Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
A Nuclear Threat : What North Korea Really Wants
msnbc.msn.com — Is Kim Jong Il ready to provoke a regional crisis? On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." In return, Washington agreed that the United States and North Korea...
aaaz- 291 diggs
- digg it
- diggdong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The political climate in N. Korea is so far off the map in the press. As with all governments - there not just one cohesive force solidifing a nominal social agenda. We live in interesting times. Hopefully, noone gets trigger happy.
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2"Hopefully, noone gets trigger happy."
too late. The ball has started rolling. - ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8wrong, the politics of North Korea are dominated by a short little man's brinkmanship politics, and a complete lack of capacity to fulfill his obligations and hold to his commitments.
- nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3NK wants NOT to be Iraq and NOT to be Iran. It does not want to be a country that the Bush administration can screw around with or even attack without fear of nuclear response.
- mre5765, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From TFA:
""It would be good for the United States," one of them said, "to have us as a neutral buffer state in this dangerous area. Who knows, perhaps there are ways in which the United States could benefit from our ports and our intelligence if we become friends.""
That's nice but North Korea and South Korea never signed a peace treaty.
Until there is peace in Korea, N Korea is cannor be regarded as neutral
nor can it be a friend of the USA. - opencad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States has evidence of radioactivity from a site where North Korea was suspected of conducting a nuclear weapons test, a U.S. official said Friday.
The official said the evidence is preliminary, but if it is confirmed, the United States will be in a position to confirm North Korea's claim on Monday that it successfully set off a nuclear blast for the first time.
http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2006%2FWORLD%2Fasiapcf%2F10%2F13%2Fnkorea.test.sample%2Findex.html
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2"Hopefully, noone gets trigger happy."
- gamasutra, on 10/12/2007, -27/+6"North Korea is divided between hawks who favor nuclear weapons and pragmatists who are pushing for economic reforms and a denuclearization deal with the United States. Just as the engagement policy pursued by the Clinton administration strengthened the pragmatists, so the Bush shift to a regime-change policy has given the initiative to the hawks."
Cowboy Bush strikes again!- mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -12/+35Did you know that Clinton made a deal with North Korea in 1994 in which they said they would abandon their nuclear weapons program in exchange for a phased lifting of economic sanctions? Well, although we held our end of the bargain, N Korea never did. The Bush administration called them on it in 2002 by accusing them of maintaining a secret nuclear weapons program since the 1994 deal, and N Korea responded by saying basically "yeah...we're building a nuclear weapon...what are you gonna do about it?"
Does this suggest to you that North Korea, and particularly the regime of Kim Jong-Il, can be reasoned with? Why is Bush a cowboy for refusing to placate them like Clinton did, especially knowing that placation leads to nothing. I think it would be irrresponsible of Bush to back down and give them anything until North Korea shows a willingness to abandon its program....which it clearly is unwilling to do. - PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17actually clinton got NK to lock up it's spent fuel amd had it monitored by inspectors, bush came into power and said no more carrots and labeled NK part of the axis of evil, NK threw out the inspectors, broke the locks, and started reprocessing the spent fuel into nuclear weapons.
No this is more of the neocon wack a mole stratgy, of atogonising nations until they do something stupid so we can wack them.
ANd mind you NK got it's nuke program and built it under this admins watchful eye, and we didnt do crap. - kakapu4u, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7I agree. When you call a nation part of the "axis of evil" you embarrass them internationally. Did we expect more cooperation or less cooperation after calling them names?
- jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Kakapu
This is not a flame. I honestly want to hear your view on Iran internationally name calling Bush. Does your post apply to these comments to? Or only when they work against Bush? I mean it when I say this is not a flame, I honestly want to hear your response. - sgbooth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@mattdew: the agreement did not say "nuclear" - it only specifically mentioned plutionium. North Korea, on a very technical strict interpretation, did not violate the agreement because they were enriching uranium. Clearly North Korea did violate the spirit of the agreement. However, when you write contracts, one of the fundamental propositions of contract construction is that the contract is construed against the maker. So if you ask me, Clinton screwed the agreement up (I like him btw, but he made his mistakes).
- TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@PowerCow
"ANd mind you NK got it's nuke program and built it under this admins watchful eye, and we didnt do crap."
Really? Their nuclear weapons program was started by leaked information provided to them by A.Q. Khan. He'd been working on a nuclear weapons program in Pakistan since the early-to-mid 80's. He confessed in 2004 to leaking nuclear secrets to Pakistan, Libya, Iran and North Korea.
"In 1995, the U.S. learned that the Khan Research Laboratories had bought 5,000 specialized magnets from a Chinese Government-owned company, for use in the Uranium enrichment equipment. More worryingly, it was reported that Pakistani nuclear weapons technology was being exported to other states aspirant of nuclear weapons, notably, North Korea." - mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@sgbooth
But as signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, North Korea was already obligated to abandon the development of nuclear weapons. The 1994 agreement was to get them to stop a program they had already internationally agreed not to proceed with. - dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"A 2001 Nuclear posture review published by the Bush administration called for a reduction in the amount of time needed to test a nuclear weapon, and for discussion on possible development in new nuclear weapons of a low-yield, "bunker-busting" design (the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator). Work on such a design had been banned by Congress in 1994, but the banning law was repealed in 2003 at the request of the Department of Defense. The US Air Force Research Laboratory researched the concept, but the United States Congress cancelled funding for the project in October 2005 at the National Nuclear Security Administration's request. According to Jane's Information Group, the program may still continue under a new name.
In 2005 US revised its nuclear strategy, the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, to use nuclear weapons preemptively against adversary WMDs or overwhelming conventional forces."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States
Based on the comments here so far, it seems many commenters are either oblivious to the above circumstances, or simply unwilling to accept the reality that NK's actions do not occur in a vacuum, and that as a result of a misguided, multi-front, US foreign policy, an environment of fear and mistrust has been created, with the apparent strategic objective of provoking smaller, weaker countries, such as NK and Iran, to acts of defensive posturing, while conveniently providing "sufficient cause" to warrant US preemptive strikes. This environment also helps fuel support for continued development and stockpiling of US "tactical" nuclear weapons, which could ultimately lead to the abolishment of the NNPT and a de facto guarantee for continued US hegemony for generations to come.
Many have said, it, but I'll repeat it: The US has invested trillions of dollars in "nuclear deterrents" in the last 5 decades, and currently maintains 10000 deployable nuclear warheads while "current delivery systems of the U.S. make virtually any part of the globe within the reach of its nuclear arsenal," and yet we are to believe, according to Administration rhetoric, that Iran or Iraq attack the US at the risk of certain annihilation?
This seems highly improbable. More plausibly, these sovereign countries, acting in accordance with illegal US nuclear deterrents doctrine, are simply taking the new bait, as the Bush Administration patiently waits for them to cross their imaginary line in the sand. http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ma05speed - kakapu4u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jakebarnes,
The US is the really big, rich, powerful guy in the playground. If we (the US) go around insulting other groups of nations, it turns us into a bully, and it shouldn't be a surprise when the other nations are reluctant to cooperate later. From their perspective, they would be expecting diplomacy from the same party that just dished out the insult. This seems unlikely. They probably interpret the public insult as admission that diplomatic progress has been abandoned, aside from finger pointing about whose fault it is.
I think it does work the other way around. When Iran or Venezuela says nasty things about Bush, it lets us know that they don't have faith in whatever is on the table, and that any further negotiations will be met with not so warm feelings. We can continue attempts to cooperate but without tough terms and conditions maybe... or thru a third party? Basically try to appease the entity that just insulted us, as we may have dreamed North Korea would do.
Rhetorical questions are tough here. Even when you don't intend to sound like an ass, they distort in that direction.
- mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -12/+35Did you know that Clinton made a deal with North Korea in 1994 in which they said they would abandon their nuclear weapons program in exchange for a phased lifting of economic sanctions? Well, although we held our end of the bargain, N Korea never did. The Bush administration called them on it in 2002 by accusing them of maintaining a secret nuclear weapons program since the 1994 deal, and N Korea responded by saying basically "yeah...we're building a nuclear weapon...what are you gonna do about it?"
- baxtermadux, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23according to the mouthpiece of kim jong-il, this is what they really want
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HJ06Dg01.html
here are some highlights
Kim's message: War is coming to US soil
By Kim Myong Chol ("Unofficial" spokesman of Kim Jong-il and North Korea.)
The nuclear test, once conducted, will have far-reaching implications for the Koreas and the rest of the world. It carries five messages.
The first message is that Kim Jong-il is the greatest of the peerless national heroes Korea has ever produced. Kim is certainly in the process of achieving the long-elusive goal of neutralizing the American intervention in Korean affairs and bringing together North and South Korea under the umbrella of a confederated state.
Unlike all the previous wars Korea fought, a next war will be better called the American War or the DPRK-US War because the main theater will be the continental US, with major cities transformed into towering infernos. The DPRK is now the fourth-most powerful nuclear weapons state just after the US, Russia, and China.
The DPRK has all types of nuclear bombs and warheads, atomic, hydrogen and neutron, and the means of delivery, short-range, medium-range and long-range, putting the whole of the continental US within effective range. The Korean People's Army also is capable of knocking hostile satellites out of action.
The other has been the neutralization and phasing out of the American presence in Korea before the two Koreas come together as a reunified state
The title "the greatest iron-willed, brilliant commander" is reserved for Kim Jong-il, who has led tiny North Korea to acquire the most coveted membership of the elite nuclear club, braving all the nuclear war threats, sanctions and isolation efforts on the part of the US. It is little short of a miracle that the leader has outmaneuvered and outpowered the Bush administration against heavy odds.
. Under the leadership of Kim Jong-il, the Foreign Ministry has bullied the United Nations into submission and outwitted the United States into providing food aid - all the while developing a formidable nuclear arsenal. This is, of course, the hardline view of North Korea that prevails in some quarters in Washington. Yet it is also the official North Korean view of North Korea."
. The Kim administration seeks to commit nuclear weapons to actual use against the US in case of war, never to use them as a tool of negotiations.
There is no international convention or treaty that prohibits North Korea from conducting underground nuclear tests. No country is allowed to infringe on the sovereignty of North Korea in material breach of Chapter 2 of the UN charter, unless they are prepared to risk triggering nuclear war with North Korea.
The third message is that the nuclear-armed North Korea will be a major boon to China and Russia. Nuclear-armed, the two countries are friendless in case of war with the US.
The People's Republic of China has every reason to welcome a nuclear-armed North Korea, whatever it may say in public
The factor that has prevented them from developing their own nuclear weapons is political pressure from the US, not because North Korea was only conventionally armed. The US has insisted that they should be under the nuclear umbrella and buy expensive high-tech weapons from them.
Their becoming nuclear powers will signal that the US is no longer a reliable cop. At long last de-Americanization of the US allies and neutralization of the US in the rest of the world will be set into motion. This is one of the reasons why the Kim administration has every reason to secretly welcome the nuclear arming of junior US allies.
A nuclear test by North Korea will go a long way toward emboldening anti-American states around the world to acquire nuclear weapons. There is a long line of candidate states. - republick, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Blow'em up
- happyfappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes, blow them up so they can blow up Los Angeles with a nuclear weapon.
The US's military options in North Korea have just been castrated. There's little we can do now but find a way to coexist peacefully with them. - Andronicus1717, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1North Korea does not have the capability to blow up Los Angeles as this point in time and would take probably a decade or more to achieve that capability if they were able to perfectly place many many bombs around the city. The yield of this bomb is currently estimated around 1 kiloton, pretty pathetic as far as nuclear weapons go. A dud plutonium bomb can cause more destruction.
Here use this nuclear effects simulator to calm your nerves and really see just how little destruction they are comparatively capable of at this point in time. Russia's Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear warhead ever made, has a yield of 50 megatons.
http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html - happyfappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even if they hit us with a weak nuclear weapon, it would still be quite a bit worse than 9/11. (How many KT in an airplane crash again?)
As for their ability to hit any part of the US, I haven't seen any hard evidence either way, though I'm certainly willing to admit that it's not within their capability to do so. If that's the case, our mainland is safe from a nuclear ballistic missile, though that doesn't mean that it would be safe (or smart) to "blow 'em up."
- happyfappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes, blow them up so they can blow up Los Angeles with a nuclear weapon.
- picodegallo, on 10/12/2007, -23/+2Bush and his crew were so worried about spinning Iraq as a threat they let this one slip right through their fingers.
- mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Please. Back before 9/11 when Bush was strongly promoting the missile defense system, which was being developed primarily to defend against nuclear missile attacks from North Korea, his opponenets were saying it was a waste of money because North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons. Tell Japan or South Korea it was a waste of money....they now have Aegis cruisers parked off their shores with missiles that have a (somewhat low, but increasing) chance of intercepting incoming nuclear missiles from North Korea.
"He let this one slip right through his fingers" - do you think he didn't know this was coming years ago, and what should he have done about it? - rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Calm down there, the missile shield is still under development. The most recent test was back in september. It's no where near operational yet. The airforce is developing a mehod of shooting down ICBMs using a 747 and a big laser.
Besides, I think that both of you are forgetting that:
1) North Korea doesn't have the technology to combine nuclear weapons and missiles yet. The only thing they can really do is drop them from an airplane. And...
2) North Korea has had nuclear weapons for years now. They're just testing one of them and using it as propaganda.
- mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Please. Back before 9/11 when Bush was strongly promoting the missile defense system, which was being developed primarily to defend against nuclear missile attacks from North Korea, his opponenets were saying it was a waste of money because North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons. Tell Japan or South Korea it was a waste of money....they now have Aegis cruisers parked off their shores with missiles that have a (somewhat low, but increasing) chance of intercepting incoming nuclear missiles from North Korea.
- rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Kim Jong-Il's mindless propaganda aside, North Korea, although upsetting the international community, has discovered the only thing that can stop or at least dissuade a superpower from invading your country: mutually assured destruction.
Ever since the beginning of the cold war, our foreign policy has been tempered by the presence of other nations that possess nuclear weapons. Once you get through all the political BS, North Korea is using WMDs to tell the world to back off. Unfortunately for us and the rest of the world, their leader is crazy enough to use them.
When you wade through all the propaganda from either side, North Korea is essentially telling the world to back off.- PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5NK is actualy saying "return to the table" jerks
WE had almost normalized relations before bush came into power. - rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"NK is actualy saying "return to the table" jerks
WE had almost normalized relations before bush came into power."
Not really, NK has it's own crazy agenda. The other members of the six party talks have been asking for NK to return to the table, but they've been refusing to negotiate for one reason or another. - PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1yeah we refused to negociate anymore fool.
it was bush that came in and shut kim jung out
it was bush that then demanded if you want to return to talks they have to be this 6 party *****.
which is fine but it is demanding a concession before the talks even begin..
NK may have it's own agenda but the fact of the matter is the bilatteral talks clinton had with NK actually worked.
And bush ignoring NK actually worked for him as well because now we have this boogieman to scare the people with.
SUre KIm jung was always crazy, but we had him tamed before bush came into power. - unpopulardude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree tha North Korea thinks that they are telling the world to back off. However, what's really happened is Kim Jong Il has gone from being a nutty dictator with a moderate military and a few allies to being viewed as an insane person with nuclear weapons. Even his former allies want to stop him.
Not only the United States, but China and Russia want North Korea to stop this. The disagreements are about how. Regardless of how it is done, the message to other countries should end up being clear. Develop nuclear weapons and you are either: 1. Dead. 2. In prison. 3. Bombed beyond recognition, along with a number of your countrymen. 4. Doing the single dumbest thing you could possibly do for your nation's defense. 5. Flushing your economy down the toilet, because the sanctions will cause so much trouble.
Keep your eyes open for a UN force to include the US, China and Russia working together.
- PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5NK is actualy saying "return to the table" jerks
- riverside71, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2It's still a waste of money.. Only people convinced of it's effectiveness are the ones trying to sell it to us in return for our tax dollars..
- picodegallo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3WMD WMD. Iraq has WMD's! Don't "please" ***** me. This doesnt have to do with missile defense. This has to do with what he focused on as a threat. He said N Korea wasnt as big of a threat as Iraq 2 weeks ago on an interview with wolf blitzer. One of his reasons: N Korea wasn't invading its neighboring states. Well what about a nuclear bomb? Be a little more congruent. I don't know what he should have done. Maybe work with China? Maybe spent 300 billion and bomb their facilities? I don't know. All i know is that a crazy man has the bomb now and you are defending a president that was on the other side of the planet chasing ghosts.
- mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9My point was he was focusing on North Korea as a threat before 9/11, and his opponents were accusing him of "chasing ghosts" then. He can't win with people like you, no matter what he does. If he had chosen to invade North Korea in 2003 instead of Iraq you'd be decrying his "war crimes" in N Korea and accusing him of ignoring the Iraqi threat.
- picodegallo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3There was no iraqi threat. Most people knew that. The intelligence was bad. With people like me? What the ones that had an idea that N. Korea was a bigger threat? They knew N. Korea had secret facilities right? And win what? Nobody is winning anything here. This is about losing the least. 15k dead. 300 billion squandered. Iraq is a mess. N. Korea has a working bomb and is waving it. You judge someones capability on their results not on what they say. Stay the course.. Mission accomplished.
- mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@picodegallo
Hah. "Most people knew that"
History tends to get blurry for a lot of people, myself included...but this was only 3 years ago and I can't possibly believe something that happened so recently can be so blurry to you. "Most people knew that." That's funny, considering the entire world thought he had at least the infrastructure for develppment of a nuclear weapon (which was against 12+ UN resolutions), tons of biological and chemical agents that were unaccounted for (and are still unaccounted for), and a (and this is key) demonstrated willingness to use them.
"You judge someone's capability on their results not on what they say." So what do you do when you can't verify their "results"? Do you choose to believe what they say or do you disregard their words and hope they're just kidding? Is that how you'd run our foreign policy?
Either you're the most brilliant 3 year old on earth and just weren't around when all this was happening (in which case I'll forgive you for ignoring history that you didn't live through), or you have chosen to ignore the fact that the entire world believed he was actively ignoring UN resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction...thus the unanimous UN condemnation of Iraq in late 2002. Granted, many countries disagreed with the invasion...but they all believed that he was up to no good. - picodegallo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0UN searches halted nothing during that time. Please provide more evidence. Instead of using the whole "hindsight is 20/20" argument. Whatever evidence "the world" as you had was fabricated or old. Remember that document that was written by a grad student that the US used as intelligence. "We found a van with bio weapons" a little while later "oh the van was fake"
- mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@picodegallo
owned
Go nappy nap and let the big boys stay up and play. - picodegallo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1What are you talking about? The UN searches found nothing. Sit on that. Think about it.
- picodegallo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Also, think about how we found nothing in Iraq. That would prove the the intelligence was wrong or incomplete.
Lastly, UN didnt have enough evidence to prove that they could go in and attack, which is why they didn't. Hence why we went in alone without the UN's agreement.
This isn't about ownage. You think winning an argument is more important than seeing how things are a mess how they got that way. - jayfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DELETE
- picodegallo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
Try that.
- NYC10004, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It's becomming increasinly apparent that the world dosen't have the power or the will to do anything about the DPRK. This generation simply lacks the competance and the balls to take this guy out. All we hear from punidts and politicians is that the "global community" is taking a stand through "sanctions" and "strong condemnations". The DPRK is an actual threat, they're not playing games. What happens when Kim decides he wants to strap one of these nukes to one of his uncontrolable ICBM's? I'm sure they'll be so idiot on TV claiming the "global community" has reached a new level of impotent concern.
BTW: Stop blaming everything on Bush. The man has enough of his own mistakes to make up for. Not everything on the planet earth is his fault.- PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Unfortunately This problem was completely created by this adim
WE had gotten NK to disarm and moth ball it's nuke program.
Bush left the table of talks pissing off NK
BUsh labeled him part of the axis of evil
Kim jung then ripped up the treaies clinton got him to sign
after Bush had called kim jung evil, is when he broke into the un locked spent fuel rode facilities and started to make bombs our of the rods.
Then we invaded one of the axis of evil.
what did we expect NK to do and when we completely refuse to talk to them at all, do we expect them to wait until we will?
and of course once again we are refusing to talk to them without conditions..automatically forcing them to subjagate before they even reach the negocaiting table.(you see how that works you deman obiedence before they come to the table, so either they admit you are more powerful and in control or they refuse and you can blame them for talk failures, brilliant)
I know you would love to live blindly in a world were this crap isnt a direct result of this admins foriegn policies. Like it or NOT NK has nukes today because of George W Bush. - PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4you can digg me down but you cant bury the truth.
- nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5>but you cant bury the truth.
When you ACTUALLY put the truth in post other than some clinton apollogist crap then that might be true. - PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Link and label what is false about what i said then. I can back up what i say, i just want to know what you think is false about it.
I hated clinton, but he was far better than this admin ever was.
I was under the misunderstanding that the gop would actually follow their word and bring ethics into gov.
Instead we have abramoff, foley and a president that likes torture. - jayfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@nixfu
Here’s some truth for you:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke-agreedframework.htm
[SNIP]
Pyongyang cooperated with Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, whose leading members are South Korea, the United States and Japan. KEDO reached an agreement on the provision of the light-water nuclear reactors by 2003, and, in return, North Korea froze its nuclear program. South Korea, which promised to bear the lion's share of the reactor project cost estimated at US$4.5 billion, asked the United States to put up at least a symbolic amount. The US administration, however, said it can make no contribution to the construction cost as Congress has not appropriated the necessary budget. An official in Seoul, however, said that South Korea cannot drop its demand simply because of domestic problems in the United States. The US Congress has been delaying approval of the cost for the reactor project. South Korean officials said the U.S. refusal to share the reactor cost would make it difficult for them to obtain approval from the National Assembly for the South Korean share.
Since the conclusion of the Supply Agreement in December 1995, six related protocols have come into effect and three rounds of expert-level negotiations have produced solid results. The ROK power company, Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), is the prime contractor for this project and has as its responsibility the design, manufacture, procurement, construction and management of the reactors. On 19 August 1997 KEDO and North Korea held a groundbreaking ceremony to begin construction of two light-water reactors.
If the two light-water reactors (LWRs) slated to be built in North Korea were operated to optimize power production, they would discharge about 500 kilograms of reactor-grade plutonium a year in highly radioactive spent fuel.
North Korea, most of all, had kept its pledge to freeze all of its nuclear facilities, including nuclear reactors and a reprocessing plant. The United States and North Korea have already taken measures to ease their economic embargoes against each other in order to pave the way for future economic exchanges necessary for carrying out the nuclear reactor project.
A more imminent issue for the three countries is how to finance the provision of heavy fuel oil to the North as interim energy until the completion of the light-water reactor power plant. Washington, which promised to bear the cost of the fuel oil, is having difficulties in raising the money.
On 07 August 2002 the Bush administration renewed their insistence that Pyongyang cooperate immediately with inspectors of the the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, to determine how much plutonium North Korea had produced. However, the North is not obliged to do so until 2005, when construction of the reactor nears completion.
Following the October 2002 revelations concerning North Korea's uranium program, First Deputy Foreign Minister Kang Sok Ju [who was the chief North Korean negotiator of the Agreed Framework], describe its status as hanging by "a thread." He confirmed that North Korea believes it is still in force, though if the United States stops delivering the fuel oil, the agreement would cease to exist.
On 13 November 2002 President Bush decided to halt future shipments of heavy fuel oil to North Korea, pending verifiable steps to dismantle the newly disclosed uranium enrichment program.
On 21 November North Korea said that the 1994 pact with the United States to freeze the communist state's nuclear program had collapsed. The announcement followed the decision by Washington and its allies to cut oil supplies to Pyongyang.
[/SNIP]
Jay
- PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Unfortunately This problem was completely created by this adim
- Squidly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"The first message is that Kim Jong-il is the greatest of the peerless national heroes Korea has ever produced."
LOL. This is akin to being the best surfer in Idaho. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Kim Jong in a Kareoke bar:
I'm not like them
But I can pretend
The sun is gone,
I have a light
The day is done,
I'm having fun
I think I'm dumb
Or maybe just happy
Seriously tho, how does a retarded nation (not the people, but the government and such) manage to get so far? where did they get their scientists? the material? etc etc etc...?
it's doesnt make sense- PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They got alot of Nuke info from a dissident pakistani nuke scienctist. He also sold his knowledge to iran.
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1and the money? surely they need trade to accomplish that. unless they have all the material they need to produce everything
- floatingpoints, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Haha, I think people look too much into the situation.
The fact of the matter is, they're in economic ***** and they play mind games like this in order to get attention.
You can only say, "Oh yeah? Well we're gonna test a nuke if you don't give us support," for so long before people go "..yeah right."
They're just stepping it up a notch.
Trust me, they will never launch one. Every ***** leader, even insane ones, know the consequences of doing so. They will NOT survive, so there is no benefit to doing it.
The only time a nuke will be used is if someone hires a cell to detonate it for them. In that even, there are far more important countries willing to to see the US fall than N. Korea. - ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3NKoreans need food. Not bombs.
- floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And selling them to Iran for 1 billion each will buy a lot of food (+ 10 million for S&H)
- *blu*, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I know this is going to get dugg down, but i just have to say it anyway:
The more I read about all of this *****, the more I just want to turn NK into a parking lot and be done with it. Talks don't work - you can't put sense into that psycho Kim through any humane method. NK scares the ***** out of me because Kim is just nuts enough to launch one of those things. America should be very, very concerned. As should other countries, since he'll be coming for them next.- migla, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Well, you know, the US won't attack countries if they actually pose a threat. Even without a nuke, NK has the deterrent of artillery at the dmz, aimed at Seoul and thousands of US troops at the other side of the border.
For the US to "liberate" a country, that country has to have strategic and economic relevance (which NK probably does have), but it also has to be militarily weak, like Iraq (they knew there were no WMD in Iraq). - *blu*, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@migla,
You're absolutely right. The US is one of the most cowardly countries on the map. They have never been in any wars against anyone who was "actually a threat." France, on the other hand, is the paragon of courageousness.
In order for the US to get involved, the countries need to have economic relevance - I agree. Like Iraq. Everyone knows the first thing we did after taking over Baghdad was claim all their oil fields as ours and began exporting for our profit. It's all about the oil! The fact that it costs MUCH more to fund a war than it would to actually purchase the oil from Iraq can conveniently be ignored for a chance to hop on the "I Hate America" bandwagon.
As much as I hate to disagree with the "new" policital correctness that is Digg, i still have faith in our country and our military. America will not hesitate to bring war to NK if it is necessary. - migla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1There are other ways than securing oil to profit from war, destruction and disaster: http://www.warprofiteers.com/
- migla, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Well, you know, the US won't attack countries if they actually pose a threat. Even without a nuke, NK has the deterrent of artillery at the dmz, aimed at Seoul and thousands of US troops at the other side of the border.
- jayfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@mattdew
The Clinton administration made a deal with NK to halt their plutonium based nuclear weapons program. Like PowerCow stated. The plutonium program was locked tight under the agreement and no further work was done on it. NK, however, secretly went ahead with a uranium based program. When the Bush admin, learned about the uranium based program, they reneged on the Plutonium based deal by cutting off fuel-oil deliveries as punishment.
Jay- mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Here are the basic points of the 1994 agreement, according to the often incorrect Wikipedia. My only point was that they never had any intention of being an active party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty nor to promoting a de-nuclearized Korean peninsula, no matter what we did for them. The carrot/stick approach clearly did not work with them, and I don't see that there's really any room for disagreement on that point. They are the provocateurs in this case, not us.
* DPRK's graphite-moderated nuclear power plants, which could easily produce weapons grade plutonium, would be replaced with light water reactor (LWR) power plants by a target date of 2003.
* Oil for heating and electricity production would be provided while DPRK's reactors were shut down, until completion of the first LWR power unit.
* The two sides would move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.
* The U.S. would provide formal assurances to the DPRK, against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.
* The DPRK would take steps to implement the Korean Peninsula Denuclearization Declaration.
* The DPRK would remain a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* IAEA ad hoc and routine inspections would resume for facilities not subject to the freeze.
* Existing spent nuclear fuel stocks would be stored and ultimately disposed of without reprocessing in the DPRK.
* Before delivery of key LWR nuclear components, the DPRK would come into full compliance with its safeguards agreement with the IAEA. - jayfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@mattdew
Your information is correct but your conclusion is not. Check out my (longish) post above for some historical perspective. Everything is carrot and stick with NK. We just needed another carrot to mothball their uranium program.
Jay - mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't disagree with your facts...but I respectfully disagree with your analysis. How many carrots should we have put in front of them? The suggestion is that we and the international community were the ones who had to step up first, when North Korea, as signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty until 2003, were obligated to abandon the development of nuclear weapons regardless of the materials being used to develop them (plutonium or uranium). When they continually demonstrated a willingness to disgregard a treaty they signed, they became the provocateurs....we tried to pacify them by offering them a way out, they took it, and then they asked for more.
Again, I respectfully disagree. Maybe if we had offered another carrot to them things would have died down, but how can we possibly know? We have to judge a country to some degree by their words, but to large degree by their actions. North Korea has simply not acted in a way that would suggest they are a country that can be reasoned with. If we, the international community and the US, can't stick to our demands (which are not unreasonable) how can we make any demands at all? - jayfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@mattdew
We should have offered as many as it took for them to stop building nuclear weapons. Hell, we should have bought the whole program from them. This idea that we should treat countries like they are two-year-olds until we get what we want from them has got to stop. Look where it’s gotten us; another nuclear armed country that hates for us.
Jay
- mattdew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Here are the basic points of the 1994 agreement, according to the often incorrect Wikipedia. My only point was that they never had any intention of being an active party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty nor to promoting a de-nuclearized Korean peninsula, no matter what we did for them. The carrot/stick approach clearly did not work with them, and I don't see that there's really any room for disagreement on that point. They are the provocateurs in this case, not us.
- gravedigga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2FTFA: '' On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." In return, Washington agreed that the United States and North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations."
Four days later, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sweeping financial sanctions against North Korea designed to cut off the country's access to the international banking system, branding it a "criminal state" guilty of counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.
The Bush administration says that this sequence of events was a coincidence."
You don't know better. - n00bvin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's not so much that I'm worried that NK will try to Nuke another country themselves, but what they may give someone else. What would make them hesistate in giving a bomb to a terrorist group? Heck, this test may have been their "demo" to say... "We have them, and now we've proved they work... who's the highest bidder?"
Also, Japan is not going to sit idley by on this one. They can't afford to. While NK's missiles can't reach the US, they can most certainly reach Japan (where my wife is right now... YIKES!). I wouldn't be surprised if the Kitty Hawk is making preparations to get underway right now to sit in the Sea of Japan for awhile. Watch the Kitty Hawk's movements, it will tell you the seriousness of the situation there. They just came back from a deployment in September. If they go back out and head to Guam first, it's serious. They make a "pick up" there that means it's serious business.
Militarily it would be very difficult to "take out" North Korea. It's got dense forests, and very mountainous. The targets are much harder to hit with air power and you could 100% forget about a ground war there. I believe that's why we've pretty much ignored them. There's just not a whole lot we can do about them than subdue them. They've raised the stake though in a way that I'm not sure how will play out. This is certainly not something we can ignore. This is far more serious than Iran, currently and should have our utmost attention.
The only silver in this cloud is that I think we have the support of the international community and will let them handle it for the most part. Hopefully Russia and China are serious about their condemnation of the test, which will make life much easier on us. - jknevitt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5From stratfor.com:
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=277428
For those without a membership:
"When U.S. military planners have nightmares, they have nightmares about war with North Korea. Even the idea of limited strikes against the isolated nation is fraught with potential escalations.
North Korea has some 10,000 fortified artillery pieces trained on Seoul. It is essential to understand that South Korea's capital city, a major population center and the industrial heartland of South Korea, is within range of conventional artillery. The United States has been moving its forces out of range of these guns, but the South Koreans cannot move their capital.
...
Add to this the fact that North Korea has more than 100 No-Dong missiles that can reach deep into South Korea, as well as to Japan, and we can see that the possibility for retaliation is very real. Although the No-Dong has not always been the most reliable weapon, just the possibility of dozens of strikes against U.S. forces in Korea and other cities in Korea and Japan presents a daunting scenario.
...
The United States must assume, for the sake of planning, that U.S. airstrikes would be followed by massed artillery fire on Seoul. Now, massed artillery is itself not immune to countermeasures. But North Korea's artillery lies deep inside caves and fortifications all along the western section of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). An air campaign against these guns would take a long time, during which enormous damage would be done to Seoul and the South Korean economy -- perhaps on the order of several hundred thousand high-explosive rounds per hour. Even using tactical nuclear weapons against this artillery would pose serious threats to Seoul. The radiation from even low-yield weapons could force the evacuation of the city.
...
The option of moving north into the North Korean defensive belt is an option, but an enormously costly one. North Korea has a huge army and, on the defensive, it can be formidable. Fifty years of concerted military fortification would make Hezbollah's preparations in southern Lebanon look like child's play. Moving U.S. and South Korean armor into this defensive belt could break it, but only with substantial casualties and without the certainty of success. A massive stalemate along the DMZ, if it developed, would work in favor of the larger, defensive force.
...
Finally, the U.S. Army is already fighting two major ground wars and is stretched to the breaking point. The rotation schedule is now so tight that units are already spending more time in Iraq than they are home between rotations. The idea that the U.S. Army has a multidivisional force available for deployment in South Korea would require a national mobilization not seen since the last Korean War.
...
Every situation does not have a satisfactory military solution. This seems to be one of them." - jlebrech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0All the USA can now do is fuel a revolution, like they did in the south. But a bit more covert.
- poorbusker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I never get worried about North Korea trying to look big and bad. They've been doing it for years and they'll keep doing it untill they feel they are getting enough attention.
- GerryDaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm a Canadian living and teaching English in Seoul...I hope that StratFor report isn't true and will never happen...cuz that would really suck the big one. Time to call the Canadian Embassy in Seoul...I'll try to post some news on my blog later.
My Korea blog on teaching English in Korea:
http://thedailykimchi.blogspot.com - dumpstergames, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The guy is just testing his bombs give him a break. He is not killing or harming anyone.
It seems to me that America are forgetting that they dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki killing 210,000 innocent civilians and people are still dying from the effects that those two nuclear bombs caused.
It always is a different set of rules when America are involved in political actions. Its not that handy when you have idiots like Bush in charge.
AL GORE FOR PRESIDENT!!! - macslut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In other Korean news today, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon has been nominated by the UN Security Council as the successor to Secretary General Kofi Annan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6034305.stm
"Correspondents say Mr Ban will inherit an organisation where Darfur, Iran and UN reform top the agenda."
I'm thinking maybe N Korea may be on the agenda somewhere too. - wibblewibble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They probably just detonated 1000 tonnes of dynamite (no radioactive proof) to generate the seismic wave to bluff everybody :) Good on em, it worked for America with the faking of the moon landings so why not North Korea :)
*ducks and covers* :) - ASSASSYN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1North korea has won the coin toss and, has elected to recieve.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah yes. What a surprise that a story makes it on Digg blaming the Bush administration for N. Korea's nuclear weapons program. If the US had only been nicer. That's what Clinton tried in the 90's.
- zombo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Whatever Kim's plans are it can't do book sales any harm....
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Jong-Il%20Kim&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank/102-4150831-3440931 - briman4031, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It's amazing how every countries evil ambitions are the US and Bush's fault. None of you have any damned national pride and that's why our country is going to hell in a handbasket. Pretty soon we'll all be singing the Mexican national anthem and waiving Puerto Rican flags on the 4th of July... of course we'll take out any words that could offend someone. All you left wingers eager to blame this administration and this country for that herpes sore that showed up on your peckers should get a reality check. N. Korea has been systematically been trying to dismantle the US economy by counterfeiting US currency in an attempt to devalue the American dollar. The US government called them on it and now it's our fault N. Korea doesn't want to have unilateral talks with anyone but the US alone. It's called exthortion(s/c). Get some pride you tree huggin' weenies!
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by