Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
imrunningthismonkeyfarm

Is North Korea really a problem?

875 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

CrimsonKing
2 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

I still give great faith in the less lunatical* within this or any other US administration. That branch is hamstrung, by design, without outside support. What I like about the American system is that there is an extra layer of "checks and balances".

It's a messy system of governance, as imperfect as any of the best. Still, any form of democracy is better than the alternative.

*lunatical is the new word of the day.

"Lunatical"...is that Latin for tickling the moon?... :huh: :lol:

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
12 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

"Lunatical"...is that Latin for tickling the moon?... :huh: :lol:

It's a new word, use it, own it. :D

I meant it in the sense of; "that which is beyond fanatical, beyond lunacy."

Edit: 'Tickling the Moon' is probably just as good, or better.

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
Just now, Likely Guy said:

It's a new word, use it, own it. :D

I meant it in the sense of; "that which is beyond fanatical, beyond lunacy."

I gotcha man,just having a lil fun :lol: :tu:

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

North Korea's financial ability to do what it does is this:

Primary: State-sponsored, large-scale counterfeit currency of VERY high quality. U.S. and Euro currency.These are known as "Super Notes" Look it up on WiKi.

Secondary: A very large, state-sponsored raw opium production, sold primarily through China. Great income.

These two factors account for 90% of North Korea's b****** financial "crap wealth"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
12 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

It's a worrying scenario to be sure. However, crossing the Pacific would require a fairly substantial ship. You wouldn't want to do the journey on a small fishing boat. Apart from the danger of severe storms sinking it, even a mild storm would risk shaking the Nuke' to pieces. 

I'd like to think that any ship of significant size approaching the US seaboard would be monitored and identified, a bit like air traffic control, and its port of origin confirmed ? 

If they have a brain, they'll simply travel in a large ship, and exchange into a small fishing boat just offshore. I know for a fact they don't stop and check each and every fishing boat, or sailboat that travels up/down the coast.

I know the Coast Guard does check a lot of ships, but I don't know if they radar everyone and check every one. They might only call by radio and ask their origin and destination as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
3 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

I don't think nukes can come into our  harbors by boats, planes , we can now detect the radiations way before they get here   

They don't need to, all they have to do is put a missile in a Cargo ship headed to Panama or Cuba or Canada, and fire that thing once they are within about 400 miles of us. 

it would not even have to be one of thier own ships, just go in at night with commandos, eliminate the crew and take one over. It would be far from the most brutal thing they have ever done. 

And no, "Jets" can kill in large numbers, they can inconvenience an army and do all kinds of things, but they can't eliminate an Army on its own ground. Especially one on the defense ,and this has been proven many times over the years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Hmmm.. interesting point Diechecker. 

AnchorSteam.... adapting a cargo ship to fire a missile within even a VAGUE sense of direction is not a trivial task. Consider; NK tried to fire a land-based missile yesterday. This was from a properly designed silo, carefully constructed over a long period of time, with full maintenance facilities etcetera. The missile blew up seconds after launch. 

I'm not worried about ship-launched NK missiles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
Just now, docyabut2 said:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/15/north-korea-attempts-fails-to-launch-missile-south-korea/22041422/

North Korean missile 'blows up' on test launch

Its really telling  them something:) they better heed :)

.

and that's exactly what  would happen if there was a nuclear warhead attached - 

ok panic over - send the war ships home.. :) 

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
4 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

I don't think nukes can come into our  harbors by boats, planes , we can now detect the radiations way before they get here   

From what I've read the detectors they use have to be within like 100 meters, in order to detect radiation within, say, a cargo container ship. Unless we line the coast with millions of detector buoys, that would probably cost tens of thousands of dollars each, and require thousands of shoreline repeater stations, I think we could not detect any incoming radiation threat.

Plus, aren't nuclear weapons shielded, so that regular humans can transport and handle them? That would cut down on the distance it would be detectable by quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
23 minutes ago, bee said:

.

and that's exactly what  would happen if there was a nuclear warhead attached - 

ok panic over - send the war ships home.. :) 

.

Not...quite...that simple Bee...

South Korea is one of our best allies and trading partners...

Fat boy can/could unleash hell on their capital!

He is working on longer range projects,that is what most likely poo poo'ed on his "day of the sun"...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

.

Couple of points  ---

first - re this notion that nuclear material could be smuggled around in ships or boats and detonated near or on or above a target
like the US mainland for example - I'm pretty sure that movement of all and any nuclear material from Uranium upwards can be 
detected and monitored - from satellites I would think - it would be giving off an easily identified signal --

Second - how easy is to get a nuclear bomb detonated anyway -- ? I have come across information from a couple of areas -
from the work of Bruce Cathie and Keith Hunter - explaining how certain conditions are necessary concerning the position
of the sun in relation to certain places on earth and the desired point of detonation - that a time~space ripping device like
a nuclear weapon needs to be integrated into the solar system itself to get the mushroom cloud type detonation going --

So there are windows of opportunity for a major nuclear explosion and all nuclear powers are aware of the windows of
opportunity -

I know I know --- it's hard to believe that this could be so but I think it is a live possibility - I mean they didn't need
Einstein and all those super duper top scientists just to stick a bit of uranium and / or plutonium on the scales then bung
it all in a warhead ----- but if it was all to do with the geometrical harmonics of the universe itself and tying this in with the
detonation  the likes of Einstein would be needed...? 

That's the good news  (that it could be impossible to pop off a nuclear weapon anywhere any time)

The bad news is that the only time nuclear weapons have been used was Hiroshima and Nagasaki and those positions
on earth (around the 33 degree latitude N ) are quite near to North Korea and particularly South Korea -

But if this info has any merit then all nuclear powers are aware of the windows of opportunity in that part of the world -

.

  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
Just now, CrimsonKing said:

Not...quite...that simple Bee...

South Korea is one of our best allies and trading partners...

Fat boy can/could unleash hell on their capital!

He is working on longer range projects,that is what most likely poo poo'ed on his "day of the sun"...

 

.

I know - I was being flippant -  

And if what I have speculated on in my other post is correct - South Korea could be an achievable target -

Except all the 'windows of opportunity' will be covered by other military...like the US ..?... and I doubt the target
would be reached -- Isn't that Island to the South of South Korea Guam (from memory) and that is US territory
bristling (I think) with US military and weapons etc...

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Any country ruled by someone surrounded by sycophants who willing executes relatives and close co-coworkers and who has arbitrary power and control of nuclear weapons is a problem.  When this person makes reckless threats, even though he doesn't always carry them out, makes him more of a problem.  When this person sells the nuclear technology to other governments of similar stripe, it is even more a problem.

Should Seoul be hit by such a weapon (or some other city in S. Korea or Japan) we would know at once who did it -- although there are idiots out there who would call for "proof."

Should something like that happen elsewhere in the world, it would be more problematic.  Probably what would happen is that the civilized countries of the world (the US, most of Europe, Japan and some others) would insist on a world-wide regime of nuclear safeguards -- pro-actively preventing nuclear development.  If Russia and China did not cooperate in such a case, they would have to be overthrown.  It wouldn't be easy but it would be necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton
2 minutes ago, bee said:

.

I know - I was being flippant -  

And if what I have speculated on in my other post is correct - South Korea could be an achievable target -

Except all the 'windows of opportunity' will be covered by other military...like the US ..?... and I doubt the target
would be reached -- Isn't that Island to the South of South Korea Guam (from memory) and that is US territory
bristling (I think) with US military and weapons etc...

.

Guam is way too far off to have immediate effect.  That is why there are US troops in S. Korea itself.  An attack on S. Korea is bound to immediately effect them -- the "trigger" idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
1 minute ago, bee said:

.

I know - I was being flippant -  

And if what I have speculated on in my other post is correct - South Korea could be an achievable target -

Except all the 'windows of opportunity' will be covered by other military...like the US ..?... and I doubt the target
would be reached -- Isn't that Island to the South of South Korea Guam (from memory) and that is US territory
bristling (I think) with US military and weapons etc...

.

Meh my bad... :unsure2:

I thought you were being serious lol,it's late (central times in the States 3:15 am) 

Damn off time :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
Just now, Frank Merton said:

Guam is way too far off to have immediate effect.  That is why there are US troops in S. Korea itself.  An attack on S. Korea is bound to immediately effect them -- the "trigger" idea.

.

ok -  I got that wrong about the island just off South Korea being Guam --- i just looked it up -

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
Just now, CrimsonKing said:

Meh my bad... :unsure2:

I thought you were being serious lol,it's late (central times in the States 3:15 am) 

Damn off time :lol:

.

no probs - in all honesty though I was a teeny weeny bit serious as well as being flippant because we could do without
all this fear of nuclear war being stoked up -- one of the main UK newspapers yesterday had the headlines
in BIG letters .... WE ARE ON THE BRINK OF NUCLEAR WAR ...... now that can really scare people and bring them
down --- and put them right off their Easter Eggs.... :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 hours ago, bee said:

Couple of points  ---

first - re this notion that nuclear material could be smuggled around in ships or boats and detonated near or on or above a target
like the US mainland for example - I'm pretty sure that movement of all and any nuclear material from Uranium upwards can be 
detected and monitored - from satellites I would think - it would be giving off an easily identified signal --

I don't think this is the case. If it was, we'd know how many nukes Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea have, and where they have them. Perhaps we do know that, and it is a state secret. 

I went and looked into the subject a bit, here is what I found, but it is two years old...

http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21662652-clandestine-weapons-new-ways-detect-covert-nuclear-weapons-are-being-developed

Quote

The “beauty” of neutrons and alpha, beta and gamma radiation, is that the energy levels involved also reveal if the source is fit for a weapon, says Kai Vetter, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley. But air absorbs enough radiation from uranium and plutonium bomb fuel to render today’s detectors mostly useless unless they are placed just a few dozen metres away. (Radiological material for a “dirty bomb” made with conventional explosives is detectable much farther away.) Lead shielding makes detection even harder. Not one of the more than 20 confirmed cases of trafficking in bomb-usable uranium or plutonium has been discovered by a detector’s alarm, says Elena Sokova, head of the Vienna Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, a think-tank.

.....

Such improvements have yet to translate into much greater range, however. Detectors still need to be close to whatever it is they are monitoring, which mostly restricts their use to transport nodes, such as ports and borders. The range the detectors operate over might stretch to about 100 metres in a decade or so, but this depends on uncertain advances in “active interrogation”—the bombardment of an object with high-energy neutrons or protons to produce other particles which are easier to pick up. One problem is that such detectors might harm stowaways hiding in cargo.

It did say this also...

Quote

The NNSA and other organisations are backing the construction of a prototype device called WATCHMAN in an old salt mine (to shield it from cosmic rays and other interference) in Painesville, Ohio. It will be used to detect neutrinos from limited plutonium production at a nuclear power station 13km away. Such a system might have a 1,000km range, eventually.

My guess is that we're not there yet, and certainly not putting a huge detection array that might fill part of a warehouse up onto a satellite just yet.

EDIT: I did find this... 

http://www.rense.com/general16/nucla.htm

Which says that we can detect any nuclear weapon from satellites, but rense.com is a complete conspiricy theory website, and to not be taken seriously without proof, and not just "eyewitness" stories.

 

EDIT: EDIT: I also found this....

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/keller1/docs/phillips.pdf

Which gives a nice chart...

Showing that nuclear weapon radiation really can't be detected more then a thrown stone away.

Capture.JPG

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
Just now, DieChecker said:

I don't think this is the case. If it was, we'd know how many nukes Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea have, and where they have them. Perhaps we do know that, and it is a state secret. 

.

I think we do know that, for sure - I would certainly hope so anyway because that is all very basic defense stuff -

Thanks for your research even though I still stick with what I said before -- and think what I said it would be classified..
because it would be policy not to let the 'enemy' know what you know -

there was a film on the telly last night here about breaking the enigma code in WW2 and they kept that secret for 50 years.!!

this bit of one of your quotes made me smile -- 

the bombardment of an object with high-energy neutrons or protons to produce other particles which are easier to pick up. One problem is that such detectors might harm stowaways hiding in cargo.

 

Like --- oh never mind possible nuclear destruction of whole countries and the death of millions... we must be careful not
to harm a stowaway... ;)

..

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
8 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

.... but what if the Leader prefers suicide to losing face? He does appear to be exactly that kind of weirdo.

 

 

That video is very telling and IMO quite plausible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
2 hours ago, bee said:

 

 

...Second - how easy is to get a nuclear bomb detonated anyway -- ? I have come across information from a couple of areas -
from the work of Bruce Cathie and Keith Hunter - explaining how certain conditions are necessary concerning the position
of the sun in relation to certain places on earth and the desired point of detonation - that a time~space ripping device like
a nuclear weapon needs to be integrated into the solar system itself to get the mushroom cloud type detonation going --

 

  

The short answer to this notion is no.

Global position, proximity of the sun, the solar system, space/time ripping (whatever that is) have nothing to do with the physics behind a nuclear explosion. A nuclear bomb will work just as well in any location provided it has the proper mechanism for detonation and correct amount/type of fissile material.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

All lil Kimmy boy needs is a dirty bomb or two ... in the right place and right time the whole world will be knocked sideways and decades to set up straight again, if ever ...

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
32 minutes ago, Lilly said:

The short answer to this notion is no.

Global position, proximity of the sun, the solar system, space/time ripping (whatever that is) have nothing to do with the physics behind a nuclear explosion. A nuclear bomb will work just as well in any location provided it has the proper mechanism for detonation and correct amount/type of fissile material.

.

maybe - maybe not

anyway here's Bruce Cathie talking about it for anyone that's interested - 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
9 minutes ago, third_eye said:

All lil Kimmy boy needs is a dirty bomb or two ... in the right place and right time the whole world will be knocked sideways and decades to set up straight again, if ever ...

~

.

that's all anyone needs not just Kimmy - funny how it's never happened though isn't it - it can't be for the want of trying -

or the want of wanting .. the West isn't exactly short of enemies who would do it in a heartbeat if they could - ??

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I don't know what degrees Mr Cathie holds, but from what I've read he is "only" an airline pilot by training, and not a geophysicist, or any other kind of physicist. 

Most people put Mr Cathie into the category of Conspiracy Theorist. Because his claims entirely depend on there being some secret harmonics involved with exploding a nuclear weapon, and the secret only being known to the government, and not shared, even with the brightest and most educated of civilians.

The fact that Mr Cathie's harmonic idea can't be disproved, is similar to how bigfoot can not be disproved. Yet most people don't believe in bigfoot, and for good reasons. The same applies here. Most people shouldn't believe in the harmonic idea because there is no other evidence to support it.

Mr Cathie said he noticed that the speed of light, the local gravity and the Earth Magnetic field all were involved in all nuclear weapons tests. Well, yeah, because those affect almost every single energy transfer here on Earth, not just nuclear weapons tests, and things like household electricity don't depend on geographic location, or time of day, or anything else.... Physics works everywhere, all the same, all the time. 

EDIT: Well.. everywhere, all the same, all the time... In our frame of reference anyway. Not next to a black hole for example...

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.