Why North Korea is giving up its nuclear testing?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Why would he not abandon his nuclear weapons programme? Ghaddafi did.
 
More dangerous than having nuclear weapons, is holding the notion that using them can have some sort of beneficial outcome. The guy is unhinged and I would trust him about as far as I can throw a grand piano with one arm tied behind my back.
 
I don't trust him.

This has happened before, his dad came out all nice and smiley and met then South Korean leader to gather support and stop sanctions, when the money starts flowing in again, he carried on what he was doing.

He basically has no money and he wants us to be charitable so he can use it to destroy us. :D
 
Reason is, after little play station son had a number of nuclear power plants built all over North Korea a small missile dropped in the center would start a chain reaction to wipe out 90% of the population in that area . Well in fact any problem hun has will do the same thing .And go from one plant to the other .
 
You could say exactly the same about the guy currently residing in the White House:

Trump's New 'Low-Yield' Nuclear Weapon: Two Bad Ideas Rolled into One

They situations are not very equivalent.

And the current US President isn't really behind the US consideration of these sorts of weapons. It runs deeper.

The thing to be worried about with the US move on low yield weapons is that it shows a shift in thinking as to how things are going to play over the next few decades. After a relatively quiescent 25 years things may change. There were plenty of low and variable yield weapons ('tactical' nukes) about during the cold war. Their numbers and variety diminished during from the 90s.

I wouldn't be surprised if the UK wasn't quietly and seriously thinking about these things. We gave up the WE177 family of weapons by the late nineties.
 
Nuclear artillery - Wikipedia
W48_155-millimeter_nuclear_shell.jpg


As Dryce says there were many battlefield yield nuclear devices at that time including enhanced fast neutron radiation devices supposedly capable of penetrating tank armour in the event of a mass armoured column attack by the Russians across the European plain .
Neutron bomb - Wikipedia
 
More dangerous than having nuclear weapons, is holding the notion that using them can have some sort of beneficial outcome. The guy is unhinged and I would trust him about as far as I can throw a grand piano with one arm tied behind my back.
This is just a ploy to get aid from USA make trump look good, they were going any further with the Nuc missiles.
 
They situations are not very equivalent.

And the current US President isn't really behind the US consideration of these sorts of weapons. It runs deeper.

The thing to be worried about with the US move on low yield weapons is that it shows a shift in thinking as to how things are going to play over the next few decades. After a relatively quiescent 25 years things may change. There were plenty of low and variable yield weapons ('tactical' nukes) about during the cold war. Their numbers and variety diminished during from the 90s.

I wouldn't be surprised if the UK wasn't quietly and seriously thinking about these things. We gave up the WE177 family of weapons by the late nineties.

It goes without saying that the relative situations of an elected US President and a North Korean dictator are indeed somewhat different.

However, with reference to #5 and #6, both men are deeply unpleasant and untrustworthy and Trump's overt support for further development of these "low-yield" weapons is at odds with three decades of carefully negotiated nuclear de-escalation by his predecessors.
 
development of these "low-yield" weapons is at odds with three decades of carefully negotiated nuclear de-escalation by his predecessors.

Sadly we may look back on the last three decades as a period of relative quiescence between big global powers.

There is change in the air and I suspect over the last few years there will have been some quite cold and hard assessments about future scenarios.
 
Depleted Uranium shells used (recently) in tank warfare are a type of Nuclear weapon. They leave radioactive contamination on the battlefield long after the troops have gone home. Kosovo, Kuwait.....
 
Depleted Uranium shells used (recently) in tank warfare are a type of Nuclear weapon. They leave radioactive contamination on the battlefield long after the troops have gone home. Kosovo, Kuwait.....

They are not considered a nuclear weapon since no reaction takes place. They just use a radioactive substance to pierce armour.
 
They are not considered a nuclear weapon since no reaction takes place. They just use a radioactive substance to pierce armour.


This is correct.

To be precise, Depleted Uranium is only mildly radioactive. It is also present in tank armour and has civilian uses as well.

The radioactive side of it is in fact a bit of a red herring; the main risk factor is that Depleted Uranium is a highly poisonous metal, similar to Lead and Mercury.

When used in armour-piercing shells, it is broken into tiny fragments that remain in the battlefield for very long time and can be inhaled by civilians.

If inhaled or ingested, it affects the kidneys, liver, heart and brain and can cause birth defects....
 
I don't trust him.

This has happened before, his dad came out all nice and smiley and met then South Korean leader to gather support and stop sanctions, when the money starts flowing in again, he carried on what he was doing.

He basically has no money and he wants us to be charitable so he can use it to destroy us. :D
A bit like the EU then [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom