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. "
Korea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Korea (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Korea (Score:3, Insightful)
But did they start making the nuclear weapons only after Washington started turning hostile?
You don't believe Washington turned hostile in 2001, do you?
Korean War ('scuse, "police action") (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Korean War ('scuse, "police action") (Score:5, Funny)
It is easy!
You just need a critical mass of U238, conventional explosives and a neutron source. Split the U238 in two parts, assemble it in a way that they'll be pushed together again by the conv. explosion, which is also the right point in time to start pumping neutrons in the U238. Voila!
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.
Are you a liar, or just ignorant? (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Korean War ('scuse, "police action") (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. Clinton and the IAEA negotiated to place cameras in the reactor. To behonest, it was a fair arrangement. The imminent change in policy after George Bush took office, and his lack of PERSONAL policy detail (being in front of dealing with other nations as a personal engagement; palm pressing; making them feel they were a part of the process) immediately made the already paranoid NK government renege.
Thier feeling was now they were no longer dealing with an American administration that believed in exhausting diplomacy and would allow the NK's to save face (by exchanging the ability to give up weapons for aid and a security guarantee), but one that if pushed, strike.
NK almost seems to belong on another planet in how it's citizens behave; from all accounts it's closed society is in a different world. I remember seeing a documentary recently where the power went out in a family's home and then blinked back on, only to hear "Damned Americans", like we had something to do with it.
The regime maintains power through fear and the projection of military strength while the basic necessites for citizens are ignored. Without external aid, this might be the one legitimate regime that may decide "you know, fuck it. Let's take someone else with us."
So they felt that by holding the region "hostage" by becoming a nuclear power, they can: One, guarantee thier own hold on power as the US and UN would dare not invade lest Seoul or Tokyo get turned into one big sheet of glass and two, demand food and supply aid to feed and maintain control of its' population.
To us, now we're damned if we do aid them, because we're caving in and damned if we don't, because I've got a feeling the Asian nuclear proliferation problem may get a lot worse. Japan has made minor rumblings about getting a deterrent, and they can have a bomb at any time within six months of starting a program.
Clinton mulled a cruise and air missle strike to take away NK's ability to make weapons, and opted for the placement of cameras in the hope that a diplomatic response coupled with aid would work. Plus, he knew hitting NK could result in seoul being behind enemy lines in 48 hours in the event of a war.
Bush has fanned flames, and then with tunnel vision
zeroed in on Iraq since his election, while NK might, just might, pose the biggest threat to democracy and stability in a number of the worlds critical economies: China, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, India, Australia to name the big ones. Ignoring this, and possibly fighting the wrong war could seriously come back to haunt us.
Coupled with the perception in the world that to get any respect from Washington you have to have weapons, what can we expect? Which is why Iran isn't CLOSE to thinking about giving up thiers, knowing they're that close.
What's that old adage about catching more flies?
Killing flies with a flyswatter- better long-term (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Gangs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Korea (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously folks, if that was the case, wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN?
NOt until the country was stable again, anyway, and at least partially rebuilt. Since neither of those things have yet happened, it's too early to use this sort of 'fact' to dismiss Bush's motivation.
Here's a real question. How much oil could we get from Iraq when they were under UN sanctions? Iirc, France got most of the oil that came out of the OIl for Food program Saddam abused. How could we get the UN to lift the sanctions on Iraq (so we could buy oil from them)? One of two ways:
1. If Saddam were a compliant dictator, he wouldn't be a dictator. So lifting the sanctions peacefully while Saddam was in there was unlikely.
2. Invade them and replace their government. No matter how angry the UN got at us, they'd still have to realize they can't visit the sins of Saddam's regime on the new government, no matter how bad we fuck it up. So the sanctions will be removed (or rather, rendered obsolete), and, Bush's Words, he'll have "secured American interests in the country".
Re:Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, then, here's one: the US only imports 18% of its oil from the middle east. The remainder is imported from Canada, South America, an Russia. Why? 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. "The rubes don't know we don't get our oil from Iraq, we can gouge all we want!"
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.
Speeking of sheep (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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]
Re:History is propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even close. You would have to have a very limited knowledge of history to come to that conclusion. Every heard of Pol Pot? That's a example from recent history. There are hundreds of other examples if you look back thousands of years.
I'm still amazed people buy into the "we had bad intelligence" argument regarding WMDs. Heck, Karl Rove even admitted that the WMD angle was just the most sellable excuse rather than the real reason. The plan for invading Iraq was developed in the late nineties. When the folks who developed the plan came into power in 2000, the invasion of Iraq became inevitable. It would have occurred had their been no 9/11. It would have occurred even if the WMD claims were discredited in advance. The "we need to save the people of Iraq from this evil dictator" excuse was not mentioned until it became clear that there were no WMDs.
For the record, I'm fine with the idea that some people feel that it's the responsibility of the US to save people from evil dictators even though I don't think we should. But, I'm surprised when act as though the "we must save the people of Iraq" was the original intention.
I also don't agree with you on North Korea. They scare the hell out of me. I just don't understand your position. It was important to invade Iraq (which was not a threat to the US and had essentially no viable army and no WMDs) simply to save it's people from their leader, but we need not worry about a sophisticated, first-world nation with a massive army and nuclear weapons?
Now, their dictator is completely nutz, but very predictable. US intel knows that.
Where did you get that idea? Do you have inside sources? Since when are crazy people predictable? You want to blame US intelligence blunders for the WMD fiasco re: Iraq, but then turn around and say we should trust US intelligence re: N. Korea?
Saddam is an evil man. But, Iraq was never a threat to the US or it's allies. North Korea is a threat to the US and our allies. I, for one, don't believe it's the responsibility of the US to save nations from their leaders. I don't believe in nation building. I do believe in protecting the nation from real threats. North Korea is a real threat.
Double Profit! (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re:Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
That was Pakistan. Huge scandal, physicist sold nuke tech around the world, got pardoned last year?
We don't seem to be invading Pakistan. Where bin Laden is. Which sold the weapons tech.
Curious.
Thank Goodness... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:4, Insightful)
you understand why an Iraq-style attack on them is out of the question, right?
Because we'd actually have to justify it to the American people and explain to them why the sacrifice was required? Make no mistake: Either the United States or South Korea could defeat the North in a military confrontation. The price (tens of thousands of troops, the likely destruction of Seoul, possible strikes against Japan) is just too high to be paid.
As scary as that SOB (Kim Jong il) is I'm more worried about Iran in the grand scheme of things. North Korea at least (by and large) still behaves as a nation-state. Kim Jong knows that if he attacks Seoul, Tokyo or Honolulu we can turn Pyongyang into a glass parking lot. He might rattle his saber but that's as far as it's likely to go. The same limitation might not exist in the minds of Islamic Jihadists who think that martyring themselves against the "Great Satan" gives them everlasting life and 30 virgins.
We can only hope and pray that the reformist movement in Iran is the real deal. I don't want to see Tel Aviv or Washington nuked anytime soon.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:5, Insightful)
And WTF does Iran have to do with Jihadists? From I've read and seen (on the news), Iran is slowly becoming more moderate. There's a younger generation that grew up after the islamic revolution (or whatever it was called). A lot of them want the country to open up to the west. President Khatami [wikipedia.org] is a reformist and has often clashed with the hard-line islamists that run the government. The country is slowly changing and it would help if GWB and his posse don't make any more stupid remarks about it being in "the axis of evil". George W. would make a terrible diplomat...
On the other hand we have a country with an extremely strong cult of personality around its leader. We have a populace that is brainwashed constantly about it being under threat and the evil of the USA. Its citizens are taught that the US started the Korean war by attacking them, even though there's documents showing that the north started it by attacked the south. There's a monument where visitors go to weep over the fallen "heros" of the Korean war. Every evening the government-controlled TV shows a military parade. The country is a f**king powerkeg of anti-US, anti-west sentiment just waiting to go off.
No sir, North Korea is the country I'm worried about.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:5, Insightful)
The country is slowly changing and it would help if GWB and his posse don't make any more stupid remarks about it being in "the axis of evil".
Yes it is slowly changing and if you had actually read what I wrote you would have noticed my last line hoping for it to continue to change for the better. But it's also useful to note when things go the other way -- such as when the Revolutionary Council kicked all of the moderate legislator's off the ballots in the elections a few years ago. Iran could go either way and it's foolish to ignore this possibility.
On the other hand we have a country with an extremely strong cult of personality around its leader.
I'm not disputing any of what you said about North Korea. But Kim Jong il (like Saddam for that matter) isn't motivated by fanatical religious beliefs. Everything he has done is about staying in power. He doesn't get to stay in power if he nukes Seoul (or Toyko or Honolulu for that matter). Why do you think they were willing to give up the weapons in exchange for a non-aggression pact? Engagement is the correct answer to North Korea -- not saber rattling.
No sir, North Korea is the country I'm worried about.
When fanatical North Koreans fly airplanes into American buildings then I'll start to worry about them more. Until then I'm worrying about the religious zealots that want to see me dead.
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.
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:Thank Goodness... (Score:4, Interesting)
This sentence seems to try to establish a causal relationship between Washington politics and the development of nuclear weapons by the North Koreans. If we briefly examine the timeline we see contrary evidence: Koreans try to get nukes, we offer to do something, they still try to get nukes in spite of our intervention, we change tactics, they still try to get nukes in spite of our new tactics. It is obvious that they operated from day 1 with the intentions of having offensive nuclear capabilities and the actions that we took did nothing to deter them.
I will posit this: regardless of the position of Washington, China, or any government other than the North Koreans themselves, the North Koreans would have sought out and acquired offensive nuclear technology.
The world is rapidly approaching a time and place where nuclear weapons are not out of the reach of any country with the desire to posess them. I can even see individuals with great wealth and/or political power with their own personal arsenal. Those that acquire them will do so for their own reasons and motivations and efforts to stop them will most likely prove fruitless.
Sleep well...
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:5, Funny)
"North Korea is being bad again. What are we going to give them this time?"
His response sticks with me:
"Oh, probably about 15 megatons. You know, there's a difference between nuclear and thermonuclear weapons that they may have forgotten..."
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if you want to bomb them to submission, they will destroy South Korea and Japan first. Acceptable?
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, no. We invaded Iraq over North Korea because we knew we could kick Saddam's ass. If we had invaded North Korea, Kim Jong Il would have responded by lobbing a few nuclear warheads into Tokyo and/or Seoul.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:5, Insightful)
"You don't realize that we had to invade Iraq just so that it would not become another North Korea?"
We need to invade any country that might someday start up a viable nuke program? Wow, by your logic that sure is a LONG list of countries that need invading ASAP. And STILL completely ignores the countries that now have or are very close to REAL WMD, not phantoms painted on an oil-rich country.
And do you know why those countries accelerated (pun?) their efforts? They realized that America does NOT go after countries that have the Bomb. They also realize that America can't open a new war front. We're too tied down in a country that posed NO immediate threat to us, so the guys with the real nuke programs get to pursue them at will. We're currently toothless, and they know it.
Anyway, laugh it up, all the dead soldiers appreciate it.
Irony - you should look it up sometime.
right (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hussein's Iraq was in no position to do anything but dream of becoming another North Korea. As the complete failure of the search for WMDs shows, the sanctions worked perfectly adequately to keep them from developing nukes.
Meanwhile, the invasion demonstrated to the world that the U.S. will not be restrained by law, ethics, or common sense; so if we don't like your nation, the only way you might be secure against U.S. invasion is to develop WMDs.
Not Surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia still has more nuclear bombs than any other country. They went more for 'quantity' in the cold war why the US went for 'quality'.
We shouldn't worry that Bush commands them?
Please, enough with the reactionary Bush bashing. He's not dropping 'the bomb' on anyone. If he didn't do it post 9/11 it's not coming unless the US faces nuclear attack from an actual state.
Maybe the US's hipocracy is why North Korea stopped talking.
North Korea is just running this scam for all it's worth to get more foriegn aid for it's starving populace and to ensure that South Korea is no threat. This has little to do with US foreign policy in the middle east over the past few years. That may be North Korea's excuse, but as is always in politics what people say is the cause for something, and what the actual cause is are two different things.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
In the last several years the US has showed the rest of the world that it can easily invade any country that it pleases based on fake premises, even if that decision is not aproved by the UN security counsil (if you do not remember, Bush told them before invading Iraq that he really doesn't give a shit about what they think).
Now, I am not in support of dictatorships like the one led by Saddam Husein or Kim Jong, but lets be honest about this: no WMDs were found in Iraq. The entire premise of the war which was sold to the citizens of this country and to the rest of the world was completely incorrect. Did Bush at any time apologize to the citizens of this country or to the rest of the world about this? Did he say, I am sorry, we made a mistake? I do not remember, and if he had, I sure would remember it.
What is the alternative of a hostile regime such as North Korea in this current position? Of course they have to develop WMDs right now, they need them right now, because they do not have the military power to withstand an invasion of the US. N. Korea's WMDs will make Washington think twice before confronting them directly (relax, even if this happens, this would be at least 10 years down the road... US forces are too ocupied and spread out for a second direct offensive).
My 3c.
I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is obviously a serious matter, but we should not believe anything that Kim Jong Il says without adequate proof.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:5, Insightful)
And please, before anyone replies to this with some pacifist BS just one suggestion: learn something about this country. I've talked to people who visited North Korea, I've even met a North Korean back in the eighties. I've read their own propaganda materials. This is an unforgettable experience, it is almost impossible not to feel compassion for those poor people who had the terrible misfortune to be born in this hell. Civilized world should do something about it if it is to be worthy that term.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:3, Insightful)
While your statement is true overall, I don't think it is true in the context of nuclear weapons. Everyone already knows that North Korea has more than a few nuclear warheads. In this case, by announcing that he has them, Kim Jong Il is playing a deadly game of chicken.
MAD is a pretty good way to deter invasion (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:5, Insightful)
well, outside of America, everyone knew Saddam DIDN'T have WMDs. the inspectors didn't find a single thing.
if you were surprised that troops didn't find any WMDs then you were watching the wrong news channel before the war.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you that many people outside the US--and many liberals in the US--thought that Saddam had aspirations of WMDs and probably had a few stashes of weapons with rather limited destructive potential. I thought that myself. What I disagree with is the conclusion that was drawn from that information by the Bush administration: that Saddam's aspirations and small amount of weapons made him so dangerous to the US and other countries that we needed to go to war to stop him. I never believed that. And I believe my perception of the situation was vindicated after the war. Saddam's weapons programs were in shambles and his "stockpiles" of weapons were puny to non-existant. Clinton and Chirac may have recognized that Saddam COULD be a danger, left unchecked, but neither of them thought he was so dangerous as to undertake a war because of it. He was contained. His power and danger was very limited. They recognized this. Bush and company didn't.
This, obviously, doesn't speak to the humanitarian aspect of the war. Yes, the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam in power. But do you want the US to be the world police? Do you want the US to right every wrong in the world (or are we even capable)? I don't want that. Clinton had this tendency, as well, and I didn't like it one bit. There will always be injustice in the world, but the US can't be held responsible for all of it. How about letting an international body figure out when intervention is needed and deploy international troops in that case (UN anyone?). Why not work with the UN to get more EU or Chinese troops in the UN peacekeeping forces? Why not try to better the UN to make sure it answers humanitarian crises in a timely and efficient manner? It would be better than taking the responsibility (and risks, international PR problems, etc.) on our shoulders alone. Bush combined his cowboy "go it alone" attitude with Clinton's "world police" tendencies and ended up painting us into a international relations corner. Not a great strategy, if you ask me.
Further, on the point of the "Oil for food" program, you should really look up the US's involvement in the program from it's start shortly after the first Iraq war. The US helped set up the program and benefitted from the program for years before it was determined that it wasn't in our best interests. Sure, at the time of the second Iraq war we weren't involved in the program any longer, but many out there like to paint the picture that the US's hands were clean. I don't buy it. Backdoor dealings for power/money are the norm in US politics. Why would you assume those principles wouldn't apply to our international dealings as well? We were involved in the program and my guess is that we benefited from it.
Taft
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:4, Insightful)
From the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]
Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen: "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
Jacques Chirac: "we have to find and destroy them [Iraq's weapons of mass destruction]."
Hans Blix: Iraq possesses 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."
Al Gore: "[Saddam Hussein has] stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Bill Clinton describing "[Iraq's] offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.": "...Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons."
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:4, Interesting)
You are correct, of course. Although I think you did conveniently skip the Chirac quote about Saddam "probably" having weapons.
What I should have typed, instead, is the folks in the West Wing were the (almost) the only folks in the world to start a war without absolute proof. The folks in the West Wing were the only folks in the world willing to go to war for preventive reasons.
Since Kim Jong Il, in all probability, has nukes, I am finding the West Wing's position on his WMD's to be more than a bit hypocritical. (And, yes, I do know that Kim Jong Il could theoretically put a mushroom cloud over Beijing, Seoul and/or Tokyo whereas Saddam never had that capability).
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2004/100
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Ok, so... According to you, the UN didn't find anything in Irak, NOT because they weren't there despite the US's best efforts to find them after they marched in claiming to have 100% PROOF that they did, BUT because the UN inspectors were inept? Sure, buddy. Whatever you say.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh they will negotiate, they want more foreign aid. It's standard US policy that any nuclear attack on the US will lead to nuclear retalitation. That is a card North Korea can bluff with but never play. Even if they did, they would be lucky if any of their missles could hit the continental US. Sorry Hawaii ^_^.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be more sorry about Guam, American Samoa, Japan and South Korea personally. (among others)
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone is sort of missing the point. Their missile tech probably isn't good enough to hit the continental United States 'but' is sufficient to damage the American Economy. What about a well placed nuke in Japan? What about Taiwan and destroying most of the world' s chip fabrication capacity? Or Hong Kong? Or South Korea?
A direct hit upon the United States is not required to damage the United States attacking its interests are 'sufficient'. By those measures - Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (as a global financial centre, etc.) certainly qualify.
There is a reason why South Korea is attempting to MOVE thier Capital. Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. If NK marches south... Seoul can be leveled before the war even really starts.
Traditional discussions of territoriality are less important in an (and I hate to use this cliche) increasingly globalized world.
Re:Retaliation!? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Softly, softly (Score:5, Insightful)
And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree with you. I believe the reason North Korea wasn't invaded (and will not be invaded by the US) is simply summarized with one word, "China".
The best way to deal with Kim and his nukes is through China. Sure they don't particularly want to get involved but he's their puppet nutbar and not ours. The only sane path to checking this guy and his new toys is to put the pressure on China. Reign in that little freak or we're going to find ourselves another country to make pretty much everything we use. There are plenty of candidates out there.
Economic power is the way to go here. It's not as cool and flashy as military power but then it's also not nearly so expensive in lives. We won't do it though. No way will we do it.
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:4, Funny)
Same song, different day (Score:4, Interesting)
consequence of us foreign policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:consequence of us foreign policy (Score:3, Insightful)
The States has proven with their pre-emptive attack that if you don't have WMDs, you are a threat.
It's such messed up logic. I can see why every single country that poses a threat to the U.S. will try to arm themselves now.
Nukes a sketchy deterrent (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
team america (Score:5, Funny)
"I'm sorry, what?"
"Inevataball..."
"One more time?"
"INEVITABLE! Jesus christ! Why are people so fucking stupid?!"
Re:team america (Score:3, Funny)
It's all jokes but.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re: It's all jokes but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
> What's even more frightening is that they're not willing to talk about it.
What's really frightening is that we have an Administration that couldn't invade Iraq fast enough, all the while pretending that North Korea would just go away if we ignored it hard enough.
Re:It's all jokes but.... (Score:3, Interesting)
on a lighter note, does this have anything to do with japan bearing north korea yesterday in the 2006 world cup qualifier with a tie-breaking goal 2 min. before the end of the game, winning 2-1? (just joking... i hope it stays a joke, though.)
Re:It's all jokes but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know whether to laugh or cry about the boast that Irak's invasion was supposed to make the world safer. One year later, and there's now two hostile countries who armed themselves with nuclear power in DIRECT RELATION to a perceived threat to their sovereignty coming from the US.
Sorry Korea... (Score:3, Funny)
Made in North Korea (Score:4, Funny)
Checklist (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Re: Checklist (Score:5, Insightful)
Lesse...
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...
You neglected the all-important:
Has major portion of world's oil supply: nope.
Raise your hands... (Score:5, Interesting)
*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.
Re:Raise your hands... (Score:4, Insightful)
As to whether Sadaam was bending over backwards to comply genuinely or merely to seem to comply genuinely, who cares what he felt about it? The point was to make him comply and that is, (according to both the inspectors *and* UK and US intelligence) exactly what he was doing, whether he was enjoying it or not.
Your "charge sheet" bullet point list is not in dispute. He was an asshole dictator, just like numerous other asshole dictators around the world, many of them still supported by the US just like Sadaam used to be. But it is a straw man. The charge sheet is completely irrelevant to the question of "was he a big enough menace to justify invasion". None of these crimes made him a unique and direct threat to US national security which is presumably why the exaggerations about possible possession of WMD's had to be concocted as a pretext for war.
As to whether the earth is safer without Sadaam Hussein running Iraq - I am sure that some of his closest neighbours feel safer. But most of the world is I think a lot more worried about the new jackboot politics of the neocons in Washington. After all, Sadaam had very little capability to deliver destruction outside of his own immediate region. The US however has demonstrated both its capability to wage wars of shocking destructiveness against relatively defenseless enemies on the other side of the world (with an almost total disregard for tens of thousands of civilian casualties), *and* its willingness to do so regardless of all international opinion.
If the Iraq invasion was meant to be a response to 9/11 then it was truly an overreaction on a major scale. I'm not even going to get into how the White House tried for a long time to make it look like Saddam had something to do with the 9/11 attacks and failed to make it stick. But you're suggesting that its reasonable and acceptable to go around invading sovereign nations on the off chance that they might possibly assist terrorists later on. In the eyes of the rest of the world today, it's not reasonable and it's not acceptable. Especially when they are, as you were ready to admit, bent over backwards and pleading with you not to do it.
In your Hollywood movies, the hero is the guy who is viciously attacked but then goes after the perpetrator, gives him a taste of his own medicine thus humiliating him and turning him into a snivelling cowering wreck. Then he shows mercy and backs off saying "let that be a lesson". But the image of America today is of a protagonist who, with only a bloody nose (4,000 dead) in the first instance inflicted by someone else entirely who he couldn't get to, couldn't even be satisfied with winning against some other convenient bully of choice but had to beat seven colours of shit out of him as well in order that everybody would know who was the strongest.
Well, congratulations - so you are the strongest bully in the playground. But you're no hero, you're nobody's policeman and if this is you doing unasked favours for the rest of the world, no thanks and please don't do it in our name. We'd rather deal with a dozen small-time bullies on our own terms and take a bloody nose occasionally (the price of freedom maybe), than have to cope with a lone superpower bully who is bigger than everybody and beholden to nobody.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why does it force anyone to not be stupid? Surely you're not talking about MAD, which is not only a grotesque oversimplification of the nuclear strategy pursued during the cold war, but also becomes exponentially less stable a game with each new player at the table.
Let's say a nuclear bomb explodes in Haifa or Tel Aviv tomorrow.
Who do you retaliate against? With only two nuclear powers, it's a relatively easy choice to decide who was responsible.
What about with three? Four? Seven? Some of whom are demonstrably unstable and hostile states?
The concern isn't that North Korea will do something "stupid" with their bombs in an obvious and overt fashion. The concern is that North Korea will do something with their bombs by proxy, or in an attempt to implicate a third party.
It forces all sides to not be stupid.
You'd think the mass starvation of your own citizenry would force a national leader to not be stupid, but that hasn't stopped Kim. Why do you think nukes which can spread that same level of suffering outside his own borders will?
don't worry (Score:5, Interesting)
this morning already moved to a more relevant story:
"Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker Bowles".
we already know... (Score:4, Interesting)
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....
I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead? (Score:5, Interesting)
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....
Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead? (Score:5, Interesting)
In all seriousness, it doesn't matter if KJI is dead or not - the North Korean regime is here to stay - no amount of military force will change that - it is *far* too deeply ingrained in the majority of the populace there. Having visited NK some years ago on a tourist visa (which is like gold dust) I was, I must confess, rather surprised by what I found. Generally, in urban areas, the quality of life was good - party members lived comfortably, others less comfortably, but a lot better than much of what you'll see in the western world. We weren't allowed into the countryside, however, so.....
Short of a popular revolution, which isn't going to happen, nothing will change the situation there. It's perfectly possible that they have a nuclear capability, but they aren't quite the mad-cap nation the western media seems to wish to portray them as.
The degree of control held over the populace by the state there is astounding - it would be extraordinarily hard for anyone to organise any kind of dissent - the vast majority are party supporters, and the last thing you want to do is criticise the government in front of someone who can make you disappear.
Juche is their way of life. They have no real wish to expand, they just want to be left alone. For now, at any rate.
Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Uh oh... (Score:4, Interesting)
What the F*** are you talking about?
America doesn't run penal labor colonies [hrnk.org]
America doesn't lock you and your whole family up because of what your father did before you were born.
America doesn't kill people who try to escape.
Look, you can make all the jokes you want, but North Korea is an Orwellian human rights nightmare. I'm not saying that bad things don't happen in America or worldwide at the behest of her corporations, but we make an effort to police ourselves. We try to be the good guys, and in North Korea they'll pop a cap in your a** for just looking like you're thinking the wrong thing.
PS: Sometimes swearing is necessary in response to extreme stupidity.
It's Truman's fault (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's Truman's fault (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're going to blame anyone, blame Clinton, who accepted the 1994 deal in which we gave NK resources to prop up their economy, in turn for them... keeping the nuclear material they already had! And us trusting them not to turn it into weapons! Brilliant!
Now, in the unlikely but still frighteningly plausible idea that we do have a war with NK, we have the pleasure of dealing with nuclear weapons in the hands of madmen, in addition to the gazillion pieces of artillery that will pound Seoul into dust.
Geopolitics for dummies on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Washington is very surprised by N. Korea's pullout (Score:4, Informative)
Simple break down on diplomacy. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
Labelled a troll? It's a simple statement of several obvious facts. Deal with it, wingers. Moderation is not meant for political hitmen to use to stifle information.
Re:Condoleeza Rice (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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:I know I will be modded -1 but (Score:5, Informative)
Re:United States Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons (Score:4, Interesting)
Some of the rest is a bit subjective, but you seem to have pretty much summed the situation up.