North Korea's Nuclear Weapons

December 24, 2010

SouthAmerica: A solution to avoid Nuclear War.

Regarding a war between the United States and North Korea it's obvious that a North Korean attack with nuclear weapons against Tokyo as I mentioned above – North Korea would be attacking the Achilles heel of the United States in that part of the world.

Since that outcome would be catastrophic and it would not be good for anyone, then what could be a solution for this crisis before the situation on the Korean Peninsula spins completely out of control?

China could jump in and offer massive aid to reconstruct North Korea in partnership with South Korea with the condition that the 2-Koreas merge into one country, and also that the US military forces leave South Korean soil ASAP.

That strategy would be good for all parties.

.

 

How is The US,SK and Japan provoking North Korea ? North Korea has made numerous attacks against SK and they have finally said enough is enough and are preparing to defend themselves

If the North doesn't attack the South again everything will be fine.If the North sinks another SK sub or fires artillery shells at the South again the South has every right to defend themselves

 

It wouldn't be anywhere near that bad imo.

 

I doubt North Korea has the ability to make precision nuclear strikes against anyone.The nukes and delivery system the US used in 1945 is probably better then what North Korea has now

 

And Obama sent them anyway.

China needs to get their little buddies under control,if they dont The US will.We finally have a President who isn't taking their shit anymore.Obama has also shown he wont be intimidated by the threat of China getting involved

 

.

December 25, 2010

SouthAmerica: Reply to Range Rover

You said: "I doubt North Korea has the ability to make precision nuclear strikes against anyone.The nukes and delivery system the US used in 1945 is probably better then what North Korea has now."

You are wrong about your assumption, since North Korea got their technology from the Ukrainians regarding the Soviet Union R-27 missile technology.

The experts that follow that sort of thing say that the BM-25 Musudan missile could seemingly be tipped with a warhead as heavy as 1.2 tons and has a "circular error probability" for accuracy estimated at about one mile. And remember this weapon is an improved version of Soviet missile technology from the mid-1970's and 1980's – and since the collapse of the Soviet Union, North Korea had a long time to contact and get technological advice from the Soviet nuclear technology scientists who were marginalized after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The West is probably underestimating the nuclear warhead destruction capabilities of North Korea. And North Korea also has the capability of launching a version of these missiles from submarines.

If the North Koreans decide to destroy a chunk of Tokyo they probably have the technology to do it in a big way.

.

 

Ricardo. Your accuracy when it comes to predicting the future may leave a lot to be desired. However, your central point is interesting and worthy of contemplation.
What would happen if a calamity occurred such as a nuclear war, even a limited one as might occur on the Korean peninsula? Hopefully the slaughter would remain regional, but would the after effects not spread worldwide? Too often so many of us dismiss the warnings of the messenger when in truth such a disaster will involve all of us to some degree, especially those with any interests in the economic sector, which are nowadays globally intertwined. In addition, we are all too often willing to shout down the messenger because we are too blind or simply stupid to see his point through all the emotionalism and vivid imagery.

Ricardo, you may not be as clear as many who want to call attention to the difficult, but your message is still getting through. Anymore, when I hear about Syria's bomb, Iran's bomb, the Indian and Pakistani bomb, the Ukraine and who knows who else, I wonder if I should blindly continue or take a breath and imagine the safest path for my clients and myself, if there is such a thing. It may be very convenient to dismiss your message, but I think the savagery the future promises for us all is inevitable to some degree.

 

December 29, 2010

SouthAmerica: Reply to W. Weatherford

We have a similar discussion going on in another 2 forums on the web, and here is my answer to a member of one of these forums:

I never said that the impact would be uniquely bad on the US.- What I have been saying is that it would trigger the collapse of the US dollar, and at the same time it would trigger a global stock market meltdown, and an immediate global run on the banking system everywhere, and we would have collapsing insurance companies, hedge funds, mutual funds, and so on...a complete meltdown of the global financial system – from the Americas to Asia, to Europe, to the Middle East and Africa – most financial institutions would be insolvent in no time.

The population would panic that's why we would have an immediate run on the banking system, and on the food supply everywhere. With the immediate news coming from the internet, and our modern communication systems the panic would spread at the speed-of-light.

In 9/11 the damage to the US and global economy, and financial system it would be considered a minor event when compared with the outcome of the massive destruction of Tokyo – that event it would be catastrophic for everybody and would make most governments from around the world insolvent almost overnight.

It does not need to be North Korea's nukes to devastate Tokyo – it could be that massive earthquake hitting Tokyo causing massive destruction that the articles mentioned in 1995 – either way the US economic and financial system is vulnerable to such a catastrophic event.

When the panic starts with the banking runs, a stampede to secure any type of food supply, riots and widespread looting everywhere – a complete breakdown of civil society – how the country will operate?

Today, to make things even worse most people have seen many apocalyptic movies, and the herd probably will respond accordingly to what they have seen on these movies, or what they have seen in the news in similar circumstances - when they recognize the first signs of panic, and after the stampede starts it would be very hard to get the herd under control.


*****


SouthAmerica: The entire world would change completely if such a catastrophe became a reality – and then what???????????????????

Where do we go from there?

.

 

I have faith the markets can handle most natural disasters because we have experience with such variables, and the risk is usually limited or regional in scope.

However, most of us have little experience in measuring the reaction of the world's markets to the exposure of a nuclear exchange, however limited. In addition, who could possibly understand or know when such an exchange would stop? For instance, don't wars often escalate, and with today's complex alliances, who could possibly offer an accurate prediction of the future to a client.

When I am asked my opinion of such risks, the question used to end in joint laughter; however, anymore, the nearness of such a question to reality keeps me from finding any humor in the question. Indeed, the answers are truly out of my league, but I still have an obligation toward risk.

Hopefully, this question is still one for the future and is at least several years away, but I believe it is obvious that what you have postulated will happen, eventually, and probably sooner than later. Thanks for offering a thought-provoking discussion, and while I hate the implications of your argument, I refuse to shoot the messenger. Indeed, you are not alone in your thinking, just one of the first to voice it.

 

South America, I have followed you to another blog site, namely, Brazil magazine.

I'm not sure that I understand your point of view after reading your latest opinion on that site. Are you now of the belief that the possession of nuclear weaponry is good for North Korea? I'm confused by the fact that, to me, you seem to be playing both sides of the argument.

To clarify, you mentioned that after the reunification of the two Koreas, North Korea's possession of the bomb would enhance a unified Korea's position within the world order? If I follow your logic, then North Korea's continued enhancement of their nuclear program is a good thing?

Perhaps, but I don't even see the reunification of the two Koreas anywhere on the horizon as yet. Maybe you have the cart before the horse?

I don't think you have to worry about a unified Korea not having nuclear weaponry. As I become more interested in the subject, I find myself doubting that South Korea, to some extent, is the real nuclear power between the two Korea's.

In addition, are you aware of America's program of nuclear sharing? It is a program where America more or less gives close allies, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as Turkey and Greece, nuclear bombs to be delivered by the aircraft of that particular country. There are more countries involved than just those four countries. I've always wondered if South Korea isn't a secret member of the group. Just wondering as to the depth of your knowledge and background.