tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18356115.post116041627375265638..comments2023-09-19T06:23:30.662-07:00Comments on Dark Adapted: North Korea: The Leper's DefenseUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18356115.post-1160515170711826222006-10-10T14:19:00.000-07:002006-10-10T14:19:00.000-07:00A ready point that China would not like to see a n...A ready point that China would not like to see a nuclear Japan which wouldn't be huge leap for them. But you also have to consider that they have more to lose by a decisive smack down of NKorea than the US. Millions of starving refugees along their northern border, a US and SKorean presence in NKorea... I think China knows the guy has got to go, but a much slower transition. Not sure which is more important, keeping the buffer, or keeping the NKoreans in NKorea. ~DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18356115.post-1160508415134520042006-10-10T12:26:00.000-07:002006-10-10T12:26:00.000-07:00You've obviously done your homework- it's pretty s...You've obviously done your homework- it's pretty scary to contemplate a package that 'small' with that much power- yikes!<BR/><BR/>Keep that pen handy, my friend. You do it justice!<BR/><BR/>-TTroy M. Stirmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00263120286543763299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18356115.post-1160508236236390642006-10-10T12:23:00.000-07:002006-10-10T12:23:00.000-07:00Suitcase nukes are real, but they're pretty rare. ...Suitcase nukes are real, but they're pretty rare. The US had one called the <A HREF="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w54.htm" REL="nofollow">W54</A>, with another version of the same physics package (don't it sound cool when you call it that?) called the SADM, or Special Applications Demolition Munition. They were man-portable, the SADM weighed 57lbs all-up. Not a bad weight-to-blast ratio, considering that the W54 was tested to a yield of 18 tons of HE. By comparison, the Oklahoma City ANFO bomb was reported as 1-2 tons of HE. When you add in the radiation effects of having 4kg or so of plutonium and fission products scattered around, that's a rather nasty device.Darren Duvallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14206549297099752092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18356115.post-1160503129649135282006-10-10T10:58:00.000-07:002006-10-10T10:58:00.000-07:00Darren-Excellent post and thought- provoking analy...Darren-<BR/>Excellent post and thought- provoking analyses all the way around. Thoughts on your predictions... <BR/>Prediction #1:<BR/>This will ALWAYS be the case!<BR/><BR/>Prediction #4:<BR/>The US has used this tool numerous times, it's past time to utilize it again.<BR/><BR/>Prediction #5:<BR/>Too true- and it's already starting. Clinton would rather grope/fondle/kiss than eliminate<BR/>political threats. None of his "wag the dog" antics has ever eliminated a real threat. But he makes lots of noise- which he and cohorts continue to do.<BR/><BR/>As for suitcase nukes- I'm not completely satisfied that these are mass-destruction capable. The size limitation for enough reactive material and the triggering mechanisms in place seem to eliminate most fabrication solutions and even if possible, most humans would not be able to properly carry such a thing for any distance due to the bulk/weight. However, if we are talking about a device that is capable of delivering a toxic agent (radioactive dirty bomb, or chemical agents such as ricin, anthrax, and purified small pox,) then these certainly fit the bill for 'mass destruction' and would do great harm. This is one reason why the general media seized on the "no weapons of mass destruction" mantra in Iraq. They believed the definition of that phrase was limited to nuclear only. Not true- chemical labs- mobile and stationary, were found and eliminated almost from week #1 of the Iraq invasion. These labs were proven to produce agents that were "missile-ready", and Saddam had missiles clearly aimed at neighboring countries for just such an opportunity to try them out!Troy M. Stirmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00263120286543763299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18356115.post-1160494057871434242006-10-10T08:27:00.000-07:002006-10-10T08:27:00.000-07:00I didn't mention China in part because I don't kno...I didn't mention China in part because I don't know enough about the domestic political considerations to make a guess about where they see the risk-benefit ration falling.<BR/><BR/>The question comes down to whether the US has the means, and more importantly the willingness, to "make" China do something like close the border with North Korea. Even if that's the official policy, you're depending on the the faith and credit of local party bosses to manage the border sealing, and communism and corruption share more than just the same two first letters. What it would take is PLA units known to be loyal positioned on the border to make an embargo stick.<BR/><BR/>The unknown possibility is the cabal of officers who see China's way forward in the last 20 years as better for North Korea than the isolation and deprivation of the last 50 years in North Korea. Whether those people exist is the question. China will not be encouraged by Japan going nuclear, but there are enough economic ties between the countries that Japan may be able to influence China without resorting to becoming a nuclear power. North Korea is trying to apply pressure to the Japan-China-South Korea axis, by manipulating the horrific memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- a pretty sadistic move, IMO.<BR/><BR/>The best response is an unblinking stare and refusal to comply with the upcoming series of North Korean demands. Passive-aggression is occasionally a useful tool, if you can back it up with aggressive aggression when the other party lashes out.<BR/><BR/>As this is a dress rehearsal for Iran's nuclear coming out party, it's rather important to get this one right, right now.Darren Duvallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14206549297099752092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18356115.post-1160493085555217052006-10-10T08:11:00.000-07:002006-10-10T08:11:00.000-07:00Your didn't meantion China at all in your prior pr...Your didn't meantion China at all in your prior predictions. It will be interesting to watch their part in all this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18356115.post-1160433449564766622006-10-09T15:37:00.000-07:002006-10-09T15:37:00.000-07:00Suitcase nukes are very, very high-tech weapons. ...Suitcase nukes are very, very high-tech weapons. Basically, you need the very least amount of fissile material, the highest-activity neutron source, and a spectacularly well-timed detonation. There are some high-energy parts in those bombs like polonium and tritium that decay rapidly and must be replaced regularly. Polonium, for example, only has a 138-day half-life, and tritium only has a 12-year half-life. Without these neutron sources (polonium needs a beryllium tamper around it to make neutrons), you don't get a real bang.<BR/><BR/>Basically, without regular maintenence a backpack nuke is a midly radioactive paperweight. That North Korea managed to rehabilitate one would not be overly surprising, but that they would test one first would be VERY surprising.<BR/><BR/>In likelihood, I would rank the possible explanations in this order:<BR/><BR/>1. Fizzled implosion bomb.<BR/>2. HE-only test.<BR/>3. Successful small-yield test for a boosted-fission device, without thermonuclear component.<BR/>4. Backpack nuke test.<BR/><BR/>SWAG, of course. :DDarren Duvallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14206549297099752092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18356115.post-1160430612009419482006-10-09T14:50:00.000-07:002006-10-09T14:50:00.000-07:00The Russians by there own admission have lost trac...The Russians by there own admission have lost track of 100 or so suit-case weapons which would yield about the same as observed in Korea today. I heard it suggested that this could be one of those. ~DDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18356115.post-1160430430378828902006-10-09T14:47:00.000-07:002006-10-09T14:47:00.000-07:00Long-term, IMO, China has tremendous domestic prob...Long-term, IMO, China has tremendous domestic problems that it may choose to solve in the foreign sphere, which I guess is the main concern.<BR/><BR/>But at this point, the US Navy alone could wreck the most valuable parts of China in under an hour, sink their single and decrepit SSBN and, if done preemptively, reduce their nuclear strike capability to something the NMD system could handle. China knows this. Japan knows this. South Korea knows this. They have some road-mobile ICBMs that might be hard to track down, but that's why we have a limited NMD system. So long as our goals don't include taking and holding Chinese territory, our present military is very capable of crippling China, and China's ability to move men and materials is subject to the discretion of our nuclear submarine captains. They can't project force worth a hoot, basically.<BR/><BR/>In 20 years, China may actually be a near-peer competitor in the military sense. If it turns out that the real reason to "provoke" North Korea now is to get Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to militarize, this would be the first time the United States has seemed to think that far ahead, IMO. While I would like to believe the US is playing a deep game of chess with China in this regard, I think that gives the State Department way, way too much credit. It's hard to implement policies that outlast Presidential /terms/, much less decades.<BR/><BR/>If China wants to jack with us, they can stop buying dollar-denominated debt. If we want to jack with China, we can do it with trade and monetary policy. When subtler instruments like this are available, why use the crude tool of the military? My thought would be that anyone so interested in a long-term strategy against China would pick tools that are more subtle and less direct.<BR/><BR/>I could be having a George Smiley moment, though.Darren Duvallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14206549297099752092noreply@blogger.com