplomatic response of any merit(the UN resolution was pathetic-bad bad North Korea+enfore existing sanctions)for North Koreas missile launch.

There is no harm in talking.....there is when its ALL you ever do and ALL anyone ever expects you to do.

Whatever..diplomatic actions, world events, mannerisms of leaders, all show they take Obama for a twit.

Carter II.



Keep in mind Obamas mentality is formed by College. Its flippant and simple. Its why he thinks reading a teleprompter at you is doing something.
 
Last edited:
With N. Korea in the shadows of big daddy China this is a no win situation for the U.S. I honestly don't think there will be a thing we can do except deal with them having big weapons. If we put any more pressure then we may create situation worse than the cold war.

Possibly, but what people forget is (as with the case in Iran), is that a use of such weapons on their part dooms their regime. I always found it interesting how people think that regimes which have gone to extreme measures to stay in power and never risk their own lives will suddenly change that attitude for relatively small gains.
 
Ah yes the "If the do anything we will destroy them with our nukes! RAWR!"

If this was 20 years ago..no doubt.
Now?...lol... Neither I nor our enemies have any reason to believe that.



Can't handle killing Terrorists who attacked the USA(hell you guys can't even handle holding them), can't handle a very light wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, canlt even face up to Iran......
BUT you can handle lobbing a thermonuclear warhead 10k miles to detonate over a major population center...yeah SUUUURE
 
Last edited:
About time. Why should any country in the world abide to the NPT when the US, one of the leading signers of it blatantly refuses to live up to its own obligations? And the notion that we need more nukes is insane.

We need to maintain our inventory, cause nuclear material tends to degrade over time....

And Nuclear weapons keep the peace, something ever so many people seem to forget.
 
We need to maintain our inventory, cause nuclear material tends to degrade over time.

Do you realize just how large our inventory is? Furthermore, we spend billions on testing nuclear critical masses. The rate of degradation is hardly as fast as you make out it to be.

And Nuclear weapons keep the peace, something ever so many people seem to forget.

Except we don't need a thousand of them do to that job.

And you did not address our obligations under the NPT.
 
We need to maintain our inventory, cause nuclear material tends to degrade over time....

I'm sorry but how do they degrade over time? Most of these missiles are mobile ready still. They don't degrade given our life span. And given our number, how can anyone say we need to keep our current cold war number active?

Do you even realize how many nuclear missles we have currently to pretty much make an ice age? We have over 10,000 the times currently. Getting rid of a many does not kill our chances of destroying the human race which is something I think you enjoy actually.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but how do they degrade over time?

Radioactive decay. The core of a modern nuclear weapon is weapons grade plutonium or uranium. Both of which undergo radioactive decay into more stable elements. While the half life of either is in the millions of years, not every atom of plutonium and uranium decays at the same time, thus individual atoms are slowly losing their capacity to be used as fissile material.

They don't degrade given our life span.

Yes they do, but not in a real noticeable way. Yields are reduced, but the weapon still works.
 
Radioactive decay. The core of a modern nuclear weapon is weapons grade plutonium or uranium. Both of which undergo radioactive decay into more stable elements. While the half life of either is in the millions of years, not every atom of plutonium and uranium decays at the same time, thus individual atoms are slowly losing their capacity to be used as fissile material.



Yes they do, but not in a real noticeable way. Yields are reduced, but the weapon still works.

O.C. no offense, but why post what you did, when you know I was talking about in our life span and in a significant way?

The fact of the matter is that the weapons do not degrade in our life span in any sort of significant way.

To add, I was not only talking about the nuclear material, but the mechanical materials within the rocket itself as well.
 
O.C. no offense, but why post what you did, when you know I was talking about in our life span and in a significant way?

The fact of the matter is that the weapons do not degrade in our life span in any sort of significant way.

I never said that the critical mass stops functioning. The question is about reliability. Will a 5 megaton weapon actually perform to such a yield when its critical mass is undergoing nuclear decay? In strategic planning, this is vital.
 
Back
Top Bottom