North Korea Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons

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. "

Comments

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[deanj]

Korea continued it's nuclear weapons program during that whole time. There were no checks on what they were doing and by the time anyone realized what was really going on, they were well on their way. NK started freaking out once someone called 'em on it.

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???

[smooth wombat]

If they indeed do have nuclear weapons, they would have tested them somewhere, with a very obvious mushroom cloud visible for 100's of miles

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
Link 2

This link has a very nice and detailed story, with pics, about Indias nuclear tests as does this link.

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.

You're not entitled to your own "facts"

[Engineer-Poet]

For instance, this is BS:

Korea - we want to develop nuclear power

No they didn't. North Korea's Yongbyan reactor is only good for about 5 megawatts electric (30 MWthermal); it does not even have power lines running to it. That reactor was about weapons from the get-go.

For a better albeit incomplete analysis of the rest, like the "help", see here. For a timeline, see this.

Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts"

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you actually look at what he was talking about? No. For instance specifically what he's talking about was the US promise to help them buil CANDU reactors, and provide them with fuel oil in the interem while they were built, in exchange for their shutting down and scutteling their reactors capable of weapons production. The Clinton administration managed to keep the fuel going for a while, but the Republican congress absolutely refused to provide the funds for the new reactors. And they did so entirely out of spite. The diplomatic ovetures to North Korea that lead to this opportunity for greatly increased stability were begun by Bush Sr!

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:Thank Goodness...

[Otter]

In short, the Clinton deal engaged North Korea and would have worked to stop or slow their weapons programs. Bush stopped the Clinton deal's funding and changed to a hard-line approach, and now we see ourselves in the present situation.

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?

[saha]

Perhaps one should ask Pakistan's military or ISI (Intra Service Intelligence) of how the hell N. Korea, Libya and Iran all got their nuclear weapons. You do know Pakistan has nuclear weapons right? Then traded their nuclear know how for N. Korea's medium range missiles or have you not been following the news. The best part of all this is that A.Q. Khan the father of the Pakistan atomic bomb, is consider to be a "hero" in his home country and is shielded from the IAEA or any branch of US intelligence from questioning Khan's activities and motivations. Musharraf has also pardoned Khan for selling nukes to all those countries. It really makes me laugh when the administration calls Pakistan an "ally on the war on terror". Seriously, with allies like Pakistan who needs enemies or terrorists?

Pakistan Ended Aid to Taliban Only Hesitantly December 8, 2001
Pakistan spy service 'aiding Bin Laden' 30 December, 2001
Musharraf: Bin Laden may be dead 23 December, 2001
Pakistan's leader thinks bin Laden dead January 18, 2002
Bin Laden trail is cold, Musharraf admits December 6, 2004
A Hostile Land Foils the Quest for bin Laden December 13, 2004
Protest at Musharraf's army role 19 December, 2004 So much for us supporting democracy and "freedom"
Musharraf Scorns Nuclear Probe

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[theinfobox]

"Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2004/1007 04nothreat.htm

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Dr. Bent]

In short, the Clinton deal engaged North Korea and would have worked to stop or slow their weapons programs. Bush stopped the Clinton deal's funding and changed to a hard-line approach, and now we see ourselves in the present situation

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.

Washington is very surprised by N. Korea's pullout

[Drog]

I just finished posting this same story (but with more detail and more links) on my own site, The World Forum. Here's a blurb from it:

This probably come as a surprise to Washington, since Bush seemed to deliberately use a softer tone towards North Korea in his State of the Union address, saying only that Washington was "working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions." That's buch better than three years ago when he branded North Korea part of the "axis of evil".

Analysts in South Korea had predicted that the absence of harsh words would help restart the nuclear talks, since several weeks earlier North Korea had announced they were willing to return to six-party nuclear talks and would treat the United States as a friend if Washington would stop slandering their leader Kim Jong Il.

Further evidence that this came as a surprise to Washington came four hours before the official pullout statement, when a top Bush administration official told the New York Times that North Korea's return to the nuclear talks was expected by all other participants -- the United States, Japan, South Korea, Russia and China.

As a shameless self-plug, if you like to discuss stories like this, I urge you to sign up on The World Forum. It's goal is to become a major international forum where people from all walks of life and of all political perspectives can discuss politics and world issues, expressing their different points of view rationally and constructively. It's starting to get a lot of hits due to being prominently displayed in Google News, but it needs a much larger user base of people willing to participate in discussions if it is to succeed.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[CrimsonAvenger]

You just need a critical mass of U238, conventional explosives and a neutron source

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:Korea

[Council]

Have you forgotten the mass genocide Saddam has commit, even to his own people? If you look at history, I think this would be topped only by Hitler.

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

[Moby Cock]

Not really true. The deal struck by Albright in 2000 was that the NK nuclear weapon program would be shut down and the US would build a nuclear power generating station. Then the US welched on the deal and did not build a plant (under direction from the new administration in the White House; Bush. They also took a much more hardline stance on NK. So the North Koreans resumed their actions.

Re:Korea

[Edward Faulkner]

If you look at history, I think this would be topped only by Hitler.

If you look at history, you sound confused.

20th Century Civilians Killed:
Stalin=4x10^7
Mao=3.5x10^7
Hitler=1.2x10^7
Ot toman Empire(Armenian Genocide)=2x10^6
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
khmer rouge
Saddam

Re:"Happened on a Battlefield"

[ProgressiveCynic]

Don't be so hasty, young master. I never said Saddam was not a tyrant, and I certainly don't think that killing innocent civilians is acceptable.

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.

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:Korea

[John Newman]

Simple, it takes almost as much oil to transport it from the middle east as you can bring over. The real reason gas prices are so high is because of investors taking advantage of the gullible in a speculative market

Transport costs are less then 5% of the cost of a barrel of oil at current prices. In fact, this is why crude prices are high here when supply is disrputed in the ME. Oil is a global market. Disruptions in supply to one area mean higher prices for everyone. That's a good thing; otherwise we'd be really be paying through the nose after all the strikes in Venezuela.

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.