Your analysis is interesting. The nuke scenario seems to be making the news with increasing frequency lately.
The U.S. is concerned that North Korea plans to test a nuke, but Powell stated that the mushroom cloud over N.K. probably wasn't a nuclear test. We suspect they are going to test soon.
US wonders if North Korea is preparing for nuclear test: officials
But top analysts at US intelligence agencies differ on how to interpret the activities, primarily because they have not detected electrical cables leading into an underground test shaft, a telltale sign of preparations for a nuclear blast. (snipped)
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/106220/1/.html
It sounds like the recent huge explosions were in the area where N.K. has it's nuclear development sites. This is not tied to your thoughts that the al Qaeda threat may be related to the blasts, but is it possible that we caused the N.K. blasts in a non-nuclear pre-emptive strike? Do we even have that capability? The whole event is so mysterious because it seems that we would know the nature of the blasts relatively quickly through our surveillance.
"This is not tied to your thoughts that the al Qaeda threat may be related to the blasts, but is it possible that we caused the N.K. blasts in a non-nuclear pre-emptive strike?"
It is a big stretch that the Zawahiri statements and the "event" were connected, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. There has been informed speculation about a potential sale to AQ. The Pakistani-American Fox commentator (forgot his name, it's Monday) and former Defense Secretary Perry have both written on this issue.
"but is it possible that we caused the N.K. blasts in a non-nuclear pre-emptive strike? Do we even have that capability?"
Those who know don't tell and those who tell don't know. I don't know, so I'll just say that the reason we keep developing larger conventional bombs (like MOAB) and mini- and micro-nukes is so we can have the option of digging out deeply buried facilities, bunkers, etc.
I am not sure that if there were attempts to use these new bombs designed to dig out bunkers, that they were unqualified successes in Iraq. Besides that, any theoretical operation against DPRK missile bases would be extremely high risk. The ICBMs are likely stationed far away from the DMZ on the Chinese border and it is not out of the question that if we were to directly attack these bases and not get them all, the "Dear Leader" could give the order to launch.
I doubt we would launch a direct attack against these sites.
"The whole event is so mysterious because it seems that we would know the nature of the blasts relatively quickly through our surveillance."
DPRK may want to prove its capability without provoking regional action against them. Any theoretical test would then have to be just public enough to convey the message that they have operational weapons, but might not be so blatant that it would spin up the South Koreans, Japanese, and U.S. It would be a "calibrated threat".
If, on the other hand, if the DPRK were to carry out a test, announce it, or publicize it in another way for all to see, that would be an extremely provocative and escalatory measure. Japan is the only nation with first-hand experience of being on the receiving end of nuclear weapons, and they have already declared they will not sit still if it looks like DPRK is about to cross the line.
Brinkmanship means going to the edge without crossing over that point of no return.
Unfortunately, the best laid plans of both mice and men at times go awry.
If you want a *really* wild idea, our government sends Kim the following note:
Your friend Iran is about to become part of a grave international crisis. You are engaged in the same behavior with the Iranians and have made yourself vulnerable to similar actions.
If you want to be left out of the coming crisis as we take the matter to the UN, you should follow up on the project you began last week with "excavations" at the following (pick a number) sites listed below. We know you have declared that you are moving boldly ahead in the attempt to generate more electrical generation capacity for your people (as your excavation last week for your "hydroelectric dam" demonstrates). We know this is the reason you initially stated that you started your "peaceful" nuclear program at Yongbyon. If you perform these excavations in the next (pick a number) days, we will understand the sincerity of your desire to build a new future for your country and you will receive written guarantees from the nations on the UN Security Council that you will be excluded from the Iranian action that is forthcoming.
Furthermore, we would be willing to ask the regional nations to help provide immediate assistance in your endeavor to provide short-term energy assistance for the coming winter and longer-term assistance in power generation and food aid.
If you accept this "deal", you can claim to your military that your nuclear program did deter an attack (the current Iranian regime will be taken down in the end - - the only question is how bad it might get - - but North Korea will be exempted) . You can claim that it did preserve the independence of the DPRK and opened up a new era of cooperation and assistance.
If you persist in your ever more dangerous brinkmanship, the situation could spin out of control, and perhaps at that point, others in North Korea would be prepared to accept this offer in order to spare the country further misery.
A UN flotilla of ships laden with fuel oil and food aid will be prepared and waiting for your response and public guarantees of further aid will be issued upon your agreement. At such time, a massive UN relief operation for your country can be organized upon your request.
International aid will be delivered to your country when your government, or its successor, agrees to excavate these "power generation" sites in a comprehensive, verifiable, and irreversible manner.
Libya or Iraq - - the easy way or the hard way.
Please think about it and get back to us.
I had the same thought, Honestly...