N. Korea admits nuke program

[L@mplighterM]

Snip:


U.S.: N. Korea admits nuke program

U.S. officials say the news could nullify 1994 treaty


MSNBC NEWS SERVICES

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 — U.S. officials say that Pyongyang has acknowledged it has a secret nuclear weapons program. The news could lead to nullification of a 1994 treaty under which an international coalition is building a light-water nuclear reactor in exchange for an end to North Korea’s nuclear power projects. The official said the United States is considering its next move toward the isolated communist nation.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/822193.asp?0cm=c20



I wouldn’t be surprised if Iraq had nuclear weapons. The proliferation of nuclear weapons among unfriendly nations is disturbing.

[L@mplighterM]

South Koreans in a subway car read newspapers reporting North Korea (news - web sites)'s nuclear test, in Seoul, South Korea (news - web sites), Friday, Oct. 18, 2002. The headline reads: 'North Korea did nuclear test between July and August in this year.' (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...168/2gup3.html

[ibrodsky]

Gee, I thought N. Korea signed an Agreement with the Clinton administration not to develop nukes. I know we paid them many $millions not to.

It seems some people think signatures on a piece of paper are sufficient deterrent. What did they think would happen if N. Korea violated signed agreements? Did they think their lawyer friends would sue N. Korea and N. Korea would back down fearing court-ordered penalties?

This is why it is foolish to negotiate with Iraq. There is nothing to negotiate. Totalitarians do not honor signed agreements. They maintain power through force and that is the only language they understand.

However, the main threat to the U.S. right now is Islamist terrorism and Arab dictators. We just need to keep a dozen or so nukes aimed at N. Korea. Like most communists, they are unlikely to do anything so rash as to jeopardize their survival. Islamist terrorists and Arab dictators, on the other hand, have proved they are willing to "martyr" themselves in pursuit of their evil goals. We should keep 1,000 nukes aimed at them.

[L@mplighterM]

Treaties are only as good as your ability to enforce them. How the hell do you enforce a treaty if the other side has nuclear capability?

This makes a good argument for taking out a nation such as Iraq or Iran before they develop such weapons.

In the case of North Korea the general population doesn't have a pot to piss in yet they can pour billions into developing weapons.

My friend was stationed in South Korea many years ago if the peasants there got a cut on their feet invariably they would end up with tetanus I suppose it's still the same today in North Korea.

Islamic Fundamentalists, weapons of mass destruction, super bugs personally I don't think humanity will survive to the end of the next millennium with civilization intact.

One serious question that needs to be answered is how did North Korea acquire the ability to develop nuclear weapons. I think this also opens the door to the possibility that Iraq has nuclear weapons. The Iranians will most certainly develop weapons of mass destruction before the end of a decade.

Iodine futures might be a good investment. I wonder if we'll revert to building fall out shelters in our back yard?

[L@mplighterM]

So now it appears that Pakistan has forked over the equipment so the Koreans could manufacture a nuclear bomb. In exchange the Koreans gave Pakistan the technology so they can deliver a nuclear bomb to India.

If Pakistan gave Korea the components to manufacture a nuclear bomb they might have sold it to their Muslim brothers the Iraqis.

Obviously the Pakistanis can’t be trusted and should be considered enemies of the west. Pakistan is a cesspool full of terrorists (Taliban and al Queada) their goals being the destruction of the west. Recent elections have indicated that Pakistan is a pro Islamic State of course that isn’t to say that wasn’t the case prior to 9/11.

During the last year the US has poured 10’s of millions of dollars into that country and has given them trade concessions. At this point I’m not certain whether Pakistan or Iraq presents the greatest danger to the west. I’m leaning towards Pakistan because Korea is now able to launch a limited nuclear strike at American targets.

Of course Iraq presents a greater danger to Israel at this moment in time.

link:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...ear/index.html

[takeo]

I think altogether it's not such a bad deal that NK has nuclear weapons (altough i agree they had better invested the millions in the economy), anyone attacking North Korea will think twice before doing so and i'm sure NK will not start another war.
I think nuclear proliferation can not be prevented, if some countries like Israel, Pakistan and India (and as it appears NK) can do so without consequences. Everyone knows that Iraq is not about WMD but about geopolitics (without the gulf-war, iraq would now be in possesion of nuclear weapons).
The technology advances, and it becomes easier for little countries to devellop them, while former soviet scientists are for sale and thirth world countries are helping each other. It will not take long before Iran has nuclear weapons (probably already, and they will help their allies in Syria without any doubt) while it is well possible that Brazil has secretly develloped them as well, it has both the cash and the technology to do so.
Is it really so bad? Nobody, not even Saddam, will use them unprovoked, because that would mean autodestruction. it is only an ultimate self-defense, a last threat to anyone wishing to occupy their country. It is deterrance, only terrorists can not be stopped by nuclear weapons, other nations can.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
If Pakistan gave Korea the components to manufacture a nuclear bomb they might have sold it to their Muslim brothers the Iraqis.

Right, possession of nuclear weapons by our Islamic enemies and other corrupt dictatorships is one of the greatest threats known to mankind.

I hear that Lybia is well on its way to have nuclear capability. Just imagine Muammar Qadaffi with a nuclear arsenal...

That is why it is absolutely essential that the Arab dictatorships be replaced with responsible, peace-loving democracies.

Hopefully, Iraq is just the first of the many Arab problem governments to be replaced and forced to join the 21st century, whether they like it or not.

As for North Korea, I'd be interested in seeing what the Chinese will do now that their supplying nuclear weapons to North Korea is exposed.

I wonder if we are looking at another cold war that will result in North Koreans starving to death by the hundreds of thousands, not bailed out by the West this time. Another Communist abomination that believes in spending on nuclear weapons instead of on feeding its own people.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
I think altogether it's not such a bad deal that NK has nuclear weapons (altough i agree they had better invested the millions in the economy), anyone attacking North Korea will think twice before doing so and i'm sure NK will not start another war.

You sound like the kind of guy (I’m assuming that you’re a male) that would manufacture toilet seats coated with crazy glue. I don’t see how proliferation of nuclear weapons amongst rouge states serves any democratic country.

The leader of North Korea is a dictatorial mass murderer that couldn’t care less about his subjects. Who the hell is he going to protect from western aggression? Starving peasants that eat moss and bark from the trees.

I don’t see how anyone could be stupid enough to think that North Koreans are better off where they are compared to living in a true democracy.

[L@mplighterM]

Israel released information a month or so ago that Libya and Iraq were working in junction to develop a nuclear bomb. Just who has what or not is becoming a guessing game as far as I’m concerned.

At one time the world had a doomsday clock and it seems like it should be revived. The US will not be able to tackle the proliferation of dangerous weapons by itself. Nations are testing the waters and the whole world is observing the Americans moves.

Pakistan has already announced that that they will use nuclear weapons as a first strike. Today’s announcement is certainly not good news and every time a rouge nation gets its hands on weapons of mass destruction it diminishes the military strength of the west..

The development of new technology is what keeps the US ahead of the game so perhaps we’ll hear more about Star Wars in the coming months.

[takeo]

lomplighter, this is another subject. At least North Korea will be protected from foreign aggression, the internal politics is another matter and only Koreans can solve their own problems, you bombed Pyongyang once to pieces that was enough. By the way, the republic is quickly changing itself in another China with structural reforms, and the famine seems to have ended. i don't want to give my opinion about the regime, as the few people who visited the country have conflicting opinions and information is limited. It is not a real communist country but "yuche"(isolasionist ideology mixed with ultra-nationalism and cultivation of th" great leader") seems to be the ideology, untill the 70's it was more prosperous then the south, after that the economy stagnated and the end of Soviet-Union was catastrophical.
btw: there are very few "real democracies" in Asia

newsguy,

"That is why it is absolutely essential that the Arab dictatorships be replaced with responsible, peace-loving democracies."

come on, don't be naive, it has never been the intension of the US to install "responsible, peace-loving democracies", and what is that after all? I hope you don't mean "responsible, peace-loving democracies" as Israel or the US... Khadafi has never invaded any neighbouring country and that makes him more peacefull then Israel or the US. U are not afraid that those regimes might launch nuclear rockets against israel (they will not) you are afraid that israel will loose its military supremacy and nuclear threat, which would make it much more difficult for example to invade libanon as you proposed.

"Hopefully, Iraq is just the first of the many Arab problem governments to be replaced and forced to join the 21st century, whether they like it or not."

What you are proposing is recolonisation.
Unfortunately you're born in the wrong area.

"As for North Korea, I'd be interested in seeing what the Chinese will do now that their supplying nuclear weapons to North Korea is exposed. "

They'll do as usual and as the US usally does, deny everything and get on with business in the new conditions which are more favorable for them.

"I wonder if we are looking at another cold war that will result in North Koreans starving to death by the hundreds of thousands, not bailed out by the West this time. Another Communist abomination that believes in spending on nuclear weapons instead of on feeding its own people."

You are, for once, right in the last sentence (only concerning North Korea) but may i ad that in the US social spending was severely cut to provide more budget for "defense"??? It means more people in the us living in absolute poverty without any future, and more profits for the weapons industry.
what do you mean "not bailed out by the west"? does it mean that you regret that the US can not longer threaten North Korea? I think it will have a positive effect on the Korean economy, now that they are sure the us will no longer attack, they can focus their efforts more on rebuilding the economy to the level of 15 years ago and restructuring, and NK is since 2 years making billions by selling weapon systems to all kind of thirth worldcountries.
Still the NK's didn't have to build nuclear weapons, since china is so close, which is the best protection Noth-Korea could wish for.

unfortunately the warmongering of the current administration is another stimulation for countries to devellop new weapons of mass destruction, to protect themselves. After Kosovo and the weaponshield Russia and China came to the conlusion they had to invest more in their defense. In my opinion Europe has no other choice either.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
lomplighter, this is another subject. At least North Korea will be protected from foreign aggression, the internal politics is another matter and only Koreans can solve their own problems, you bombed Pyongyang once to pieces that was enough. By the way, the republic is quickly changing itself in another China with structural reforms, and the famine seems to have ended. i don't want to give my opinion about the regime, as the few people who visited the country have conflicting opinions and information is limited. It is not a real communist country but "yuche"(isolasionist ideology mixed with ultra-nationalism and cultivation of th" great leader") seems to be the ideology, untill the 70's it was more prosperous then the south, after that the economy stagnated and the end of Soviet-Union was catastrophical.
btw: there are very few "real democracies" in Asia

Are you trying to convince me that the average North Korean wants protection from the west? The North Koreans most likely pray several times a day to be invaded.

Perhaps you think they are elated having to eat moss, bark and garbage. I can just see them jumping for joy every time they bite into moss. Lamplighter would be an idiot to believe that the people there need protection from the west.

[Mediocrates]

By the way, the republic is quickly changing itself in another China with structural reforms, and the famine seems to have ended. i don't want to give my opinion about the regime, as the few people who visited the country have conflicting opinions and information is limited. It is not a real communist country but "yuche"(isolasionist ideology mixed with ultra-nationalism and cultivation of th" great leader") seems to be the ideology,

There is virtually zero evidence to suggest what you are saying. You are the one who is locked into your theoretical definitions of what is and what is not communism, as if it is some permanent Platonic shadow on the wall. Open up any book and under "Old Line Stalinism you'll find a picture of North Korea.

untill the 70's it was more prosperous then the south, after that the economy stagnated and the end of Soviet-Union was catastrophical.

I thought information was limited.

The opinion of every South Korean I have ever met does not bear this out. It is remotely possible that the government largesse was greater in part subsidzed by the Soviets but they made and built little.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by takeo
I think altogether it's not such a bad deal that NK has nuclear weapons

Why what purpose does it serve? Are they covering under their palettes waiting for a swarm of S. Korean troops? No, not under the Sunshine Policy.

anyone attacking North Korea will think twice before doing so

Who's doing that? The argument now is why don't we attack them in some facetious argument that if we plan to invade Iraq (hasn't happened yet) then we are bound under some cold calculus to also attack N. Korea~~

while it is well possible that Brazil has secretly develloped them as well, it has both the cash and the technology to do so.

Actually Brazil and Argentina both began to develop nuclear weapons through the early 1990's. They both stopped their development programs and traded information on the status of their programs while converting over to medical/civilian applications in 1995.

South Africa is the only country to develop an operational program and capability and then discontinue the entire program around 1990.

You should also keep a very close eye on Japan who, while they have not developed weapons has the most advanced fuel reprocessing industry in the world and they actively market it.

Taiwan has also experimented with fuel processing production.

So has Serbia which has 60-80kg weapons grade material that they proposed to be used for a dirty nuke program using artillery shells.

And don't forget Romania ran a weapons fuel research program from 1970-89

Algeria put a weapons fuel reactor online in 1984 as a counter to Libya.

Libya has attempted to build facilities to process yellowcake uranium since 1979, 10 years after they made the NPT commitment not to do so.

Syria has been experimenting with processing uranium phosphates for 20 years.

Iran and Iraq have already been covered.


It is deterrance, only terrorists can not be stopped by nuclear weapons, other nations can.

I think the more important point is that terrorists wouldn't hesitate to use them, nations would.

[L@mplighterM]

Snip:

August 8, 2002
Work Starts on North Korea's U.S.-Backed Nuclear Plant
By HOWARD W. FRENCH


UMHO, North Korea, Aug. 7 — With the first Bush administration envoy to visit North Korea joining in a rare ceremony, work began today on the foundation of a long-planned nuclear reactor, by far the largest Western aid project in this Communist nation and one on which its future cooperation with the outside world will hinge.

The $4.6 billion reactor to be built here was first envisaged in 1994, when the United States and North Korea were edging toward war over suspicions that this country was trying to build nuclear weapons. It has been repeatedly delayed by North Korea's jagged relations with the United States and other nations.

Today, a succession of Western diplomats mounted the podium to declare the project the best hope for preventing nuclear proliferation — and to urge North Korea to take convincing steps to comply with the pact that undergirds relations with the United States.

Under that pact, the so-called Agreed Framework, negotiated in 1994, Washington committed itself to organizing an international consortium to build two light-water nuclear reactors for this poor country. In exchange, North Korea agreed to abandon and dismantle two existing graphite reactors, as well as a third that was under construction. North Korea — which President Bush this year identified as one of three nations belonging to an "axis of evil" — was also required to account for all plutonium it had produced and place it under international supervision.

Time and again today, American and European officials hammered home the point that any hesitation now on the part of North Korea to open itself up to inspectors would result in a freeze in construction, leaving two coreless reactor shells in place and North Korea no closer to meeting its energy needs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/08/in...t&position=top


It seems to me that this project should be cancelled immediately. Quite frankly I don’t understand what the hell is going on. Am I missing something?

Information was recently released that North Korea has in its possession nuclear weapons courtesy of Pakistan and China.

I’ve always viewed North Korea as an enemy of the west. A close friend of mine put his life on the line in South Korea and now a nation that has clearly violated a 1994 nonproliferation agreement with the United States, Japan and South Korea. agreement with the US is going to get a nuclear reactor.

[takeo]

"Are you trying to convince me that the average North Korean wants protection from the west? The North Koreans most likely pray several times a day to be invaded."

they certainly don't want to be invaded and bombed to ground zero as happened in the 50's.

"Perhaps you think they are elated having to eat moss, bark and garbage. I can just see them jumping for joy every time they bite into moss. Lamplighter would be an idiot to believe that the people there need protection from the west."

These people need economic cooperation to help the economy and overcome their difficulties, not new embargoes or war, war has never improoved living conditions in any part of the world.


"There is virtually zero evidence to suggest what you are saying. You are the one who is locked into your theoretical definitions of what is and what is not communism, as if it is some permanent Platonic shadow on the wall. Open up any book and under "Old Line Stalinism you'll find a picture of North Korea."

There is virtually zero evidence to support what you are saying either, North Korea is not like the Soviet-Union, the difference is huge, and only anti-communist propaganda makes such comparisons. North Korea received aid from the Soviet union, it was not a copy however.

"I thought information was limited. "

Economic statistics are available, which shows a terrible disaster in the mid 90's, economic progress untill the end of the 70's .

"The opinion of every South Korean I have ever met does not bear this out. It is remotely possible that the government largesse was greater in part subsidzed by the Soviets but they made and built little."

possibly, but the economy was autarctic, they got help from the Soviets, but it wasn't a Soviet ally nor member of the comecon.
If you see pictures of Pyongyang, other cities and the large industries then i think they made and built quite a lot, but it all stopped in the 80's for some obscure reason.



"Why what purpose does it serve? Are they covering under their palettes waiting for a swarm of S. Korean troops? No, not under the Sunshine Policy."

but the us remains a threat to Northkorean security.


"Who's doing that? The argument now is why don't we attack them in some facetious argument that if we plan to invade Iraq (hasn't happened yet) then we are bound under some cold calculus to also attack N. Korea~~"

iraq and north korea are both part of the so-called "axis of evil", you don't have to be a genius to make your own conclusions...





"You should also keep a very close eye on Japan who, while they have not developed weapons has the most advanced fuel reprocessing industry in the world and they actively market it. "

indeed




"And don't forget Romania ran a weapons fuel research program from 1970-89"

right again

"Algeria put a weapons fuel reactor online in 1984 as a counter to Libya.

Libya has attempted to build facilities to process yellowcake uranium since 1979, 10 years after they made the NPT commitment not to do so.

Syria has been experimenting with processing uranium phosphates for 20 years.

Iran and Iraq have already been covered."

yep!




"I think the more important point is that terrorists wouldn't hesitate to use them, nations would."

exactly, which makes nuclear weapons in possesion of nations not a major source of concern, at least not for countries without offensive plans!