Satellite Images Suggest N. Korea Has Restarted Small Nuclear Reactor 121
mdsolar writes "Recent satellite imagery suggests that North Korea has restarted a small nuclear reactor, allowing the secretive nation to potentially bolster its stockpile of plutonium for weapons, a U.S. research institute said Thursday. The North had said five months ago that it would restart key operations at its Yongbyon nuclear facility 'without delay.' The report from the U.S.-Korea Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies indicates that it is quietly going ahead with that pledge — and facing few apparent problems in firing up a reactor mothballed for six years. Commercial satellite images from Aug. 31 show two plumes of white steam rising from a turbine building adjacent to the reactor. That steam is an essential byproduct of the reactor's operation, and its venting suggests the 'electrical generating system is about to come online,' the report said."
Sure why not? (Score:2)
What's the US gonna do about it?
There's an important lesson in here about setting red lines...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
North Korea developed their nukes in response to us invading a country that was disarming. Iraq showed the world that being a nuclear power is a better way of preventing invasion than cooperation.
Re: (Score:2)
And the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the less we have to rely on the US to come to the defense of others!
Re:Sure why not? (Score:5, Informative)
NK started their nuke program in the 80s, extracting plutonium through the 80s and 90s, resulting in their first successful test in 2006.
Re: (Score:2)
Their nuclear program goes back at least to the 1960s.
Re: (Score:2)
I should have been more specific, their nuclear weapons program goes back to the 80s. However, I'm only talking the active program. I'm sure Kim had dreams of nukes back in the 60s too.
Re: (Score:2)
Iraq was co-operating and disarming? Gotta love that revisionist history.
But yes, becoming a nuclear power is THE way to prevent invasion. Irrelevant of any other factors.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably talk about "international norms" as if that is real thing or something...
Then invent some reasons those "norms" don't apply to us; when China not excited about their patron state being bombed/invaded and a fight on their back porch exercises their UN veto.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the US gonna do about it?
Obama is going to threaten North Korea that he will ask Congress for permission to do something about it!
Congress will look to public opinion polls of their voters to decide.
The general public will try to guess what Oprah would do, and just decide whatever they think, she thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, Putin Wins.
Flawless Victory.
Re: (Score:1)
Did he give them nuclear reactor plans when he was governor of Arkansas? Because that's when NK started refining plutonium.
Look, we developed our own nuclear weapons in the 1940s, without computers. Can we stop pretending that this is something beyond the reach of even crappy countries like NK?
Re: (Score:2)
Look, we developed our own nuclear weapons in the 1940s, without computers
No we didn't. Try reading Feynman's biography sometime. His job at the project was performing calculations on computers for the implosion-bomb desig.
So...are we done with Syria then? (Score:2)
The timing of this announcement (plus Dennis Rodman's recent antics) makes me think that the current administration is hoping to turn to turn the page on Syria as fast as humanly possible.
Re: (Score:2)
They sure are. That's what they wanted at least from the point that it became an openly sectarian conflict with AQ-affiliated organizations fighting alongside the rebels. That's when the window of opportunity closed and the gates of clusterfuck hell opened. I wonder why there was no quick & decisive Libya-style action?
Re: (Score:3)
>> why there was no quick & decisive Libya-style action?
Probably at least five reasons:
1) Libya's a lot further away from Iran than Syria
2) Russia had Syria's back, not so much Libya's
3) The UK told the US to pound sand, and I wonder how much of that was due to us making fun of their operational capacity in Libya (e.g., http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120207/DEFREG01/302070008/Ability-U-K-Conduct-Future-Libya-Style-Campaign-Questioned [defensenews.com])
4) In Libya Qaddafi was still known and hated in the US an
Re: (Score:1)
Ding ding ding we have a winner. The current administration made a bone headed line in the sand that they never dreamed Syria would cross and when they did got caught with there pants down. The American public (at least the majority) have no interest in another war in the middle east, particularly one that is already a proxy war with the Russians. Obama is stuck trying to make it look to the world that the US is not retreating from the world stage while it retreats from the world stage so any conflict where
Re: (Score:1)
Because they'll shoot the fucking hostages, you retard.
Seoul is a city of ten million people and even the most optimistic estimates are saying that NK will kill a half million of them if a war starts. That's without him employing his (small, crappy) stockpile of nuclear weapons. The status quo is shit but it's less shitty than reopening the Korean War.
Re: (Score:1)
Estimates etc: Links or it didn't happen.
Even at that, all that means is we need another way to take the regime down. It's called selective elimination. You decapitate the people who make decisions and have the know how and willingness to use the nukes and conventional arms through *whatever means* and the people who are left are just bewildered and incapable of marshaling a fight, even supposing they wanted to.
We;re talking about a dictatorship with no real continuity of power in place. Even if the genera
Re: (Score:1)
N Korea invasion plan:
Day 1- sudden death of top 5000 scientists and military personnel.
Day 2- Massive air drops of millions of Coke cans, Kit Kat bars and Happy Meals. Blanket the country completely. You know what people are going to do? They're going to run around looking for the next drop and then they're going to sit down and eat it because half the country (or more) is in a state of more or less permanent starvation. Then they're going to be full. Then they're going to hang out thinking, hmmm, maybe we
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-how-north-korea-could-destroy-seoul-in-two-hours-2010-5?op=1 [businessinsider.com]
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub771.pdf [army.mil]
"The combination of North Korea’s long economic
decline and enhanced U.S. and South Korean military
capabilities has diminished the ability of North
Korea to launch a successful invasion of South Korea.
Nonetheless, the KPA retains the ability to inflict heavy
casualties and collateral damage, largely through
the use of massed long-range a
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea does not have a modern military.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/03/25/a-photo-that-makes-north-korea-look-a-lot-less-scary/ [washingtonpost.com]
They don't have enough fuel to launch their mig 29s (see above) and the ability of the average NK soldier or officer to act absent direction is nil. What you're saying is NK has some kind of dead man's switch whereby the body will attack even if the head is off. It's hard to believe that with our ability to fuck with their computers, fuck with their ve
Re: (Score:2)
If he's "done", the most organized members of the rebel forces are the moslem brotherhood and al qaeda. Which means he'll probably be replaced by a islamic fundamentalist government.
It's just not true. Those forces are there, but most people anywhere aren't fanatics, by definition. Being Muslim is not the same as being in al Queda, sympathizing with al Queda or anything else.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/16/opinion/zuka-syria-resistance-leader/index.html [cnn.com]
Where is the al Queda take over of Libya? Where is the a
Re: (Score:2)
Can I assume you are posting from a hideout in Syria? Because if not then get your ass over there and take care of these things you think are so important and stop asking for others to die for what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah how am I ill informed? Huh? If it was YOU and YOURS would you want a super power to level the murderer? Sure you would. Golden Rule applies. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is not that hard to think through.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was YOU and YOURS would you want a super power to level the murderer?
So we should pick a side in the assholes vs dickheads war and kill THEM and THEIRS.
I bet you wonder why our country is so hated by everyone over there.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah that's right , perfect thank you for outing yourself as a racist asshole because the people in refuge camps are assholes.. or dickheads... take your pick. Because people "over there" and anyway not us if they're suffering brought it on themselves.
Oh wait. Except the American taxpayer, especially the Tea Party and the 1% who fund them.... now THOSE people, damn, they're oppressed through no fault of their own.
Kill yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, the people in the refugee camps are the ones who FLED. They don't want to be caught standing near either the rebels OR the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From CNN. People who CARE about other people are enraged. Everyone else is waiting for the next Breaking Bad episode (as am I)
"How many more times do we have to say that weapons of mass destruction were used?" she said. "And as bad as it is to decapitate somebody, it is by no means equal. We can't use this false moral equivalence about what's going on right now. They tried to do it in the Second World War. They tried to do it in Bosnia. They tried to do it in Rwanda and they're trying to do it now. There is no moral equivalence."
As her panelists tried to interject, Amanpour snapped, "Wait just a second!" Once she had the floor, she continued, "The president of the United States and the most moral country in the world based on the most moral principles in the world, at least that's the fundamental principle that the United States rests on, cannot allow this to go unchecked, cannot allow this to go unchecked...I'm so emotional about this."
Later, Amanpour tweeted that she was trying to recall "America's proud history" of liberal interventionism:
one more time (Score:1)
In the ancient times my Greek ancestors, from the Corinthians to the Macedonians and from the Cretans to the Thracians, were always impressed by the Athenian rhetors that could speak for hours about a subject, so they were influenced by them in their rhetoric art - everyone except the... Spartans that could not stand that, considering all that just babble since they were famous for their Laconic style!
In one famus occasion some Greeks from an alied city state visited Sparta requesting help because their cro
the cycle starts anew (Score:2)
And so it begins, once again. Just as North Korea begins to appear less belligerent and people like Dennis Rodman are talking up Kim as a "cool dude", North Korea turns on a dime and proves it's still Pariah #1 on the world stage. So what will it be this time, Chubs? Last time you threatened to unleash a nuclear holocaust on the You gonna invade Orlando and take Mickey and Goofey hostage? Crash the moon into the White House?
Re: (Score:2)
The world would be better off if the most dangerous army wasn't controlled by a nation of paranoid kool-aid swilling bullies.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do some people's sympathies and sensitivities stop at their own nation?
Well, for the same reason they have fear and suspicion of folks with other colors of skin. That is to say, evolution found such instincts beneficial to the preservation of your genes. That's not to say you must be slaves to your baser drives. If anything, use the knowledge for good. Teach children and scientists alike how to combat such bias. Guilt over the irrational fear of other different looking or sounding or acting people when turned inward leads to hate. If an untrained mind is looking for som
Re: (Score:1)
The reactor in question was built to produce weapons grade materials. There's no reason to do so unless you plan to make weapons.
The tech to make much cleaner, no weapons grade material output was just as available to them. If they wanted power, they wouldn't be using it.
Worry about USA instead (Score:2, Informative)
Just 100 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah we're the only ones' to ever use them-= against a nation trying to help Hitler win WWII. A nation responsible for the Rape of Nanking. A nation that refused to unconditional surrender. . Oh, and nuking those cities , how ever little you like it, saved lives and set Japan on the path to being the prosperous, free, liberal democracy and first rate nation that it has been for decades now.
We freed the Japanese people from the wanton abuse they were doomed to be suffering at the hands of their former natio
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah and how many people of all nationalities would die trying to invade Japan? What would Japan be today is it had not surrendered?
How do you shoot women, children? (Score:1)
Easy, just don't lead them so much!
Re: (Score:2)
So you're concerned about "children, women and other civilians?"
I have some distressing news [theguardian.com] for you then.
Re: (Score:3)
So what. The USA has over 100 reactors running, and have more nuclear weapons than any other country,
Untrue. Most sources agree that Russia has roughly 1000 more than USA. This is one of the reasons that Putin has been unwilling to reach any agreements to reduce the number of weapons each country has although previous leaders on both sides were able to reach such agreements in the past. Nice try at America bashing buddy, but if you'd like to deal with reality, you can consider that Putin and his government actually believe that if the US builds a missile interceptor base in Eastern Europe that it can si
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you on most points, however, the proposed 'AEGIS Ashore' program that will place SM-3 interceptors in Europe (Romania and Poland), and use the SPY-1D(V) radar that the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class Destroyers use, will likely put at least 100 interceptors on-site in VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells that are similar to those used by the Navy's DDGs and CGs. The DDGs can carry up to 96, while CGs can carry up to 128 (though that number is usually much smaller, due to inventory of SM-2, SM-6, E
perhaps.... (Score:3)
Hasty Conclusion (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, nuclear physics is actually pretty cool, even if this particular instance increases the odds of the end of life as we know it.
Re:News For Nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
If by "end of life as we know it" you mean "another round of them being provocative to get attention and remain in the news" or "more talks of sanctions and deals" then.... yes, life as we know it is going to totally end...and by end, I mean not change one bit.
Re: (Score:3)
It's only a minute increase, but anything that increases the likelihood of a nuclear war isn't a good thing.
Re: (Score:1)
It's only a minute increase, but anything that increases the likelihood of a nuclear war isn't a good thing.
North Korea doesn't have a delivery system or anywhere near enough warheads for MAD, so the worst case scenario is they commit a form of "suicide by cop" by nuking one of the US's allies and get themselves bombed into oblivion by the NATO retaliation (probably doesn't even need to be nuclear retaliation).
That scenario isn't particularly likely, because well... suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
They do have a delivery system, two, actually. The first is their ICBM program, that, while shaky, could be operational in the next couple of years. They might even have enough done, at this point, to be able to reach Hawaii, though that's doubtful.
The second is much more nefarious and more difficult to protect against, and that's a shipping container, on its way into port, before its been scanned for NBC agents by US Customs. While they likely haven't been able to miniaturize a warhead and get a fully t
Re: (Score:2)
Except for explaining why anyone in the U.S. would be receiving a shipping container from NK in the first place. They aren't exactly a most favored nation.
So they'd have to somehow get that container smuggled onto a ship from another nation.
Meanwhile, even their batshit insane leader would have to realize that the best possible outcome for him would be getting dragged out of a bunker in his boxers just long enough for his own people to kill him and that no country in the world would voice an objection.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree on either point, just stating that if they really wanted to get something here, it's conceivable that they could.
Re: (Score:2)
It is, sure. Humans are very inventive and if they really want to solve that problem, they probably can.
However they can't fake the source of the bomb, and they can't deliver enough to preclude a response, and it is doubtful that China really wants WWIII so, its unlikely the Chineese alliance really extends to protecting them in the event of their own nuclear provocation of the US, or anywhere else for that matter.
Lots of things could happen, I could go down to the airport with my sword and start registerin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If by "end of life as we know it" you mean "another round of them being provocative to get attention and remain in the news" or "more talks of sanctions and deals" then.... yes, life as we know it is going to totally end...and by end, I mean not change one bit.
And by not changing one bit you assume that it is not possible for a North Korean instigated military confrontation, like the ship they torpedoed several years ago, or another missile launch over Japan going awry, could spiral out of control leading to an exchange of nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, North Korean nuclear strikes against both Japan and American forces in Japan, the intervention of China to prevent the collapse of North Korea? And if we're lucky, the Chinese intervention doesn't invol
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa there! Back to the decaf.
Re: (Score:2)
It's always worth remembering that North Korea's leadership has a special kind of evil [latimes.com] ruthless madness to it that has resulted in them painting themselves into a corner, and China has been willing to give them security guarantees. It is sort of like an excerpt from the plans for World War 1.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that you think China's garauntees are rock solid sure. However, I suspect they are more to prevent war and thumb their nose at the US than a real desire to defend the DPRK.
Frankly, I think if it really comes down to them crossing too many lines and war is looking inevitable, China will find a reason to ditch their annoying little buddy.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that they will ditch North Korea. Within the last few years China has made them aware of their displeasure.
On the other hand, China sent large numbers of combat troops that fought against the US and UN forces during the Korean War. The new Chinese leader appears to be a hard liner that wants to pull back from the liberalization of the last few decades and return to traditional Communist ways. North Korea never left those ways.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't nearly enough.
Why North Koreans Were Kidnappers [slate.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No, but with nukes, all you need to do is START shit, and the rest can take care of itself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither China nor Russia are going to start The Big One over North Korea, especially if NK shoots first.
Kim-Jong Un does not represent an existential threat to the world. He represents an existential threat to the city of Seoul, SK. He is essentially the world's largest municipal disturbance. Don't give him more credit than he deserves.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, wait... This is Samsung we're talking about. No more Touch Wiz.
Maybe Dennis Rodman is right.
Re: (Score:2)
It's questionable whether they even have any, or ever detonated one, as opposed to a pile of tnt with uranium sprinkled on it.
Our governments would know, but letting them know we know is a separate strategy issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, nuclear physics is actually pretty cool, even if this particular instance increases the odds of the end of life as we know it.
You're too pessimistic. Life as we know it inhabits Earth's crust kilometers deep. Even a thousand Kim Jong-Whoevers couldn't possibly wipe it out.
Re: (Score:2)
"as we know it" is an important caveat, since nuclear war, even if we blew every weapon up, wouldn't destroy human civilization. We could decimate a few major cities, but there'd be plenty of people and technology left.
We exploded over 500 devices in the atmosphere in the 50s and 60s, some of them far more powerful than those currently in the stockpile (which are typically 100-300kt these days). Nuclear winter was a hoax perpetuated by Sagan, a man I respect, but a man who seemed to have an irrational fe
Re:News For Nerds (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't a hoax. We detonated 500-someodd devices over a period of decades of testing, in the atmosphere rather than on the ground.
Look, when the Chicxulub asteroid hit and the dinosaurs went extinct, was it because the dinosaurs were all on vacation in southern Mexico and the asteroid landed on their heads? No, of course not; the debris launched into the atmosphere interfered with plant growth, which meant the herbivores starved, which then meant the carnivores starved.
A massive ground (not atmospheric) detonation of the world nuclear stockpile in a matter of days (not decades) would absolutely have a similar effect. It probably wouldn't cause human extinction, but you would certainly see a few billion people starve, and nothing collapses a civilization faster than losing its food supply.
Re: (Score:1)
The optimal point for pressure wave and radiative heat propagation is not on the ground, though. Ground level actually has the effect of pumping more of that energy into the earth where it doesn't do quite as much damage.
Unless they're trying to disable a specific silo or bunker, it's much more useful to release in the air. I forget exactly, but it's on the order of several thousand feet above ground level altitude.
Yeah, not something to look forward to, and it would undoubtedly cause worldwide effects, but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, not something to look forward to, and it would undoubtedly cause worldwide effects, but I don't think it's on the order of mass starvation outside of the areas of humanity which are already on the brink.
For billions to die from starvation isn't even going to require a 'nuclear winter' scenario. A single, near worldwide season of crop failures would put vast numbers of people at risk. Coupled with the inevitable fallout (so to speak) of a nuclear war, the disruption of supply lines and infrastructure would be the icing on the cake (bad choice of words, I suppose).
The veneer of civilization is thin.
ignore this post (Score:2)
Re:News For Nerds (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps not so irrational when he probably anticipated that both the USA and the USSR would lob all 10,000+ weapons at each other in one round. Those 500 devices detonated were of varying sizes and spread out over decades, not thousands upon thousands all detonated within an hour of each other. Consider that a large explosive volcanic eruption (such as Mount St. Helens) - a localized event - can throw enough particulate matter into the atmosphere to cause widespread cooling for several seasons.
Now consider thousands of 10kt to 100mt devices being detonated all over three continents (central North America, northern Asia, and eastern Europe), all vaporizing and shattering all kinds of matter including silicates as well as creating a lot of soot and water vapor. I think in a MAD situation that his nuclear winter hypothesis is fairly plausible. It's fair to point out that only a few 100mt-design devices existed and that most were much smaller, but in 1982 between the USA and the USSR the actively deployed warheads (numbering 23,000 - with a stockpile of about 70,000!!) available for immediate launch was 12,300 megatons - so they averaged about 500kt each. As of today there is still about 25,000 nuclear weapons between the two nations (USA and Russia) plus an indeterminate number from other powers.
As far as North Korea is concerned - it seems they just want to talk without being threatened, and when they see us (the USA) lead by puppets who are bought and paid for by warmongering profiteers, why shouldn't they pursue a nuclear deterrent? Our government is very dangerous and are ignoring the will of the people with all of the sabre-rattling in the Middle East, and innuendos toward NK. Why should they not build weapons to deter what is perceived as imperialism? Besides, without talks, for all we know, NK is just trying to continue to industrialized and become a civilized society and may just be using the power plants which have already been bought and paid for since it makes good financial sense than to throw away a perfectly good generator and wait 5-10 years for new power plants to be completed.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as North Korea is concerned - it seems they just want to talk without being threatened
That's the most generous description of North Korea I've ever seen in English. Remember we're talking about a regime who executes people by running over them with tanks in front of their entire regiment, led by a man who had his ex-girlfriend executed.
I'm absolutely opposed to invading North Korea, but it's important to remember they are not some poor, misunderstood nice guys.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, why should we, the American people, continually foot the bill for policing these skirmishes? The UN body has HOW many member states, and what do they do to help? Not a thing. Why should we be the ones to do it? We are tens of trillions in debt due in part to policing the world and it has got to stop. Yes, there is genocide, but where were we one, two, three years ago when Syria was already engaging in these atrocities? Napalm, concussion bombs, swords, and firing squads all this time and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depending, of course, of your definition of 'more or less'.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, you're a holocaust and climate change denialist too. Same hyper-selective use of facts to "prove" your point, while pretending the huge number of facts you excluded don't completely destroy your argument.
Point of fact, a nuclear war in Sagans era wouldn't have been about cooking off 500 devices over two decades or so, it would have been about slinging 50,000 devices over a day or two.
It's really maddening, because it's not possible to know if you're trolling or you really believe your steamin
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Whats happens if they fuck this up like Japan did?
NK scientists are practically apes compared to Japanese scientists. Their plant goes critical, starts to irradiate NK, SK and their neighbors.
What happens then?
Re:News For Nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I think that NK power plant is much safer than the Japanese or American ones. You mess something up and cause an accident in a Japanese or American power plant, you may get fined and lose you job. someone messes up The Powerplant That Will Bring Us Victory (not even permanent damage) - he gets shot. Not wanting to get shot is quite good motivator for people to be more careful.
Re:News For Nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong. That's actually a good motivation to cover up fuckups.
Like reporting to your superiors that your reactor is intact and there is no problem even though there are chunks of burning graphite moderator on the ground all around the plant - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_involvement_in_the_Chernobyl_disaster#Dyatlov [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, everything's under control. Situation normal.
What happened?
Uh, we had a slight weapons malfunction, but uh... everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now, thank you. How are you?
We're sending a squad up.
Uh, uh... negative, negative. We had a reactor leak here now. Give us a few minutes to lock it down. Large leak, very dangerous.
Who is this? What's your operating number?
Han Solo: Uh...
Re: (Score:2)
NK becomes a slightly worse hellhole?
Re: (Score:3)
It has nothing to do with race. The North Koreans have isolated themselves from the rest of the world for decades.
It isn't just Japan that's much more advanced, it's South Korea (who are almost identical racially) and everywhere esle.
Race baiting asshole.
Re:News For Nerds (Score:4, Informative)
NK scientists are practically apes compared to Japanese scientists.
...you are racist scum...
That's not racist.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps, perhaps not. Since the grandparent is (probably) not Japanese, what he wrote is not loaded with the racism inherent in his/her culture. It's analogous to how if Japan does blackface (see Dragon Ball's Mr Popo or Pokemon's Jinx) it's bad but probably not racist.
On the other hand, comparing a particular group people to apes is already seen as deeply offensive in many parts of western culture. Probably shouldn't be so quick to use that comparison with other ethnicities/nationalities.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Commercial Satellite? Academic Institute? (Score:2)