North Korea's Nuclear Weapons

I'm sorry. I'd like to clarify what I wrote previously. I meant to write that I doubted North Korea was the real nuclear power and that South Korea was at least as well armed as the North.

Compared to others, I'm only a beginner concerning this particular issue, but what I have read so far concerning the subject is certainly interesting, if not alarming. Especially the fact that America "shares" its nuclear stockpile with other countries.
 
January 2, 2011

SouthAmerica: Reply to W. Weatherford

First, regarding the destruction of Tokyo and its devastating impact on the US dollar – I can't take credit for that theory, since it was not my idea. I just changed the source of the destruction from a massive earthquake to a nuclear weapons attack from North Korea against Tokyo.

That theory made an impact on me that's why I still remember to this day when I read in 1995 an article saying that if a similar earthquake to the Kobe earthquake had happened in Tokyo that would have triggered a collapse of the US dollar. Then the article went on to explain the financial implications of such a massive earthquake hitting Tokyo, and the chain reaction of events that would have followed when the Japanese government having to use its massive foreign currency reserves in US dollar to pay for the damages and the reconstruction of Tokyo.

The idea behind that article stayed on the back of my mind all these years, because I realized how vulnerable the US dollar and the international monetary system (because the US dollar is the main foreign reserve currency) was to a simple catastrophic act of nature such as that massive earthquake that destroyed Kobe hitting instead Tokyo, and its consequences to the international monetary system.


*****


Weatherford, after you read some of my articles on that subject that would help clarify for you what I think about nuclear weapons.

I wrote these articles a few years ago, before I learned that Brazil actually has an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Regarding nuclear weapons your country can't rely on allies to help you when you need it – your country needs to be self-sufficient and have full control of such technology.

The nuclear weapons of North Korea and their know-how about nuclear technology should be viewed as a valuable asset that North Korea brings to the table on its effort to merge with South Korea into one country – a newly united Korea armed with nuclear weapons it would have a lot more prestige as a country, than a newly united Korea with nuclear weapons.

You can see the link to some of my articles on this subject at:

Author and Columnist: Ricardo C. Amaral
http://brazzilnews.blogspot.com/

Articles about Brazil and Nuclear Weapons:

Brazzil Magazine - May 2002
“We Need the Bomb – Part I”
Written by Ricardo C. Amaral
http://www.brazzil.com/component/content/article/36-may-2002/2575.html

Brazzil Magazine - February 2003
“We Need the Bomb – Part II”
Written by Ricardo C. Amaral
http://www.brazzil.com/component/content/article/12-february-2003/2186.html

Brazzil Magazine - June 2003
“Food for Nukes the Answer for Brazil”
Written by Ricardo C. Amaral
http://brazzil.com/p104jun03.htm
http://northkorea-nuclearweapons.blogspot.com

Note: Thousands and thousands of people around the world it did read my articles regarding Brazil and nuclear weapons.

.
 
If your research into the economic effects of a nuclear event, even if only a scare, results in a book or opinion paper, I would be very interested in acquiring a copy. This is becoming an increasingly interesting topic, and apparently you have done some research.
In addition, if you find another publication concerning the economic implications, however broad and varied, and feel it is appropriate to the subject, I would enjoy the link.

I understand that your attack on Tokyo is based on past precedent, meaning, of course, the earthquake, but again, I also agree the economic impact of a nuclear scare has much broader implications. I am forwarding your links to others. Thank you.
 
January 3, 2011

SouthAmerica: Reply to W. Wheaterford

Regarding the same subject in a discussion that is going on on Facebook, here is the reply of a famous British economist that I respect his opinions:

“If such an attack destroys the global system, it would be bad for everybody. But the US is in a far better position to look after itself in such a post-apocalypse world. It has the technology. It is not dependent on foreign markets (unlike China). It has the military capacity to ensure energy supplies. It would be in far better shape than any other reasonably advanced country.

The global monetary system and banking systems are just electronic claims. In war, they would just get frozen. All Chinese claims on the US would disappear, for example, in a few minutes.

I think this is seriously overheated. This is not an end of the world scenario - nothing like it. The government would take charge. That's what serious governments do in wartime. The meltdown scenario is absurd.”


***


SouthAmerica: This is such a complex subject today because of the gigantic global derivatives market, and the complex financial products that have been created that most of the market players don't even understand the products that they are buying and selling.

As our famous British economist said “The global monetary system and banking systems are just electronic claims. In war, they would just get frozen. All Chinese claims on the US would disappear, for example, in a few minutes.”

That implies that the over $ 1 trillion dollars that the Japanese government is holding as an asset it would become worthless in a few minutes with the stroke of a computer keyboard – and at that minute the US dollar would not be anymore the main foreign reserve currency around the world and the US dollar would not trade anymore as a free floating currency.

If all these countries think that they are holding all this foreign reserves currency in US dollars as a safe haven for a case of emergency, then that theory has been flushed down the toilet – the reality being the US dollar is not a safe haven when the real sit hits the fan.

The idea of a US dollar being a safe haven it's an illusion. An illusion that it will end when the next massive crisis become a reality regarding the US dollar – and it will be the end of the US dollar as the main foreign reserve currency for central banks from around the world.

If there's a nuclear attack against Tokyo, and the Japanese government's foreign reserves in US dollar becomes not available to them by an act of the US government to protect the value of the US dollar, then how the Japanese government will be able to reconstruct the damage caused to Tokyo when its Japanese debt is already sky high in relation to Japans' GDP?

What is the sense and the justification for Japan to hold over $ 1 trillion US dollars in foreign reserve currency if when Japan has a major emergency and at that critical moment the Japanese government it will not have access to that money?

The other thing to keep in mind is that the ball game has changed in a drastic way since 1995 when a little over $ 1 trillion dollars moved around the world on a daily basis and that was a time before the euro. Today we have a much complex international market with the amount of money that moves around the world at the speed of light on a daily basis, and the amount of money keeps growing year after year - the amount of daily currency transactions in the global markets in 2010 it is estimated to be around US$ 4 trillions of dollars.

In November of 2010 there was an estimated $ 25 trillion US dollar that is circulating around the world, and most of them are in the form of electronic computer-credits. Only about five percent is in physical cash form.

This $ 25 trillion US dollars represents over 70 percent of the US dollars ever created and they are flying around the world completely outside of the power and the influence of the US government including the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank.

…About 75 percent of the US dollars circulating outside the United States are in the hands of these few Asian central banks, and if any one of these countries decides to sell their US dollar monetary reserves to buy gold it will produce a stampede to exit the US dollar, creating a gold and euro buying panic.

Note: The amount of daily currency transactions in the global markets went from about US $ 1.5 trillion dollars in 1999 to an estimated US$ 4 trillion dollars in 2010.


*****


The BBC has an special program on TV - “The BBC World Debate” - where they discuss any subject related to economics or foreign affairs, and usually the panel includes 6 people plus a debate moderator.

Now that I have even more questions regarding this subject, I would like to see a similar program where the BBC would invite the following 8 economists to discuss what would happen to the international monetary system if a nuclear weapons attack would become a reality against Tokyo. I would make it a special program that would last 2 hours with the first and half hour being for questions and debate among these economists, and the last half hour for questions by the public. And I would add a top economist from Japan to this panel:

1) Paul Krugman
2) Stephen Roach
3) Joseph Stiglitz
4) Nouriel Roubini
5) Martin Wolf (Financial Times UK)
6) Nassim Nicholas Taleb
7) John Naisbitt (to present the point of view from China's perspective)
8) A top notch economist from Japan to show the point of view from Japan's perspective.

.
 
Thank you for your analysis. You are correct; this is certainly a complex subject and one that is becoming increasingly interesting. I will be sharing your analysis with others for conversation purposes only, of course, but I'm sure it will spark a spirited debate.

Your suggestion concerning Tokyo as being the apex or spark of such a disaster is intriguing, but are you aware if anyone has substituted other likely hot spots into the equation, such as India and Pakistan, or Iran? I'm wondering, in a general sense, as to the scale of economic disaster if other countries initiate a disaster.

Like most, I'm ignorant of the physical factors involving a nuclear disaster, deliberate or otherwise, and have just recently researched the topic at the most basic level. I've always thought of such weapons as nation destroyers. It is interesting to note that such weapons, as what may be used by the world powers, are for the most part small enough to be used at the battlefield level and not in the theater-wide sense, which probably means that someday they will more likely be used. A horrible thought and no doubt one of the many reasons this subject is so difficult.

I am following this thread with interest. As always, I appreciate your links.

If the BBC ever considers the subject, I would find the debate fascinating.
 
W. Wheaterford: Your suggestion concerning Tokyo as being the apex or spark of such a disaster is intriguing, but are you aware if anyone has substituted other likely hot spots into the equation, such as India and Pakistan, or Iran? I'm wondering, in a general sense, as to the scale of economic disaster if other countries initiate a disaster.


*****


January 3, 2011

SouthAmerica: At the core of this discussion is the massive catastrophic event such as a massive earthquake in Tokyo or an attack by North Korea with nuclear weapons against Tokyo. In both events Tokyo would absorb a massive amount of destruction. The other important part of this discussion is the country that has been hit bu this massive destruction being the holder of at least $ 1 trillion dollars of foreign exchange reserves.

If the same North Korean nuclear weapons attack goes against Seoul in South Korea I don't think that would cause as much destruction to the value of the US dollar, as compared with an attack against Tokyo.

I remember that article that I read about the earthquake hitting Tokyo in 1995 it was written by a main stream economist, and I wish I could find that article – anyway I will try to find that article on the web, I have a feeling that I read it on The New York Times.

In the last 15 years the global derivatives market has sky-rocketed and the figures related to that market are mind- boggling. Even if the US government erases its debts to foreign countries with the stroke of a computer keyboard – what would happen to the derivatives market and the financial markets from around the world?

Since China is holding over $ 2.3 trillion US dollars in foreign exchange reserves I don't know what the impact it would be if there's a major earthquake or a nuclear attack against Shanghai or Beijing and the resulting impact on the value of the US dollar.

An attack against Iran it would have more of an impact on oil prices than an impact on the US dollar.

Here is the latest figures for: Foreign exchange reserves held by these countries at the end of 2010:

China = $ 2.3 trillion US dollars

Japan = $ 1 trillion US dollars

Saudi Arabia = $ 450 billion US dollars

Taiwan = $ 400 billion US dollars

South Korea = $ 300 billion US dollars

India = $ 300 billion US dollars

Brazil = $ 300 billion US dollars

Iran = $ 100 billion US dollars

Pakistan = $ 17 billion US dollars

.
 
.

March 15, 2011

SouthAmerica: Reply to W. Weatherford

On December 28, 2010 you jumped in on our discussion about how a destruction to Japan caused by a massive earthquake or a nuclear attack, and how such an event would impact on the US dollar.

Only 2 months ago I was having that discussion here on ET, on my webpage on Facebook, and on Brazil magazine – the point of the conversation that I was trying to make is how vulnerable the US economic and financial system is to the risks related to Japan holding such a large amount of US government securities, and the impact on the US dollar in case of a catastrophe such as the one that is underway in Japan.

That was a very good timing to have such a discussion considering what has been going on in Japan since last week.

You said: “Ricardo. Your accuracy when it comes to predicting the future may leave a lot to be desired. However, your central point is interesting and worthy of contemplation.”

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55728&perpage=6&pagenumber=33


***


W. Weatherford: Compared to others, I'm only a beginner concerning this particular issue, but what I have read so far concerning the subject is certainly interesting, if not alarming. Especially the fact that America "shares" its nuclear stockpile with other countries.


***


January 2, 2011

SouthAmerica: Reply to W. Weatherford

First, regarding the destruction of Tokyo and its devastating impact on the US dollar – I can't take credit for that theory, since it was not my idea. I just changed the source of the destruction from a massive earthquake to a nuclear weapons attack from North Korea against Tokyo.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55728&perpage=6&pagenumber=34


***


January 3, 2011

W. Weatherford: Thank you for your analysis. You are correct; this is certainly a complex subject and one that is becoming increasingly interesting. I will be sharing your analysis with others for conversation purposes only, of course, but I'm sure it will spark a spirited debate.


***


January 3, 2011

SouthAmerica: At the core of this discussion is the massive catastrophic event such as a massive earthquake in Tokyo or an attack by North Korea with nuclear weapons against Tokyo. In both events Tokyo would absorb a massive amount of destruction. The other important part of this discussion is the country that has been hit bu this massive destruction being the holder of at least $ 1 trillion dollars of foreign exchange reserves.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55728&perpage=6&pagenumber=35

.
 
Here's a blast from the past. 10 years ago, some libtard blowhard was more or less sure that both North Korea and Iran were non-nuke.

SouthAmerica said:
.

September 19, 2005

SouthAmerica: It is all over the news that North Korea has agreed to give up their nuclear weapons and nuclear program and they will let international inspectors back in the country.

That means one of 2 things – 1) North Korea is close to an economic collapse or 2) They “never had the nuclear weapons” to start with - and they were bluffing. Otherwise they are just a bunch of fools.

PS: Now, Japan will have a little more time to finish its nuclear weapons and they don’t have to be afraid and be worried of the non-existent North Korean nuclear weapons.

If they really had the nuclear weapons the North Koreans would have tested at least one of them to show to the world that they were not kidding.

What the North Koreans accomplished with this agreement is that they lose all their international credibility and return to be just a fourth-world country, an irrelevant and backward country – North Korea return to the 1950’s.

The North Koreans did give a good scare to the United States in the meantime as long they were able to keep their "Bluffing" going on.

Now we have two “Axis of Evil” that turned out to be the “Axis of Bluffing” – does anyone still believe that the Iranians are also close to building a nuclear weapon?

Sure!!!!!!!!


.
More...
 
Last edited:
TGregg said:
Here's a blast from the bast. 10 years ago, some libtard blowhard was more or less sure that both North Korea and Iran were non-nuke.
More...

Makes you wonder what other gems are out there to be pulled up in years to come.
 
Tsing Tao said:
Makes you wonder what other gems are out there to be pulled up in years to come.
More...

Can you imagine Iran with nukes and ICBMs?

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) between the US and USSR succeeded because both parties cared about winning and being "the survivor"... but both sides wisely concluded an all-out nuclear confrontation left "no survivors".

But the Iranians... they don't care if they die. They WANT to die in confrontation with the West and in "service to Allah". That's the worst enemy possible. They're of the belief, "so what if the planet is nuked into oblivion and all life is extinguished... we still win. All of you infidels go to Hell, while we Muslims go to Heaven". WTF??

Iran should NOT be allowed to get nukes... AT ALL COSTS!! And Odumbo is trying to pave their way to nuclear capability?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top