N Korea declares it has nukes.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_nuclear_13&printer=1

Part of the story, click on link for the rest

Quote

North Korea Says It Has Nuclear Weapons

By SANG-HUN CHOE, Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea announced for the first time Thursday it has nuclear weapons, and it rejected moves to restart disarmament talks anytime soon, saying the bombs are protection against an increasingly hostile United States.

The communist state's statement dramatically raised the stakes in the 2-year-old nuclear confrontation and posed a grave challenge to President Bush, who started his second term with a vow to end North Korea's nuclear program through six-nation talks.

"We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North)," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. The news agency used the colloquial term "nukes" in its English-language account.

The claim could not be independently verified. North Korea expelled the last U.N. nuclear monitors in late 2002. It is not known to have tested an atomic bomb, although international officials have long suspected it has one or two nuclear weapons.

The CIA has estimated that with a highly enriched uranium weapons program and the use of sophisticated high-speed centrifuges, North Korea could be making more. Some analysts and observers have put the estimate at six to eight.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the North had no reason to believe the United States would attack.

"The North Koreans have been told by the president of the United States that the United States has no intention of attacking or invading North Korea," Rice said in Luxembourg. "There is a path for the North Koreans that would put them in a more reasonable relationship with the rest of the world.

"Let's see what the North Koreans do down the road," Rice told reporters on the flight home. "Everybody is urging them to get back to the talks."

Traveling with Bush to North Carolina, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the statement from North Korea was "rhetoric we've heard before."

I found this interesting:

Quote

In recent weeks, hopes had risen that North Korea might return to the six-nation talks, especially after Bush refrained from any direct criticism of North Korea when he started his second term last month. During his first term, Bush said North Korea was part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and prewar Iraq.

On Thursday, North Korea said it decided not to rejoin such talks anytime soon after studying Bush's inaugural and State of the Union speeches and after Rice labeled North Korea one of the "outposts of tyranny."

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Buried 0]

i think this is one case where we are not surprised.
at least atm they do not have missles that will reach the US.

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

i think this is one case where we are not surprised.
at least atm they do not have missles that will reach the US.

From my understanding they have missles that can reach Alaska.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Buried 0]

Quote

From my understanding they have missles that can reach Alaska.

I thought they were testing missles that could possibly reach hawaii.

either way no one would want to nuke beautiful hawaii and there is nothing in alaska

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Either way it is a gov't that is pushing the limits on our security. I find it interesting that a country that admits to having WMD is someone we prefer to argue with at the table.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Buried 0]

has much of the Bush Administration made sense?


it is somewhat understandable.. kick a kid smaller and weaker than you, but talk with someone who can kick you back just as hard

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[Ron 10]

I have decided this is not worth my time.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I am not surprized that you don't think Bush and Co. could do anything right.

Funny, I was just typing a response to Buried saying lets keep the Bush bashing out of this for now to allow for a conversation to happen.

Your assumption is incorrect. I said it was "interesting." Where did I claim it was wrong?

Perceived threat vs real threat huh? It seems to me that Bush put N Korea into the same category as Iraq in his first term when it came to destablization of a region and supporting terrorist groups. That makes N Korea just as much of a safety problem as Iraq was.

Iraq was a perceived threat and we have documentation from 'experts' that they never had WMD and that SH was just being a pain in the ass to us to maintain strength against Iran. NK has tested missiles that can reach our country and have declared they have WMD. They claim it is for protection against an aggressive President Bush - sounds like a good ploy that the world will buy into since most don't like GW anymore. We have no proof that he won't give that 'stick' to anyone else, do we?

Do I want to invade N Korea? I think anyone that has read my posts on here realize I am not for rushing into war. However, I find interesting the soft rhetoric that the GW administration uses with N Korea when they are indeed a real threat.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Buried 0]

I wouldn't 'Bush bash' without some factual support.. and not things i've read or seen on our great American news.


perceived threat vs actual threat is very different indeed. to me it is very much like that strength comparison i presented above. sometime it is warranted sometimes it's not.


truth is we dont know their aspirations and personally doubt they are going to try and take actions as grand as NK would like.

i would really need to sit down and take the time to write more, but now i am unable to , sorry

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[Ron 10]

OK crap here goes....I really don't know why I bother...But since my helicopter flight lesson was cancled, I now have some time.

Quote

Perceived threat vs real threat huh?

Both NK and Iraq were perceived threats. In one case we had information that a guy that had WMD's and hates the US still has them and still hates the US...This guy had already started one war, and was supporting terrorism. This guy was making every effort to ignore the UN and was playing games with the inspectors that were sent ot check on him. The other guy was reported to be building nukes. He never said he hated the US in fact he was afradi of the US...Now he did play games with inspectors sent to look at him...But he was not ignoring UN resolutions.

One guy was a nut job that said he wanted the US to burn. Another is a nut job that was afraid of the US so he wanted to have a strong defense...

So now we are back to where we were when we were in the cold war. No one in NK wants to use nukes...they just want food and aid. Also the NK people don't see dying in the name of religion to be a good thing.

If given the choice between NK and Iraq having WMD's....I'd rather NK have them.

They just want food, not 72 Virgins.

Quote

Iraq was a perceived threat and we have documentation from 'experts' that they never had WMD

We also had documentation from "experts" that he had WMD.

To ignore that threat would have been stupid..

Quote

Do I want to invade N Korea? I think anyone that has read my posts on here realize I am not for rushing into war. However, I find interesting the soft rhetoric that the GW administration uses with N Korea when they are indeed a real threat.

What other option is there but to talk with a guy that could nuke you?

The only other option is to invade.

They only have at most 8 nukes (most say more like 2), and they can only reach Alaska and HI with the missles they have now.

They will not attack with them since they would be destroyed.

Like I said they want food.

We should talk to them...While preventing as much as possible them getting ICBM's or more warheads.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Either way it is a gov't that is pushing the limits on our security. I find it interesting that a country that admits to having WMD is someone we prefer to argue with at the table.

the difference between Iraq and North Korea is obvious. You can't successfully invade a nuclear capable nation. The outcome is too unpredictable, too unstable.

Whereas in Iraq the threat of Hussein using chemical or biological weapons could be muted by our ability to retaliate with nukes. That's why the scuds in the first war were empty.

And this distinction would be the same with Bush in charge, or Clinton/Gore/Kerry. It's not a partisan matter.

[justinb138 0]

I think the biggest threat from NK would be them providing the weapons to someone that would use them against us. I highly doubt that they would ever use them, except if the US did decide on an invasion.

Seems like they just want some leverage when it comes to getting aid/food/etc..

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

has much of the Bush Administration made sense?

I suppose it was much better when Clinton had an agreement with them to not build nukes, and he smiled in front of the TV cameras, pronounced the world safe, and the voters were happy.

Meanwhile, North Korea violated their agreement and kept on building their nukes...

Yeah, trusting tin-pot tyrants made much more sense.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

has much of the Bush Administration made sense?

I suppose it was much better when Clinton had an agreement with them to not build nukes, and he smiled in front of the TV cameras, pronounced the world safe, and the voters were happy.

Meanwhile, North Korea violated their agreement and kept on building their nukes...

Yeah, trusting tin-pot tyrants made much more sense.

Don't forget the financial assistance we gave them as part of that treaty. We paid them to not build the nukes they built anyway. An agreement with NK isn't worth the paper it's written on. There's a whole monitoring backstory to this with political interests turning a blind eye to pretend this wasn't going on.

But what's with the claim that this is the first time they've admitted this? They've already admitted they have nukes to the US (at least through diplomatic channels). This happened maybe 18 months to 2 years ago, maybe longer. It took a huge effort to get them to the 6 party talks, initially they insisted on bilateral talks. America refused in part because they violated the initial agreement because [drumroll] thet had made nukes anyway. (or made the fissile materials which just about ammounts to the same thing these days).

w.r.t. missiles last I heard they were testing an extended range missile that could reach California.

[JctRsp 0]

Quote

If given the choice between NK and Iraq having WMD's....I'd rather NK have them.

I disagree Ron. Saddam wouldn't want to use his nukes because if he did his country would surely be destroyed and he'd probably be killed himself.
HOWEVER, NK has a desperately poor economy and needs money. On top of that, they have an egomanic dictator that could reap the profits of an arms sell. Frankly, I'm more worried about NK having a nuke and selling it to terrorists than I would be with the piss-poor job of nuclear weapons control the Soviet Union had after their collapse.

[justinb138 0]

Anyone know how/if China has responded to this announcement yet?

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

One guy was a nut job that said he wanted the US to burn. Another is a nut job that was afraid of the US so he wanted to have a strong defense...

If given the choice between NK and Iraq having WMD's....I'd rather NK have them.

They just want food, not 72 Virgins.

We were not a country he had to fear during the Clinton years, but he went on and continued his building of nukes after he signed a treaty. What was his excuse back then?

You have been saying in many other threads that SH violated terms of an agreement for 12 years and that he had enough time to be compliant. N Korea has violated a treaty for the last 11 years. Does the same not hold true for them?

Just because there isn't a religious war against us in N Korea doesn't mean they won't hand those weapons over to someone that does (and when was the last time we were on friendly terms with NK anyhow). I bet they could get top dollar for food by selling some of their nukes or extra weapons grade material. Maybe they can do a 'weapons for food' deal with the UN

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

We were not a country he had to fear during the Clinton years, but he went on and continued his building of nukes after he signed a treaty. What was his excuse back then?

No one feared or respected us in the Clinton years, not SH, not the Somalis, not the countries we gave conditional aid to (since they knew the conditions were bogus).

Personally I'd rather be respected than feared but feared when appropriate. Neither Clinton nor Bush has hit the best international relations chord, but we'd probably disagree over who's done what.

Quote

Just because there isn't a religious war against us in N Korea doesn't mean they won't hand those weapons over to someone that does

That makes no sense whatsoever. NK has been struggling to make nukes for decades. Now that they have between two and eight, why in God's name would the give them away?

Quote

I bet they could get top dollar for food by selling some of their nukes or extra weapons grade material.

They haven't got enough to go spreading it around. Not if they want to keep pretending to be the big mo-fo on the block.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Erroll 80]

Quote

That makes no sense whatsoever. NK has been struggling to make nukes for decades. Now that they have between two and eight, why in God's name would the give them away?

Agreed.

Also, in my opinion, the fact that their missiles may or may not be able to reach US territory is not very relevant. If the US were to prepare for an invasion, all NK would have to do (if they were indeed prepared to actually use nukes at all) would be to aim their nukes at Tokyo, Taipei, Beijing, Hong Kong and say to the US: "Your move".

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Y'know what Ron?
I am inclined to agree with you on this matter.
"No one in NK wants to use nukes...they just want food and aid."

I see the NKs as playing the brinksmanship game here. I suspect they are developing to dismantle, in return for aid. EG if they chuck 40 billion at a weapons programme, they may get 80 billion to stand it down. Whether it is for food, or industrial development doesn't really matter, I think they want to "come in from the cold".

I think either Gravitymaster, or Kennedy sent me a link to the FAS site (when we were discussing Iraq)which lists NKs missile capability.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/missile/index.html
The taepo dong 2 systems can theoretically reach Alaska, Hawaii, but they are listed as being theoretical, and nobody knows whether or not they actually have them, let alone tested them.

Anyone got anything substantial on NKs capability in this regard?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Antidote 0]

Perhaps you're right, but don't underestimate the paranoia of the NK leadership.

They might very well want it as a 'deterrent'. In the past, they've shown that they see the population as little more than slaves.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"don't underestimate the paranoia of the NK leadership"

I hear you, but it has been my experience that paranoia isn't the sole preserve of the NKs.

I also understand that they may desire a deterrent, but international aid, and investment can also be a deterrent, as can the threat of effective sanctions.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Ron 10]

Quote

Saddam wouldn't want to use his nukes because if he did his country would surely be destroyed and he'd probably be killed himself

And become a hero to Islam and get 72 Virgins.

Quote

they have an egomanic dictator that could reap the profits of an arms sell

You think SH was not an egomaniac? Sure he had money, but everyone wants more...I would ahve been more worried about SH giving a WMD away for religious or vendictive reasons...He hated the US and a WMD used in the US would make him happy.

NK just wants food.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

We were not a country he had to fear during the Clinton years, but he went on and continued his building of nukes after he signed a treaty. What was his excuse back then?

He wanted them.

So do you agree that Clinton failed in dealing with NK?

Quote

You have been saying in many other threads that SH violated terms of an agreement for 12 years

IRAQ violated a RESOLUTION, that is not really an agreement. NK violated a treaty.

While neither is good, one was a rule put on someone that had been acting like an ass. The other was a freely entered pact.

Quote

Just because there isn't a religious war against us in N Korea doesn't mean they won't hand those weapons over to someone that does (and when was the last time we were on friendly terms with NK anyhow). I bet they could get top dollar for food by selling some of their nukes or extra weapons grade material

If he did that he would be toast and he knows it. The world would turn against him...right now part of the world agrees with his stance of "Don't tread on me". If he uses them to become an agressor he will lose public support. If he sells of gives them away he will lose public support...

Hell even I think it was a smart move for him to build them.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Tonto 1]

Quote

don't underestimate the paranoia....

Looking at the recent behavior of the US, I doubt many small countries are truely paranoid. The US could go in, on a whim, false or misleading intel, without UN consent, and turn their countries into the bloodbath that Iraq has become.

Having nukes precludes all that. Having nukes makes negotiation a nessesity. Nukes are to the 21st century country what the Colt "Peacemaker" was to the 19th century forntiersman.

The big equaliser.

The way I see people in the gun threads insisting how they NEED assault rifles to defend themselves in their homes, so we'll see small countries wanting nukes. For "home defense" against a "with us or against us" foe.

I think we'll see MASSIVE proliferation of nuclear weapons in the next 20 - 50 years, in a world many times more volitile than it was in the cold war days.

t

It's the year of the Pig.