Monday, October 09, 2006

No Nukes?

Stickynotes says that it's been suggested that the NK test wasn't really nuclear. Exactly what I've been thinking. Could they have just packed a tunnel with ANFO and struck a match?

Thing is, the yield was extremely low, and no radiation has been detected. And lots of reports are still calling it an alleged nuclear test. The only question is, why would anyone want to take the heat for developing a weapon that they never really developed? (a question I'd like to hear Saddam answer as well) The only thing I can think of is that NK expects that the world will be afraid, and unwilling to confront an "nuclear" North Korea.

Which is getting it exactly backwards. Witness Saddam again. The only reason for Saddam to posture and lead the world to think he had WMDs was because he thought it would make him safer. (and he did actively nurture the notion that any US invasion would be met with WMD - not for nothing did we outfit an army with mylar long-johns) Still, can these guys be that stupid? If you want trouble from the US, and most everyone else, just trumpet yourself as being a dangerous player. You'll get attention, but it might not be what you expect.


***Update: Michael Yon at the corner:

A very well-placed government source told me Tuesday afternoon that the North Korean explosion was non-nuclear. The explosion may have been an actual nuclear test — this is unknown — but the source reports the outcome was non-nuclear. The source stressed the importance of bearing in mind that though the explosion occured in North Korea — if it was actually a test and not merely a dictator clamoring for attention and influence — the test may have been by or for the Iranians. The source reported that American physicists with access to the information see no sign of nuclear activity, however. My source also mentioned that Japanese sensors picked up no radiation signatures.

6 comments:

Party_of_Odd said...

Here's my theory on WMDs and totalitarian regimes (using Saddam as an example):

Scene: a cabinet meeting in Baghdad.
Saddam: "Ahmed, go and make the Weapons of Mass Distruction. Report back to me in 6 months."
========================
Scene: a cabinet meeting in Baghdad (6mos. later).
Saddam: "Ahmed, what is the status of my WMDs?"
Ahmed: "Sorry, my commander, but there are many problems in making WMDs, not the least of which is..."
Saddam: "Uday, kill him."
Saddam: "Now, Abdullah, go and make the Weapons of Mass Distruction. Report back to me in 6 months."
===========================
Scene: a cabinet meeting in Baghdad, 6 mos. later.
Saddam: "Abdullah, what is the status of my WMDs?"
Abdullah (unsuccessful like his predecessor): "We have many Weapons of Mass Destruction...many, many, very nasty weapons...we have the Mother of All Weapons of Mass Destruction, we have nuclear camels and biological ant tracks..."

Anonymous said...

Not that this is on topic or anything, but what are "Commints"? Breath fresheners for Russians?

lumberjack said...

Yes, and they're surprisingly refreshing....
And also it's a typo.. One night I was playing with the template; changed it to "refutations," "amens," "right on's," "indubitablies" etc.
Then I just changed it back to "comments" ... only keyboard fatigue caused it to come out "commints."
Now aren't you sorry you asked?

This, by the way, is exactly the same procedure used to name dogs in the lumber camp. Some of them even end up without vowels.

lumberjack said...

Oh, and PoO, I agree. Having an idling wood-chipper in the next room can really motivate subordinates.

søren said...

Lumberjacks don't write like pirates. Are you sure you're not a tree pruner? They use chippers.

lumberjack said...

Pirate blogs are a dime a dozen. And why would I pretend to be a tree pruner when I can pretend to be a lumberjack?
No more grog for you.

fighting101s.jpg