North Korea Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons 2056
steelvadi writes "North Korea has now admitted to possessing nuclear weapons. Government officials there claimed that they are needed as defense from an increasingly hostile attitude from Washington. It was also stated that N. Korea will not be reentering negotiations on disarmament for the foreseeable future. "
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Informative)
They wouldn't have been in this situation if not for their decision to invade Kuwait.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action") (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't some instantaneous thing that happened. If creating nuclear weapons were that easy for them, it would have happened a long time ago.
Re:Hello, TESTING??? (Score:5, Informative)
Nuclear tests are now conducted underground. Above ground testing was banned by the UN decades ago and any country who has nuclear weapons has always tested them below ground. The exception being Israel who was testing its nuclear weapons with South Africa when sanctions were on South Africa for its apartheid policies.
No known large-scale tests were evidenced but there is some evidence to support small tests as seismic data indicated unusual earthquake-like motion.
As far as seismic data is concerned with North Korea, since they gave their info to Pakistan, who successfully set off at least one nuclear device, it would be reasonable to assume that North Korea knows its design will work.
Here are some links which show the before and after photos of Pakistans underground nuclear tests:
Link 1 [isis-online.org]
Link 2 [nuclearweaponarchive.org]
This link [fas.org] has a very nice and detailed story, with pics, about Indias nuclear tests as does this link [nuclearweaponarchive.org].
In the case of Indias tests, there were some clouds thrown up but nothing near like one is used to seeing from the nuclear tests the U.S. performed in the Nevada desert.
Re:Hello, TESTING??? (Score:1, Informative)
You're not entitled to your own "facts" (Score:5, Informative)
For a better albeit incomplete analysis of the rest, like the "help", see here [newsmax.com]. For a timeline, see this [wisconsinproject.org].
Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts" (Score:3, Informative)
Instead, now they've had their collective irrational paranoia justified. Not having nuclear weapons, no matter what the claims, are not a shield against the US. Fantastic. So instead of getting out of this cheap, we're going to have a massive drag on the world economy as asia slows it's economy to weaponize, and decrease stability.
Re:Israeli has nuclear weapons since long time ago (Score:1, Informative)
Want some cheese with your whine?
North Koreau voluntarily signed the NPT treaty, pledging not to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea made a deal (negotiated by Jimmy Carter) with the US, pledging not to develope nuclear weapons. North Korea has violated all these agreements. Having violated these agreements, North Korea can be punished by these same agreements.
Israel (and many other countries) have never signed the NPT, therefore they are not bound by it.
sigh... poverty is really a sin.
No, but stupidity and ignorance is.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:5, Informative)
I think you have the chronology backwards there. The Bush cutoffs took place after North Korea violated their treaty obligations. (It was because they restarted plutonium production, wasn't it?)
But, you're right -- the current nukes (if they exist, which I'd doubt) wouldn't have been made with the light water reactors.
You need proof? (Score:4, Informative)
Pakistan Ended Aid to Taliban Only Hesitantly [nytimes.com]December 8, 2001
Pakistan spy service 'aiding Bin Laden' [bbc.co.uk] 30 December, 2001
Musharraf: Bin Laden may be dead [bbc.co.uk]23 December, 2001
Pakistan's leader thinks bin Laden dead [cnn.com]January 18, 2002
Bin Laden trail is cold, Musharraf admits [guardian.co.uk]December 6, 2004
A Hostile Land Foils the Quest for bin Laden [nytimes.com]December 13, 2004
Protest at Musharraf's army role [bbc.co.uk]19 December, 2004 So much for us supporting democracy and "freedom"
Musharraf Scorns Nuclear Probe [latimes.com]
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2004/100
Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts" (Score:1, Informative)
what he's talking about was the US promise to help them buil CANDU reactors
CANDU reactors are made by Canada not the US.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:5, Informative)
You make it sound like the North Koreans built nuclear weapons by accident. Like, "Well shoot, we can't build light water ractors to generate power anymore...we might as well start a nuclear weapons program!"
Giving them light water reactors would have resulted in them having both light and heavy water reactors, and more technology that could be turned around and used against us. In a society as closed and tighly controlled as North Korea, it's foolish to think that we can 'inspect' anything, and that means we'd just have to take thier word for it that they're not producing nuclear weapons.
Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Informative)
Washington is very surprised by N. Korea's pullout (Score:4, Informative)
Re:kim is a bully but Bush is even stupid bully (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Informative)
?
Have you been to Cuba? It's probably the least Evil place on the planet. Seriously.
Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action") (Score:5, Informative)
U-238??? I think not. Might want some U-235, or Plutonium, perhaps. MIght even be able to do it with Thorium. But not U-238.
Also, the neutron source is optional. When you add a neutron source, you're allowing for a smaller critical mass of fissionables.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Informative)
You have a good point that the announcement may be news for the NK people moreso than for the US. It could be considered further substantiation of the rumors that are circulating about the imminent collapse of NK (I know, these rumors seem to arrise in cycles...). So the announcement may be more for the purpose of retaining power over the NK people, either through fear, adulation or reassurance of defensive capability against the evil US.
Your theory about a possible attack on Taiwan is frightening; it makes me consider the China-NK relationship in a whole new light. I can see some similarity between the US-NK-China relationship and the US-Palestine-Saudi Arabia relationship. In both cases, the clear and present danger of the middle-man takes the focus off of the larger strategic danger in the region. The US has to enter into strategically disadvantageous relationships with the third country in order to solve the problem of the middle-man. And the third country, of course, has every incentive to see that the problem is never adequately resolved.
Re:Korea (Score:3, Informative)
There are maybe a dozen leaders in recent times who definitely killed more civilians in more brutal manners than Saddam. Obvious examples include Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Brezhnev, Tojo, and a handful of dictators in Africa.
Saddam was a bad guy, but let's try to keep the facts reasonably straight.
Re:I know I will be modded -1 but (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good for them! (Score:2, Informative)
What would you do? You'd probably call Pakistan a "great ally in the war on terror" and ignore it, then go off and beat up on Saddam Hussein to make yourself feel better.
Re: It's all jokes but.... (Score:2, Informative)
The current US Administration has not "ignored" N. Korea. In fact, they have been saying for the past four years that the US will not negotiate 1 on 1, they will only participate if China, S. Korea, Russia and Japan (maybe) are involved as well. The reason the Administration has done this is to cut through Kim Jong Il's rheteric.
But the US is damned if they do, damned if they don't. People whine when the US goes solo, and people whine when the US doesn't take immediate action.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:1, Informative)
The Bush administration had to know that, Hans Blix didn't find any unexpired WMDs, and he found no facilities at all for making new WMDs.
Bush Lied. The war was for oil, not terrorism.
Re:The US doesn't own everything (Score:3, Informative)
The reality that you must realize is that every country is able to run itself as it chooses to govern within its own borders. Period. You can sanction someone to pressure them (cut off trade for example), but can not push them around like a younger brother. The US has become a strong economic leader, but don't get cocky about it. The US is in a good position with strong allies to the north and south with water all around- but again, this is just fortune.
North Korea within its borders can do what it wants. Bush has the nukes- and apparently they are doing the same thing: 'bush has the nukes and has been invading countries like a fat man on cake- we should be ready and protect ourselves'. Until one of those gets fired anywhere outside of North Korea, or until the environmental impact harms others- we can't say anything.
While the western world sure does like democracy and freedom and commercialization, that doesn't mean the rest of the world gives a damn what we think.
-M
Re:Korea (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at history, you sound confused.
20th Century Civilians Killed:
Stalin=4x10^7
Mao=3.5x10^7
Hitler=1.2x10^7
O
Pol Pot=1x10^6
Saddam=6x10^5
Hutu-Tutsi Rivalry=5x10^5
As you can see, Hitler's not even close to first, and Saddam is way down at the bottom. Educate yourself on history. It's the only antidote to propaganda.
Sources:
this article [bigeye.com]
khmer rouge [wikipedia.org]
Saddam [stanford.edu]
Don't Forget.... (Score:2, Informative)
Saddam Hussein gased HIS OWN people with Tabun and VX poison gas.
sarcasm {
nooo...He never had WMDs
}
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Informative)
DoD's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review document calls for the creation of tactical nukes deployed on the battlefield, and for war plans that include US nuclear first strike. Also, Bush officials have made public statements that implicitly disavow Resolution 984, in which nuclear-armed nations pledge not to use nukes against non-nuclear nations.
Furthermore, we've seen what happens to evil dictators who DON'T have nukes.
Last, the US currently doesn't have enough available troops to conquer North Korea by conventional means. So what can we conclude?
Even if he were sane, which he probably isn't, Kim Jong Il would have good reason to believe the US might just bomb him no matter what he does. Therefore, that's a strong incentive to build nukes.
When two nutjobs play chicken [wikipedia.org] together, the result is a huge wreck.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"Happened on a Battlefield" (Score:4, Informative)
What are you basing your assertion that the gas was VX on? The DIA investigation determined that the Kurds had been killed by a cyanide-based gas that Iran, but not Iraq, had at time. [nytimes.com]
You bringing up the Geneva Convention is interesting given the large number of violations of that same convention committed by America and the UK since the invasion of Iraq. In fact, this is yet another form of what I was trying to convey with the comment about battlefields: war is wrong. As Donald Rumsfeld has reminded us over and over again, bad things happen in war. Whether Saddam actually ordered those Kurds gassed is questionable, but regardless of the truth using Saddam's violations and the killing of 5,000 civilians to justify our own violations, killing 100,000+ and counting just makes no sense. Two wrongs do not make a right. What does continuing the misdeeds of a tyrant at a larger scale make us?
Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action") (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:3, Informative)
By 'order of magnitude too high' you meant that there could easily have been only 99,999 casualties, right? ;-) If you were using the more common usage and meant that there might have only been 10,000 take a look at the Iraq Body Count site [iraqbodycount.net]. They have been tracking all confirmed media reports of casualties, and the current minimum is 15,671.
Re:Korea (Score:5, Informative)
But there is surely a "terror premium" in today's crude prices; most folks estimate it at $5-10. OTOH, you could call it a "no spare capacity" premium just as accurately. Global pries are high, and will likely remain high, because demand is growing faster than supply. Small disruptions thus have a disproportionate effect on prices.
But that's not why gas prices are high here in the US. That has much more to do with lack of refinery capacity and price-fixing. Did you notice how gas prices rose dramatically last spring, when crude prices were stable; and actually fell a bit in the fall (run-up to the election) when crude prices were spiking? There's a disconnect because relatively little of the pump price is actually the cost of crude. Other factors are much more important.
Re:Gangs (Score:2, Informative)
Reason for Iraq war to rest of world was not WMD (Score:3, Informative)
It's a little more complicated than that, of course, but that is the general outline of the justification.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:3, Informative)
I'd just like to point out that NASA is in on this "propaganda machine". Assuming you can read a map and locate North and South Korea I suggest you take a look here. [nasa.gov] North Korea is a black hole. They have the third largets standing army on earth, and supporting that army devours about 30% of their entire gross national production. That is a STAGGERING percentage drain on any economy. And it explains why an appaling fraction of their population starved to death over the last several years. It's not propaganda. North Korea really is insanely isolationist and selfdelusional.
The really ugly part is that it's a really intractable situation. North Korea is a handgrenade and any attempt to deal with North Korea primarily involves tip-toeing around hoping it doesn't go off. I'm certainly not suggesting an invasion, that *would* immeadiately set off the handgrenade bigtime. Even without their nukes they have enough artillary to level the South Korean capital in a matter of minutes. They have the world's third largest army (behind China and the US) entrenched in one of the biggest and deepest tunnel systems in the world. They could sweep across South Korea faster than we could deploy even a single unit to the area.
We have a few thousand American soldiers deployed along that border. You want to know why? They certainly aren't there to fight. If North Korea decided to move across the border that handfull of American troops wouldn't do squat, they'd be killed by artillary in a matter of moments. So why are they there? They are deployed on a "tripwire" mission. A human tripwire. If North Korea were to attemt to cross the line and invade South Korea they would first be slaughtering thousands of Americans. Their purpose there is not to fight, their purpose there is to DIE if North Koerea attacks South Korea. And if North Korea slaughters thousands of Americans peacefully sitting on defensive duty that automatically warrants and commits the US to a full blown war against the agressor. A full blown war to defend South Korea.
Thousands of Americans who's sole mission is pure sacrificial death, for the purpose of ensuring the defence of South Korea against invasion.
If you think any comments painting North Korea as ugly or insane is just propaganda then you don't know anything about North Korea. And if you think there is any way to handle North Korea other than doing nothing and praying the problem goes away on it's own then you're either a fool or far more intelligent than me.
-
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Informative)
Sort of like Clinton finally firing some missles over in Iraq to take attention off Monicagate?
Yawn. (Score:2, Informative)
you can deliver them on target and on time.
That leaves N. Korea off the Threat Board.