N.Korea to Nuke Australia?

[Luvian]

If they really want to shoot a nuclear missile, they might as well aim it on themselves, because you can bet the second they shoot one, the whole world is going to want to see them removed.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Luvian: If they really want to shoot a nuclear missile ...

They wouldn't dare. They want the nuke because they think it will make them a player to be feared internationally, but I would bet every cent I have that even the madhatters in charge of NK realise that if they build 5 or 10 nukes, and dared to launch a single one, their country would be reduced to a smoking hole in the map by the hundreds that the big boys have. At the very least, tactical nukes would make damn sure that the only people left alive in the country were the ones a safe distance from any military fortification. "Removed" isn't the right word for what would happen to the administration. "Annihilated" would be closer the mark

It's a bluff. It's one to take seriously, because the best case scenario is that there are more nuclear missiles in the world, and that is more nuclear missiles that can malfunction/be sabotaged/god knows what. However, even the maddest madhatter knows that they wouldn't survive the retaliation, and survival is pretty much a priority for every world leader, even (or especially) the dictatorial ones.

EDIT : And as many people have said, it;s a strange blip that delivery of an nuke is more difficult than building the nuke! I *believe* that that ICBM club is actually smaller than the nuclear club. I *may* be totally wrong here, but I have always been under the impression that only the really big military powers had intercontinental missile ability.

[ 09-08-2003, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

[Skunk]

If they really want to shoot a nuclear missile, they might as well aim it on themselves, because you can bet the second they shoot one, the whole world is going to want to see them removed.

Very true - and I think that it's safe to say that North Korea recognises this.

However, if US/AU/UK ships stop the North Koreans from engaging in legitimate trade, then the country would be finished anyway - it would die slowly just as Iraq did - and as such, these actions would be effectively a 'declaration of war'.

Under those circumstances, North Korea would have nothing to lose by engaging in military action: better to go out fighting then die slowly over a 10/20 year period.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Skunk: Very true - and I think that it's safe to say that North Korea recognises this. However, if US/AU/UK ships stop the North Koreans from engaging in legitimate trade, then the country would be finished anyway - it would die slowly just as Iraq did - and as such, these actions would be effectively a 'declaration of war'. Under those circumstances, North Korea would have nothing to lose by engaging in military action: better to go out fighting then die slowly over a 10/20 year period.

That's true. And the article doesn't state exactly where the ships will be stopped. In international waters? In Nth Korean waters? In Australian waters? As far as I know the American government creates new nuclear tachnology every day, as does the British, French and Russian... should they have their shipments checked, blocked and confiscated? The reasoning does seem to be very biased here. 'It's ok for Nth Korea to be pushed around because they are the ugly, obnoxious kid in the playground. But we can get away with doing the exact same thing because our governments look alot nicer than theirs does on the surface'. Just doesn't sound right, and considering The West's track record with nuclear arms, it seems just a little bit hypocritical.

[Donut]

Originally posted by wellard: What with the French testing their nukes on nearby pacific atolls and Britain testing their nukes actually on us, they are in good company. [img]graemlins/microwave.gif[/img]

I would like to point out to everyone that we don't do this any more!

[wellard]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by wellard: What with the French testing their nukes on nearby pacific atolls and Britain testing their nukes actually on us, they are in good company. [img]graemlins/microwave.gif[/img]

I would like to point out to everyone that we don't do this any more! [/QUOTE]True! You have stopped dropping them on us now. Infact Britain has even helped to clear up the testing area. Nice of them really [img]tongue.gif[/img]

To put this old Korea story into context

1) About a month later the Australian Govt. backed down on the whole thing about stopping ships with WOMD and now complain about Korea Govt. supplying drugs by ship.

A result of a threat that worked? or just more politics?


2) About the same timeframe there was discusions at a "low level" about creating a new pacific base for the US armed forces in Australia. A base that Korea and Indonesia have complained bitterly about.


Would US bases make Australia more or less of a target?

[Skunk]

To put this old Korea story into context 1) About a month later the Australian Govt. backed down on the whole thing about stopping ships with WOMD and now complain about Korea Govt. supplying drugs by ship. A result of a threat that worked? or just more politics? 2) About the same timeframe there was discusions at a "low level" about creating a new pacific base for the US armed forces in Australia. A base that Korea and Indonesia have complained bitterly about. Would US bases make Australia more or less of a target?

1) No, just more politics - North Korea's main export is missles and general military hardware(they're rather good at making decent mid-quality missiles on the cheap) and they need hard currency, so they won't stop.

2) The US bases would certainly be a target themselves but I don't think that the bases would increase the likliehood of an attack on Austrailia in itself. Of more importance is Austrailian alignment to US regional power policy, the closer it identifies itself to US hegmony in the middle east, the greater the potential of being attacked.
Sadly, until the Iraq affair, the Aussie reputation in the middle east and in the muslim world in general ranged from neutral (where is Austrailia again?) to good - but it was *never* negative: until now.

[wellard]

Skunk
Sadly, until the Iraq affair, the Aussie reputation in the middle east and in the muslim world in general ranged from neutral (where is Austrailia again?) to good - but it was *never* negative: until now.


True! and to think that the currant PM's catchphrase when first elected was "my job is to make Australia relaxed and comfortable"
NEWS UPDATE

*link later* Today Australia with Japan and some other countries conducted a trail run / training sesion in the south pacific of a chase and board of a ship containing WOMD!!

[ 09-09-2003, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: wellard ]