BS: Preventive war?

Subject: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 08:56 AM

I would like to see some sane comments about the following article

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/11/29/deterring_north_korea_a_reckless_gamble_we_cannot_afford__112695.html

by Kevin R. James, a Research Fellow in the Systemic Risk Centre at the London School of Economics

PLEASE READ BEFORE MAKING COMMENTS!!!

The premise presented is as follows:

"Choosing to deter North Korea is to engage in a gamble: you avoid the costs of a preventive war today when North Korea is relatively weak, but you run the risk of an accidental nuclear war later when North Korea is vastly more powerful. Using plausible estimates of the probability of accidental nuclear war derived from the U.S.-Soviet experience during the Cold War, I find that gambling on deterrence will lead to 7.5 million U.S.-South Korean-Japanese deaths on average (under optimistic assumptions) while a preventive war now will lead to 1.4 million deaths (under pessimistic assumptions). So, not only is deterrence a gamble, it is a reckless and foolish one. Preventive war is the wise and prudent response to North Korea's nuclear threat."

I do NOT like the conclusion, but the facts and analysis presented seem valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 09:21 AM

Blitzkrieg !
offense best defense
kill first and let god sort it out
Preventative war is the first strike horror

on the plus side...

Yep a billion pounds of well cooked women and children makes for some
mighty tender barbecue.
..........................


Dear Genghis Khan,
It is our decision to respectively opt out to your interaction with our community.
Sincerely,
The Venetians

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 09:29 AM

If such is indeed the case, and the author makes a statistically good case for a preventative war, I think that there are a myriad of variables unconsidered.

These include, but are not limited to: the reactions of China and Russia; actions by other nuclear armed UN countries; status of anti-missile defenses in the US, ROK, and Japan; and whether or no the US is supposed to "go it alone." This does not include whether or not the US currently has the internal support to be so involved or if the militaries of the US and its allied are able to effectively wage war at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 09:43 AM

The reason the analysis is so bad is that the conclusion is so absurd.

Any serious reaction to such an analysis is also therefore absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 09:45 AM

Rapparee,

I hope you are right, but did not see any obvious flaws in the presented analysis- Perhaps you can find them.





Mudelf, please remove the posts by Donuel and GregF. They obviously are intended ONLY to prevent rational discussion of the topic.

It is NOT MY preference to have 7.5 to 54 million dead civilians because we refuse to consider a preventive war. Obviously, GregF and Donuel are in favor of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 10:13 AM

Journalism involves looking up the sources given. Just like a teacher checks an essay. If sources are missing or they do not exist, the story becomes opinion and not fact.
Verifying the sources of the sources is next...

I stand by my remarks historically, satirically and factually.
Donuel

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 10:29 AM

Donuel,

Did you even bother to read the article?? Or, as many claim the anti-global warming people do, do you just decide that since you do not like the conclusions , it MUST be false?


You can't have it both ways- are you now a climate change skeptic supporter, or do you have a valid comment to make about the points IN THE ANALYSIS?

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 10:35 AM

The economic professor's expertise is in cost risk evaluations for students and banks. The arena of nuclear risks are not his primary concern. He does not seem to be a front line shill for right wing policy nor a genius in his field.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 10:37 AM

The US Army is going to be real happy about walking into a frontier zone mined with nuclear bombs, aren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 10:45 AM

" In essence then, to choose deterrence is to bet that North Korean adventurism in times of political tension will never lead to an equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis, to bet that North Korean early warning systems will never be subject to human error, and to bet that North Korean officers in the nuclear command-and-control chain will rely upon skeptical gut instincts rather than follow direct orders given a seemingly reliable signal of a U.S. attack. In other words, to gamble on deterrence is to bet that, since we spun the cylinder and survived a round or two of deterrence roulette with the Soviets, fortune will always favor us. Needless to say, any bet that requires continuous good fortune is a reckless and foolish one. "

Jack,

As opposed to standing there and watching how many million in Seoul being nuked?

Is it that the majority of the dead civilians will be Korean (South AND North) and Japanese, rather than good old Caucasians and Blacks the reason so many here are willing to accept the greater number killed?

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 10:50 AM

The problem with all this, of course is the the U.S. is no more to be trusted with nuclear weapons than any other nation - proof-aplenty in the fact that it ish the US who have actually used weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations - twice, and the demands for America to "nuke 'em back to the Stone Age" during the Vietnam war is proof that the tendency towards their use has never really gone away.
A world led by America with Donald Trump's finger on the button.... what a legacy we've left for the next generation!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 10:56 AM

Another comment that does not address the issue.


Are there any out there that actually have a valid comment about the article, or does Mudcat as a group prefer millions more dead as long as they are mostly Asian?

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 11:04 AM

My analysis is that we are currently creating a real life Bedford Incident.

The risk of accidental nuclear war is up from 2% to 20%.

Thanks to Donald

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 11:21 AM

The young professor did not mention anything I did not already know.
If it is new to others so be it. I would accuse him of being absurdly ambitious and sensationalisticly opportunistic.

If you did not infer my meaning of The Bedford Incident,
make Richard Widmark, Trump and the Destroyer, our nation.
Sidney Pointier played the part of all of us looking on.

Watch the movie, you will enjoy it.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 11:32 AM

Donuel,

http://www.systemicrisk.ac.uk/people/kevin-james


Care to put your credentials up against his in Risk Assessment?

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 11:33 AM

"or does Mudcat as a group prefer millions more dead as long as they are mostly Asian?"
How does the article in any way address the issue Bruce
The various American administrations have proved that they will cheerfully slaughter anybody (Asian or otherwise) who gets in the way of their political interests
Predation has neither olour nor creed
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 11:38 AM

Learn to read, Jimmy-boyo

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 11:38 AM

Don - satire was not invited. If I remember aright, in the past, you (& Greg, if it comes to that) have been guilty of attacking the poster as much as whatever is posted. If memory serves, not only is Bruce well on the right of US politics, which makes him a perfect target for you, you have done it in the past, very much with an attitude of "Bruce posted it so it must be wrong". Your first post does not stand historically, satirically, or factually (especially since you fail to provide any of the sources you demand). Your first post looks to me like meaningless tripe; unhistorical, unfunny, unfactual. You fail on all 3 of your claims, until you actually provide some of the sources you want from Bruce.

As for you, Bruce, my memory is that when your facts are proven false (as many often are), you ignore the facts either overtly (by declaring that proof is false) or covertly (by ignoring said proof entirely). And then you run off to find some new facts. The problem is that whilst you really do believe in what you choose to argue for (which I have no argument with!), you cherry pick your facts to suit what you believe. You put me in mind of a fragment of a Reader's Digest programme I caught a snatch of some years ago. Within the 3 minutes of it that I caught, the lead archaeologist out in the Middle East had gone from "Oh, this is great stuff. This proves the bible is right!" to "Oh, this must be wrong! This goes against what the bible says!" So don't go whining to the Mudelfs. You've put too many noses out of joint over the years to cry foul when someone has a go back (however much it might be unjustified).

And having got that out of the way, you asked for a serious response. The facts are dubious; the analysis garbage. The article is valid only if you accept the parameters. I don't. I've no idea who Kevin James is, but since he R's, I assume he is American (in the UK we rarely bother with the middle initial, assuming we actually have one). He sounds as though he is of the right-wing, hawkish, neo-con variety. Bear in mind, BB, that your left wing i.e. Democrats are mildly to the right of our centre, so you can imagine what he (and you!) often sound like to us Brits!

There is too much "I set" in the piece. I've just accused you of cherry-picking (I'm sure you'll be unhappy with that & deny it, but this isn't the first time that's cropped up is it? So why does it keep happening? Cos we're all stupid, or cos you do actually do it?). It seems to me that Mr James has set up a scenario to prove the premise he wants to push. I read the first couple of para's, skimmed the next few. Too many "I set", but the bit that really broke things as far as I'm concerned was deterrence cannot eliminate the non-trivial chance that North Korea launches a nuclear strike by accident. At which point, I cannot take the guy seriously any more. Given your posting history (i.e. the topics I've seen your name in), I think I'm justified in assuming you know what a Broken Arrow is, yes? When has there EVER been an accidental detonation of a nuclear weapon? Has there ever been an accidental launch of an ICBM? Why do you think NK might be more prone to either case than anyone else?

This article is garbage. I don't know whether KRJ merely has shares in arms companies, or whether he is a rabid hawk who really believes what he has is written. Either way, I'm not going to be losing any sleep any time soon.

P.S. There's an article up today on the BBC about NK's latest claims of having an ICBM. It'll be several years before it's reliable, though that's just a matter of rocketry and ballistics. What about delivering a viable warhead that will survive the journey & explode properly? They're years away from that.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 11:57 AM

Raedwulf,

Thank you for your response.

Last point first- Union of Concerned Scientists state 6 months to two years to develop thermonuclear warhead that can be used on an ICBM.Given they already exist and even NKoreans can read/access data, I suspect a lot shorter, but will use the longer time for discussion.

What is your problem with "deterrence cannot eliminate the non-trivial chance that North Korea launches a nuclear strike by accident. " ?

The discussion is that EVEN WITH NO INTENT to start a war, the chance of nuclear launch is 2% to 25%, and that is what his estimates are based on. There have been at least three known US crashes with live warheads, and the various false alerts that could have been catastrophic- Major war averted by either saftey devices ( that I doubt are on the NKorean bombs) or by use of the Hot Line.

A previous company I worked for was involved with the Hot line ( BFEC) ,
and I worked both SDIO and BMDO programs, so I can judge the chances of intercepting a launched missle better than most here.

You have declared "The facts are dubious; the analysis garbage." I have seen no evidence beyond your statement of that.

I would LOVE for the premise to be proven false- so far, I have seen only "I don't like it, so it is garbage"

As for James, see clickey on previous message

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 12:11 PM

As you know I have no credentials, not even a high school diploma.
(punishment for not obeying unwritten rules)
My education is more or less parallel to Leonardo DaVinci (I went to college 6 years but for music and psychology.) I diverged further with the study of the 5 major religions for 4 years, Christianity,Judaism,Sufi Islam, Buddhism and Hindi by practicing association. I found the foundation of Hypnosis to be central to all. Everything else came from curiosity or by doing.

What is your proof of knowledge?
Is a degree proof?
I am degree free
Yet I learn

what's your excuse?

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 12:15 PM

Donuel,

I base my judgement on facts and experience. I have 40 years of working various programs for NASA, NRL, SDIO/BMDO, AFWL, and civilian space operations.

So, you can just go pray for understanding, and I will try to find some reason NOT to believe that this article represents a valid premise. Obviously, you can provide nothing of use.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 12:18 PM

"Prevantative War" is any oxymoron, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 12:27 PM

Raedwulf,

BTW, we have NO Hotline to North Korea.

The various situations that the article uses to estimate the risk are ones well known to those of us who have the interest or need to look at them.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 12:28 PM

GregF,

PLEASE learn to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 12:36 PM

I already expressed my opinions and answers as anyone could clearly read. It is up to see or not. You may find it funny that I agreed.

Still the conclusion is absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 12:51 PM

I think we all can see that I am wise but not that smart and that bruce is smart but not that wise. Maybe it will come age Bruce.

Trump has the final word regarding preventative war and he is neither wise or smart.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 01:15 PM

"Learn to read, Jimmy-boyo"
Learn to speak to people with a degree of respect and not drag in your obvious ill bringing up Bruce
Bullies like you reflect the arrogance that cause wars
Neither power is particularly trustworthy here and it needs to be remembered that the genocidal war carried out by the US against Korea left the latter reduced to living in caves - which is highly preferable to the certain outcome of any future war
When will Strangeloves like you ever learn
As Greg F has pointed out, even your chosen title is contradictory -
"Preventive War" is any oxymoron" and something no civilised nation should even consider.
If you can't handle the answers you receive, don't put up stupid questions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 01:20 PM

When you learn to read, Jimmie-boyo, you MIGHT find out that I am looking for a reason NOT to believe that the preventive war as postulated is the best path forward.

I give you the respect you have shown yourself worthy of. So you remain as stated, Boyo.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: bobad
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 01:37 PM

A preventive war is a war initiated to prevent another party from acquiring a capability for attacking. The power being attacked has either a latent threat capability or has shown through its posturing that it intends to follow suit with a future attack.

Wikipedia

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 01:46 PM

GregF, PLEASE learn to read.

"Prevantative War" is any oxymoron, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 01:48 PM

Bruce - Union of Concerned Scientists. I wince at the name! ;-) And yes, I have just looked them up. I've absolutely no idea how objective they are. Scientists can be bigots, scientists can be blinkered, scientists can be bought - "Set up experiments to prove that human-induced climate change is a myth". Scientists have mortgages to pay & children to feed too.

Scientists can be reactionary; even Einstein - "I, at any rate, am convinced that God does not throw dice". Turns out he was wrong, just as those who opposed him on relativity were wrong. And scientists can also set up faulty experiments or derive faulty conclusions from the data (look up Jacques Benveniste), never mind that scientists, being only human, can falsify their data to prove what they want... Never mind political inclinations. The right usually want a pre-emptive war, the left wants to be rid of nukes, both will talk up the possibility of strikes to gain their ends...

Your 2-25% is meaningless. Who says so? On what basis? Over what timescale? Whether it's over the last 2 weeks or the last 70 years, they're obviously totally fucking wrong, cos we haven't had one detonation beyond Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and controlled tests. No radioactive holes in the ground - there's a honking great big great clue!

"three known US crashes with live warheads", but you don't give any details, you don't say what you mean by "live warhead", you don't give any details of what the aftermath of the crash was. It'd fuck up your point if you did, wouldn't it, Bruce? Remember, I know something about Broken Arrows. I want details & evidence; it's down to you to provide them if you want to convince people. I'm not going to wade through the BA list for you.

I don't believe that any of the warheads were live, partly because I don't remember reading of any such, partly because the only sensible nuclear policy for aircraft-borne weapons (ICBMs don't crash) is to not arm them until the last moment possible. Which is a policy all nations had, as far as I know. Cos the consequences of not having such a policy... So why should you "doubt"? The reaction to a nuclear accident (never mind deliberate) would be annihilation for NK, so why the hell would they not have all of the sensible safeties in place? Me, I'd be veeeeeery careful about that! And I note you say bombs. Slip of the tongue? For the few warheads NK it is estimated to have, it currently has no delivery system. Their only credible delivery is a viable missile. And their few warheads, if they could deliver them, are a smudge against the blotting that they'd get in return. NK has never been anything but posturing & propaganda since they lost the Korean war. The only reason they still exist is because the West was worried about China at the time (who intervened, as I'm sure you know).

As for "live" crashes, maybe you're thinking that the January 24, 1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash is one of those three you're claiming? Here's wiki's entry (alright, I paddled, but I'm not going any deeper), The incident released the bomber's two Mark 39 hydrogen bombs. Three of the four arming devices on one of the bombs activated, causing it to carry out many of the steps needed to arm itself, such as the charging of the firing capacitors and, critically, the deployment of a 100-foot (30 m) diameter retardation parachute. The parachute allowed the bomb to hit the ground with little damage. The fourth arming device?the pilot's safe/arm switch?was not activated, preventing detonation. So, Bruce, it wasn't "live", it couldn't have detonated.

This is exactly why the likes of Donuel treat you with contempt and jump, all too easily, on who posts rather than what is posted. I haven't, and I dislike that approach, which is why Don got adverse comment from me as well. I'm simply tearing what you've posted to shreds because it's a load of waffle with no evidence. You've done this too many times, Bruce. If you want to prove a point, provide real evidence. Mostly what you seem to do is throw up a smokescreen & squeal when someone walks through it.

What's your real evidence for your claims? Do you have any?

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 01:57 PM

"A preventive war is a war initiated to prevent another party from acquiring a capability for attacking."
If you care to analyse this description Bobad, we are talking about two unstable leaders both with the nuclear option
How likely is it that either of them will not take that option?
Try to understand the implications what you post, the pair of you.
Bring back Doctor Strangelove and his 'coalmine' options any day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 02:05 PM

Jim - NK has NO nuclear attack capability. It has a small number of warheads (last time I saw a number, it was something like 6; it might well be more now). It has no delivery system. It has no bomb, as far as I know. If it did & if it has a plane capable of carrying it, that plane has no chance of reaching its target. It has no missile capable of delivering a payload to its target.

We're talking about one dodgy leader... Which is precisely why the prize twat is grandstanding over this question! :-/

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Iains
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 02:07 PM

The problem with the article is that it assumes all the risks can be quantified and all necessary parameters can be defined, and all possible outcomes covered. It would be a reckless human that signed off such a study.
Do you seriously think that that the use of nuclear weapons to preserve American hegemony will have zero consequences from other players.
North Korea is just one more in a long line of countries destroyed by American Adventurism.
The pot is already boiling in the middle east, Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan all have their own agendas and have scores to settle going back decades. America has been at war 222 years out of 239 and is seen worldwide as a bully with no respect for international law.
Nuking North Korea could be just one more stupid move in an entire litany of stupid moves. Unintended consequences springs to mind.
In the past two oceans have protected America. I wonder what modifications you need make to a shipping container to launch missiles from them?
Other countries may also consider surgical strikes on America. Two can play dirty.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 02:08 PM

Raedwulf,

I am looking for reasons NOT to believe the article, as I have stated repeatedly.

I have found none- the percentages that are used ( 2% per year and 25% for a single "Cuban missile Crisis) event ) are reasonable and within thee bounds of accepted risk estimates , as given by analysis of the incidents the author mentions.

"Reflecting upon the Crisis, Graham Allison wrote that while President Kennedy thought that the chance of nuclear war was between 33% and 50%, "what we have learned in later decades has done nothing to lengthen those odds." "

I MAKE NO CLAIM- I ask for valid reasons to refute the article, and none have been presented here.

Three of four arming devices went off- and you think that the NK will have that many safeties on each warhead? The US is presently debating GETTING RID of the land-based part of the Triad, BECAUSE it has NO safeties against detonation ONCE LAUNCHED. The article addresses the launch of missiles DUE TO mistaken or false information. That is what is meant by accidental launch, not that the launch was not intended to go up- it would be INTENTIONAL, but for reasons based on false information, as reading the article would show you.

The author even assumes that only 50% of the warheads will even explode. I would not be so optimistic.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 02:18 PM

And unlike the launches I am involved with, ICBMs do NOT have a destruct mechanism. Once launched, they cannot be stopped other that by interception (which I probably know more about than anyone else posting here)

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Iains
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 02:35 PM

BB. From the little I have read about incidents, it seems the nuclear toybox is simply an accident waiting to happen. Hopefully I am wrong about this.
I have great difficulty accepting the accuracy of the statistics given.
How can you be sure that a pre-emptive strike would not invite retaliation from China and Russia. Also in the confusion what is to stop Israel playing a similar game in Iran.Then Pakistan goes for India while the major powers are preoccupied and Turkey settles it's Kurdish problem once and for all.
The world today is not that of 10, 20 or 30years ago. It is far more unstable and unpredictable and though it would be nice to think war gaming has all the answers, my confidence level in such an assumption is extremely low. Please prove me wrong. The last two major conflicts were largely in Europe, until the later stages, when action moved to the pacific. The third time around nowhere will be safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 02:35 PM

"Examining nuclear war near misses using engineering reliability assessment methods, Barrett, Baum, and Hostetler estimate that there was a 2% chance per year of an accidental U.S.-Soviet nuclear war during the Cold War. Since President Kennedy's estimate of the probability of nuclear war arising from the Cuban Missile Crisis alone puts the probability of accidental nuclear war at between 1.4% and 2.4% per year over the course of the Cold War (1960 to 1989) without even considering the Petrov incident, the NORAD training tape incident, and other such incidents, this 2% per year probability seems very plausible.

Does this Cold War estimate apply to North Korea? Examining the factors that contribute to the probability of accidental nuclear war, I think that the probability of accidental nuclear war with North Korea is if anything higher (and probably much higher) than was the probability of an accidental U.S.-Soviet nuclear war.

To err in favor of the deterrence option, then, I estimate the cost of gambling on deterrence under two cases. In the first, I assume that the probability of an accidental U.S.-North Korean nuclear war is 2% per year. In the second I assume that there is one incident over the next 30 years that creates a 25% chance of an accidental nuclear war."

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 02:44 PM

Iains,

I agree with all of your comments. Why do you think I would bother asking THIS group for reasons NOT to agree with the conclusions of the article? I had hoped that they might see something I do not- but so far no luck.

This scares me more than being in school during the Cuban missile crisis, and having drills hiding under desks in the hallways ( near DC!).

The situation is the result of BOTH parties doing nothing effective for the last 30 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 03:01 PM

"NK has NO nuclear attack capability"
It was announced yesterday that North Korea had developed an ICBM capably of targeting U.S. cities.
Even if that were not the case, there is nothing to stop North Korea targeting US allies nearer home - which is equally unthinkable
"We're talking about one dodgy leader."
Are you seriously suggesting Trum is stable?
That arsehole is an accident begging to happen.
Then there's Iran and Israel, both with nuclear capability and neither of which can be described as 'stable'.
Nuclear weapons need to be regarded the same as gun ownership - anybody who wants them should be automatically disqualified from owning them.
The possession of these weapons is a guarantee that they will continue to be a threat to the entire planet - as a callow youth I realised that when I marched from Aldermaston to Trafalgar Square.
I suggest that anybody who doubt that go look at where the DOOMSDAY CLOCK stands at present
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 03:14 PM

Yes, Jim, and had you read the article properly, you'd find that whilst they (allegedly) have an ICBM blah, they've got no bloody warhead they can put on it. So it isn't, yet, a delivery system, is it? So they've no attack capability, have they?

And the one dodgy leader I was referring to IS Trump. The fat little toad (as opposed to the big fat toad) who is the other dodgy leader doesn't have a delivery system & can't attack. If you're going to post, at least do others the courtesy of bothering to read the thread properly. And enjoy losing sleep over this. I don't lose sleep over it, & I don't intend to start.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 03:19 PM

We all owe our lives to over a dozen heroes who have halted a nuclear exchange before it was to late. Staying that lucky on a continuing basis is highly unlikely. Put a number to this concept if you want but the crises remains.

No one has even responded to Raps post.

The patience of a teacher must resemble the infinite.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 03:19 PM

Raedwulf,

So, IF the analysis is correct ( as yet unproven, but NOT proven false) the best time for a pre-emptive attack would be BEFORE that warhead is developed, bought, or stolen.

And this is NOT what I would like to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 03:39 PM

BB - got a half-written reply to your earlier, but distracted at the mo, bear with me (football, the real version, not your American rubbish! :p ).

Don - you demand evidence, so where is it? WHAT "dozen heroes"? It's highly likely we'll continue to be lucky at the mo, since we've been 'lucky' in far more tense circumstances over the last 70 years. Empty words from you, now. You lay into BB when you think he's doing it. Hypocrisy, much?

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 03:48 PM

I understand your tone but I don't speak hooligan.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 03:52 PM

Another pointless puff of nothing, Don. You sneer at BB, but you're nothing but piss & wind as well. What dozen heroes? Where's your evidence? You demand it, but you're not producing it. Where's your evidence, you bloody hypocrite? Or is just the same weasel words I've called Bruce for? Put up or shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 04:15 PM

To your 02:08PM reply...

FFS, Bruce, the crucial one didn't go off, did it? The one above all others that required HUMAN intervention. What you have done repeatedly, and as per fucking usual, is evade & ignore anything you can't actually bloody well answer. YOU said (and I quote) "There have been at least three known US crashes with live warheads". I challenged you to give details, and all you do is weasel.

What dates, what planes, what weapons, what happened? Until you give an answer to that, anything you say is worthless.

What dates, what planes, what weapons, what happened? Not forgetting what percentages? Who used them? Where were they used? When were they used? Apart from the fact that Dead Kennedy was an idiot i.e. was a politician (sorry, did I just offend you? Hard luck) whatever his judgement was then is hardly relevant to a scenario 50+ years later.

IF the analysis is correct... As yet unproven... But you will, apparently, happily go to war on the basis of an unproven, highly dodgy article written by an academic on topics outside of his qualifications. And it doesn't seem to occur to you to ask whether he has some motivating bias... I'm guessing you voted for Trump.

Frankly I'm getting sick of both you & Don. I've asked both of you a direct question. Try answering. You're a pair of weasels (which is doing a disservice to weasels, if I'm honest). You're a pair of cowards. When you're challenged directly, you'd rather run away. Bad, poor, deliberately dishonest debaters, the pair of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: bobad
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 04:16 PM

It has no bomb, as far as I know.

From the BBC:

Has North Korea got the bomb?

Technically yes - North Korea has conducted several tests with nuclear bombs.

However, in order to launch a nuclear attack on its neighbours, it needs to be able to make a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on to a missile.

While North Korea claims it has successfully "miniaturised" nuclear warheads, international experts have long cast doubt on these claims.

Yet according to information leaked to the Washington Post in August 2017, US intelligence officials now do believe North Korea is capable of miniaturisation.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 04:16 PM

I piss wind, puff and weasel but I don't pounce like tiger or sneer like you.
Welcome to mudcat, this is not the social media you are used to.
I encourage kids to do their own research and learn for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Preventive war?
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 04:51 PM

Hey love the premise of THIS THREAD, will read the article and hope this thread has not been closed by the time I can make a contribution which I hope is intelligible, if not intelligent.

Before going into the article, I've already thought it would be great if N. Korea could be brought to close with S. Korea as E. Germany went to W. Germany. This would call for the participation of the leadership which of course we don't have and the acquiescence of China which we don't have either. From my point of view the use of force unilaterally with Trump/ Pence behind it is not an option. It would be like trusting the Keystone Kops to bring down Goldfinger. The use of force including nukes on our part should be a big NO no matter who on our side is behind it. It should in no case be unilateral. The S.Koreans, Japanese and Chinese have more to worry about than we do.

Technologically N. Korea hasn't proven they have the chops to make small deliverable thermonukes and none of the detailed nature of their underground 'tests' are known by the public because the major nations aren't going to want to reveal how they get their information.

On the unfortunate side, there is no reason they can't develop several of these weapons because the technology is not out of reach to the determined.

Did you notice Putin's quote back in September that the N. Koreans would eat grass before they'd give up nukes? That was a re-quote of Ali Bhutto's famous quote in the 70s that Pakistan would eat grass and leaves but would obtain the bomb 'we have no other choice!'

In the past, the smartest engineers and scientists we had to dedicate to nuclear issues set up means to detect the nature of nuclear tests in detail. We've got sensors and satellites. As far as executive action, we know how far the U.S. was willing to go with Iran; I think our experts and higher pols have a much better idea of where N.Korea really is technically than the public has access to.