Slashdot Mirror
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. "
In Korea, only old people have nuclear weapons.... Uh, nevermind :)
Iraq was disarmed just in time!
We all knew this already, but I wonder if we should worry more now that they've admitted it.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
Replace "admits" with "brags" and then further replace "brags" with "bluffs" and then it might be a little more true.
This is obviously a serious matter, but we should not believe anything that Kim Jong Il says without adequate proof.
I'm a big tall mofo.
This is par for the course with North Korea. 1. Make ridiculous, aggressive statements in the media. 2. Pull out of talks. 3. Demand concessions. 4. Get concessions. 5. Restart talks. 6. Repeat. yawn. nothing to see here.
i saw this post regarding iran's nuclear weapons program yesterday, that is relevant to korea as well: "Ending Iran's WMD programmes will not prevent invasion from a hostile foreign power. The only way to ensure their security is to have a suitable deterrent. Their neighbours Iraq scrapped their WMD programmes and soon as they were suitably defenceless they were invaded. No state rogue or otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing a more powerful enemy will prevent attack. The USA's policy of 'Might is Right' is now to be cascaded throughout the world." -James, Newcastle, UK
"It was inevitibible..."
"I'm sorry, what?"
"Inevataball..."
"One more time?"
"INEVITABLE! Jesus christ! Why are people so fucking stupid?!"
I'm sure there will be a lot of jokes about WMDs etc but this is a clear and present danger. North Korea, as displayed by their current actions, is unpredictable. While many will say it's common knowledge that North Korea had nuclear weapons, this is a big deal in that they admitted it.
What's even more frightening is that they're not willing to talk about it. The 6 party talks only resumed a few weeks ago I believe. This can't be a good thing that they've stop talks.
My nervous level has moved up to Red (sorry had to end with a joke).
-Teiresias
Sorry North Korea but you don't seem to be in the Middle East.. NO WAR FOR YOU! Iran however....
Don't worry. My toaster was made in North Korea and it sucks.
North Korea:
Dictator: Check
Oppressed people: Check
No legitimate elections: Check
WMDs: Check
Threatening to the West: Check
Send in the troops! What's that? We're going to use diplomacy instead? We're going to try to avoid tens of thousands of deaths and injured? Wow, good thinking. Too bad about that other country...
...if you were surprised by this admission. Anyone?
*crickets*
Thought not. See, North Korea is a real threat. Probably why Bush is ignoring it. Unlike those massive armed-to-the-teeth maniacs hoarding nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in Iraq. Good thing we went in there. Seems like every man, woman, and child there had a shoulder mounted nuclear missile launcher.
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
So what if North Korea has nukes? That's a good thing.
Same thing with Iran. I'm hoping they get nukes within a few years.
Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course).
I've been saying this for a long time. Despite what the neocons would have you believe having nukes is a great way to make a country get its act together. In the case of North Korea they are protecting themselves from attack since any country that would attack them knows what to expect.
On the other side North Korea knows that if it attacks someone what it can expect in return.
The same with Iran.
To those who say that countries like North Korea and Iran having nukes is a bad thing because they could sell/give the info to terrorists, think again. In the case of Iran the last thing the ruling mullahs want is to give a nuclear device or supplies to someone and have that same person/group turn around and set off that device in the middle of Tehran.
On another point, take a look at India and Pakistan. They've had seven major wars since the two countries gained independence from Great Britain. However, as soon as India had their nuclear tests and Pakistan followed close behind, both countries have had several meaningful discussions on how to reduce tensions and learn to live peacefully with one another.
I know it's an unpopular opinion but a country like North Korea or Iran having nukes is a good thing. It forces all sides to not be stupid.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
We don't worry about the N. Korea nukes: CNN has
this morning already moved to a more relevant story:
"Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker Bowles".
You don't believe that North Korea was all sweetness and light until Washington got belligerent, do you?
Sustainability and energy independence essay
"The North also **repeated** a claim to have built nuclear weapons for self-defence."
2 52 481.stm
6 04 437.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4
Also:
"28 September: North Korea says it has turned plutonium from 8,000 spent fuel rods into nuclear weapons. Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su-hon said the weapons were needed for "self-defence" against "US nuclear threat". "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2
This is just a repetition of a bargaining trick they've used before, do not listen to them.
They want us to be afraid of them as much as our leaders do....
Joseph Farthing
http://josephfarthing.com
So what if he's dead, killed in that explosion, and they've been covering it up? NK is exactly the kind of place to try to do something like that.
Just a thought....
Not that we didn't (or shouldn't have) know(n), but it presented a governing coalition with an agenda and a chip on it's collective shoulder an excuse, a mechanism by which to dupe a credulous population.
I think this particular whack job (Kin Jong Il) wants the sort of respectful, diplomatic (by comparison) treatment Iran is getting, rather than the sabre rattling it gets now. Let's face it, if South Korea weren't completely held hostage and likely to lose 10^6 people in a week should a real war break out, North Korea would have already have been invaded.
Watch the far right go absolutely ape-shit on this one.
Note to any far-right-wingers reading this (by any odd chance): Please, PLEASE don't start a war with the North Koreans. Kim Jong Il is crazy. Please, PLEASE don't threaten a crazy man.
Sad thing is, he's right when he claims that they need the weapons as a defense against the US. Our current President thinks he's a cowboy, and treats every encounter with a nation that doesn't agree with us as a showdown in front of the OK Corral. He thinks he's the guy wearing the badge and they're the evil felon in all black... Well, it ain't that simple. North Korea might be evil, but the US is evil too. Just less evil (arguably) and evil in different ways.
North Korea doesn't, for instance, operate a huge network of sweatshops all around the world to supply its uncaring citizens with cheap clothing. It doesn't sell its citizens massively fattening foods and mindless TV that attempts to turn the whole country into a giant farm of happy, mindless, fat cash cows for a few select billionaires to milk dry. The US (specifically, its businesses, with the tacit approval-- or at least complete lack of viable disapproval-- of its government) does those things, however.
American businesses are just slightly less corrupt than North Korean politicians. And have a whole boatload more power over the world at large.
The US vs. North Korea is not white vs. black. It's gray vs. slightly darker gray.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
for pulling Gen. MacArthur off the Korean war instead of letting him finish the job with more resources, at risk of War with China.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Perhaps it isn't actually Mutually Assured Destruction, but you have to admit, pointing those nukes at Seoul and Tokyo and then saying "Hey US, stay the F**K out of my country or I push the button!" could be rather persuasive.
I can't say I agree with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but perhaps it will keep the US from invading another country.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Assurances, huh? Ever think for a minute that maybe North Korea has no reason to believe anything the Bush administration says?
I don't agree with all the Bush policies either, and CERTAINLY not all the tactics and strategies, but what is the basis for this? The rap is just the opposite - that Bush says what he is going to do and then does it, even if preponderant thinking regards it as insane.
No state rogue or otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing a more powerful enemy will prevent attack.
Rogue states always believed that a mixture of diplomatic stalling (cf. Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlements) and, most importantly, the relatively high cost of ground invasion and the reluctance to do so in a post-Vietnam world, is what protected them.
I also don't believe that posession of a nuclear weapon is a deterrent to any U.S. military action, either, since these states seldom have the means to produce more than a handful of low-yield weapons and lack the ability to deliver them outside their own theater.
They're not defensive weapons unless they can be delivered against their adversary's homeland. You don't nuke your own country as a defensive measure against invading forces. Well you can, but that's like chopping off your leg..
Furthermore these states (with the possible exception of North Korea) are rational actors and realize that the use of any nuclear weapon against the United States or its allies would result in a nucleare retaliation that would end their governments and quite possibly close the book on their nations.
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.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Iraq never 'kicked out' the weapons inspectors in 1998, Clinton pulled them out. They were never asked to leave, they were never threatened, they were never forced out of the country.
Iraq may have been in non compliance with inspection requirements, but thats not to say that the UK/US invasion was legitimate or legal. There was a reason this wasnt a UN led operation, the lack of convincing evidence presented to the UN security council. Those who voted against military action in the security council based on the evidence presented were ultimately proved right - so far theres been nothing of any substance discovered.
Hans Blix is also quoted as saying Iraq did not possess the weapons or materials that the US and the UK said they did - but I see most people overlook this little matter. Face it, Iraqs invasion was Bushes way of tying up loose ends rather than anything legitimate and good. The arguement that 'Saddam was a bad man' doesnt hold up. Yes, its good hes gone, yes, he was evil. Unfortunately, when you dispose of governments in that way, you face a very real risk of becoming that which you are dealing with.
For a better albeit incomplete analysis of the rest, like the "help", see here. For a timeline, see this.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
...how is the oil situation in North Korea?
North Korea got its nuclear technology from China and Russia. The proliferation-resistant pressurized water reactors (primarily financed and built by S. Korea) which were part of the Clinton deal are not even partially completed.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
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
Home of the unqualified opinion!
Well, here's mine. It hasn't been brought up yet, so let's see if anyone considers it insightful...
The Chinese are not our enemies in this issue. They actually fear a totally destabilized N. Korea as well. That they came to the rescue in the Korean War belies a much more complicated truth about the relationship between Koreans and Chinese. China, on the verge of becoming the 2nd superpower economically, is really not all tha keen on seeing Kim Il Jong do things like test fire intermediate range missiles into the Sea of Japan. They know that quite a few U.S. boomers are riding the coast of Korea, and will have Trident IIs arriving on target in minutes if we think a nuke had been actually launched, at either the West Coast (which we know they cannot yet reach) or Japan. And they know that the Chinese would not respond.
The worst case scenario really is, that NK's increasing starving and helpless population is thrust under some stupid pretext into an attack on S. Korea and a nuclear weapon is moved to the front and detonated and then denied. Again, I think the U.S. would go nuclear if that happened.
Prosperity of S. Korea combined with an internal assassination campaign is probably Washington's strategy. It's best to fight this one using spies and satellites, a conventional invasion would be pointless and unlike Iraq, we don't want to assert control over the region.
So let me get this straight. They protest that the US government is hypocritical because it doesn't support human rights and you offer as defense that something about American nuclear policy?
How about this:
Bush in his State of the Union address said that it was the goal of the US to promote freedom thoughout the world, for all people everywhere.
Meanwhile, he appointed one of the masterminds of the American human rights abuses in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib as the chief law enforcement officer in the US.
It sure doesn't sound like he's very sincere.
The only nukes they have are in StarCraft.
Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum".
This reminds me very much of an interview with a violent gang member, about 6 years ago. He claimed gang members had to have guns, to defend themselves against the police.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
you're one of the hurd. (ask Stallman for more info)
1)WMDs *were* an excuse, I think by now everyone (not being a sheep) can agree on that.
2)The oil, aside from geopolitical reasons, has always been an important consideration; to claim differently is naive (at best). If the war in Iraq had gone the way the USA government had forseen it, oil would have spiced the USA economy already. And more then it ever could with the sanctions in place, as another poster already explained.
3)Yes, Saddam commited terrible crimes to his own people, however, this was never mentionned as the prime cause for going to war. In fact, international law does not allow to invade a sovereign country because it has a dictator commiting crimes. Besides, the USA has held (and helped) dictators in power that commited terrible acts against the populace, as long as the dictator was cooperative. The argument that they invaded Iraq for that reason (as only is argumented now, afterwards) would be more convincing if the USA didn't show they were perfectly prepared to help dicators, as long as it suited them.
3)There was a majority? Must have misread about pretty much all of the world-opinion, then. That US politicians were in support says more about the majority of them (linked with sheep) then anything else. But then, a pretty much biased media and the developed national-zealot-reflex of pretty much all americans goes a long way in explaining it.
4)"There is a difference between a threat to the country and a threat to human life. North Korea doesn't pose a direct threat to the US..." Indeed. Neither was Iraq a threat to the USA. And while you claim there is no mass-murder (how would you know that?) also in N.Korea people are being tortured and killed; so where does that leave you, with your justified reason to go to war? And btw, if anything, since N.Korea has nukes AND rockets, it poses a far greater threat to the USA then Iraq ever did. And they aren't predicatable at all, which has been proven by the numeous times they reacted on the 6-countries talk. Predicatble and knowing his intentions...geez. You are completely inventing this, aren't you?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Iraq has oil, therefore we invest in invading and occupying.
North Korea does not, therefore we save money by pursuing diplomacy.
I don't understand how any of those goddamn Right-wing nut-jobs out there can possibly not see how much bullshit there is in the Bush Administration's policy. We go after the non-threat while the threat is sitting there bragging at us all the while about how they are actively developing WMD.
I am so sick of these stupid fuckers making big mistakes for which we will all have to pay dearly.
Join Tor today!
Good for them.
It's not illegal for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.
Bush has tossed away several treaties we've already signed regarding development of nuclear weapons. We're not special children of God's army, so the privilege is open to other nations now.
They are busy starving, and not menacing us.
They have been explicitly informed by Bush that he is going to make a point of destroying them. They have an excellent case for defending themselves. They have a logical case that possessing the weapons deters an invasion by Bush. By Bushian logic, we haven't invaded, so possessing the nukes keeps us out. Q.E.D.
They aren't going to attack anyone with the damned things. It would be instant suicide. CNN would be roasting radioactive weenies on their ashes in a month, chuckling at the wonderfulness of it all.
Wrapup: they have the weapons for the exact same reason the U.S. claimed it needed ours. Deterence.
The evil or not-evil of North Korea is irrelevant. Bush et al support Uzbekistan, which boils its dissidents alive in oil. Evil is a convenient label for removing people you don't like.
"Note that some European nations have been complicit, particulary France, in aiding these rogue nations developing these weapons."
Not like the USA, who merely sold tons of chemicals to Saddam, even well aware they were going to be used as chemical weapons against his people. Even after he massacred a whole village with those chemicals, the USA happily supplied him with more.
"Nice try blaming the U.S., but unless North Korea travelled in time, going to the future, to see the 2nd Iraq war, you can hardly say they accelerated their Nuke program because of it. Iran had a nuke program long before the U.S. invasion. Libya had a nuke program before the invasion."
Ofcourse, there was also the 1st Iraq war, and besides that, your argumentation lacks coherency. In what way does it exclude that the nations, even if they already had nuclear programs as you claim, accelaerated that program after the Iraq-wars? I fail to see any logic in this particular reasoning of you.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
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?
Delivering militantly anti-commercial music to all two people who care!
1) Establish your currency as the only currency with which to purchase oil.
2) Print off money whenever you need, trade it with foreign nations for goods and services, knowing that it won't be redeemed for goods from your own country but rather hoarded and traded by other nations, and that your country will thus grow rich
3) Profit!
4) Notice that some scumbag in Iraq is trading oil for euros instead of dollars
5) Realize that if you can buy oil with euros instead of dollars all those dollars you printed are going to come home like so many bad cheques
6) Invade Iraq and establish a puppet government
7) Profit!
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Well said, but I disagree on a few points. Mugabe *is* a vicous autocrat. Dear Leader in North Korea has watched his own people starve as a result of his loco economic policies. I wouldn't trust either of these guys with anything, let alone nukes.
Some of the rest is a bit subjective, but you seem to have pretty much summed the situation up.
History is propaganda, the type of propaganda is determained by who is writing the history.
But if you make an effort to read and compare a wide enough range of historians and primary sources, you can sort out a much better approximation for the truth. My own efforts on this front have completely changed my understanding of politics and economics.
This is not how schools teach history, unfortunately. What you learn in school is indeed saturated with propganda.
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." - Lord Acton
To quote an old saying: "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way."
Or in other words, adventures like Iraq and tough talk from Bush, Rice and others leads to the proliferation of weapons and increased likelihood of conflict. Less freedom, less security - double plus good?
What's that old adage about catching more flies?
;) This is also not unlike relations down at the person-to-person level. History will hopefully show that this whole Iraq thing, for example, wasn't a mistake, just a "short-term cost to achieve long-term gain" decision.
It took Europe (and the rest of the world) YEARS to realize that toothless agreements made with a certain German tyrant were ineffective and diplomacy had to give way to the use of force.
This is why there will always come a time when force becomes necessary (same as with human-human interactions), although we would obviously try to keep this to a minimum.
There will also come times when a country that believes that it is in the right (even to the disagreement of others), and has the bravery and might to make things right, does so
In any event, I wish that idealists would please give up their pipe dreams of world peace through diplomatic means only. It won't happen. As long as there will be violence in our society (bar fights, spouse abuse, child abuse, violent crime), there will be idiots in power that must be stopped with the use of force.
This is an exaggeration, but there is some truth to it. This is one of the ways that our increasingly polarized society expresses itself. There are also many people who *never* acknowledge that the US has been a poor public citizen in the world. Not always, but we have had our bad moments.
As with any conflict it is no one's fault entirely. There are always things that both sides of a conflict could do to make things better. An honest discussion of current radical muslim terrorism (for example) would take into account the repressive and nihilist fundamentalism of the "terrorists" but would also recognize that the US has been overthrowing governments, exploiting local populations, and generally fscking with the Middle East region for half a century at least. This is bound to piss people off. Like the Merovingian said, it's all cause and effect.
"Brutal dictators that murder their own people? Blame us."
Again, this is one side of the issue. You may not like it (I sure don't) but we have, and continue to, arm brutal dictators around the world for our own purposes. It does not absolve the dictators of being brutal, but it is dishonest to pretend we had nothing to do with it. When Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds, or the Iranians, he was doing it with the knowledge and implicit consent of the United States government. Hell, we gave him sattelite pictures of Iranian troop movements so he could better target them with chemical weapons! But this is never discussed in public. Why is it unpatriotic to point out when my country is behaving badly? But as to why I am so hard on the US, it's because it's my country. I care more about how my country acts on the world stage (and domestically too of course). When George Bush says you are with us or against us, he is speaking for me. When he says the US won't join the world court because it won't give us immunity, he makes me look like a hypocrite.
I am hard on the US because I love the US. It is still the best country to live in IMHO. I cherish the rights and freedoms we have, and I am upset when I see them threatened. Not by an invading army, but by my own government.
"Maybe they should start acting a bit more rational and patriotic - and a bit less like homo pinko commie politcally correct appeaser pacifist traitors."
This type of language undermines whatever point you were making. The motto "My country, right or wrong" is not patriotic, it is nationalistic. There's a difference.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)