| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| North Korea may have eight new nuclear bombs |
| 2004-09-29 |
| Complete article because of registration By Hamish McDonald, Herald Correspondent in Beijing North Korea has already turned its stockpile of spent nuclear fuel into new nuclear weapons, a senior official has claimed at the United Nations as the isolated communist country baulks at further disarmament talks. If the claim is correct it means North Korea may have added up to eight new bombs to its nuclear arsenal since President George Bush's Administration forced a diplomatic showdown over suspected covert nuclear activity just under two years ago. Previously, Pyongyang was believed to have been hiding two or three nuclear devices made before 1994, when the Clinton administration negotiated a bilateral deal shutting down North Korean nuclear facilities and putting its spent-fuel stockpile under international supervision in return for fuel oil, new power stations and other aid. Multiplication of North Korea's nuclear arms stockpile and a stalemate in six-nation talks hosted by China mean that Mr Bush has little to show for the tougher line he adopted to distinguish his administration's policy from the allegedly appeasing approach of President Bill Clinton. Some Western diplomats in Beijing now question whether the Bush Administration's approach has not made a bad situation worse. They question the diplomatic strategy it has adopted - rejecting direct bilateral talks with Pyongyang in favour of concerted regional pressure - and the way in which it has been conducted. The crisis began in October 2002 when a State Department official, James Kelly, confronted a top adviser of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, with evidence the North had imported equipment for producing highly enriched uranium, thereby cheating on the 1994 agreement. According to Mr Kelly, the adviser confirmed and defended the program. But within a month the US media were quoting inside sources as saying the US Government's suspicions were based on import and export documents and that Washington's intelligence agencies had no idea where covert uranium enrichment facilities in North Korea were located. The leak encouraged the North Koreans to backtrack on the admission made to Mr Kelly, claiming a misunderstanding. Tensions grew as the US refused to negotiate directly - "to buy the same horse twice", as top officials declared - and demanded the North admit and dismantle its nuclear programs. In January last year the North withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and announced it had plans to build up a nuclear deterrent against US attack. Pyongyang's Vice-Foreign Minister, Choe Su-hon, told the UN on Monday that the North had reprocessed all the 8000 spent nuclear fuel rods previously under international safeguards, and had "weaponised" the plutonium they yielded. Western experts said this would be enough for about eight bombs. The six-nation Beijing disarmament talks that Washington pressured China into hosting last year have, meanwhile, hit a roadblock, with Pyongyang dismissing the worth of holding a fourth round, previously scheduled for this month. The chances of North Korea attending new talks before the US presidential election on November 2 are diminishing rapidly, despite recent efforts at persuasion in Pyongyang by a succession of foreign leaders, including Australia's Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, Britain's junior Foreign Minister, Bill Rammell, and the Chinese Communist Party politburo member Li Changchun. |
| Posted by:Anonymous5089 |
| #16 Massive retaliation with nukes only further tortures his victimized population. Knock out his artillery, storm in an hang whomever the skinniest people point out as the bad guys. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-09-30 12:19:33 AM |
| #15 North Korea may have eight new nuclear bombs All of them are incoming. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-29 11:56:40 PM |
| #14 Moose, Agreed a nuke is pretty useless as a weapon to the Norks unless they want to hit a neighbor. So what can they do with it? Sell it to terrorists for hard currency! Then deliver it in a container with living quarters for two Arabs to Busan for shipment to Long Beach. The hardest part may now be effecting payment. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-09-29 9:08:03 PM |
| #13 "HOW WILL WE RETALIATE?" the number of incoming US ICBMs to NK would only be limited by the potential winddrift fallout to Japan and SK |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-29 8:56:45 PM |
| #12 Don't forget that a nuke is pretty useless unless you can *deliver* it to target. Though NK has missiles that can do it, they cannot do it *quickly*; which is why I suspect so much notice has been made of their "preparing to launch" recently. Remember also that the US is sending the FIRST layer anti-missile defense ships to the Pacific theater EARLY, as in right now. Between them as a radar screen *and* anti-missile defense, 747-based lasers, and other anti-missile systems, the BIG question is not "can they hit us?", but "HOW WILL WE RETALIATE?" |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-09-29 8:50:13 PM |
| #11 What's standard doctrine here? Some diplomatic message goes to NK stating saying something along the lines of ... "ok, you're in the Big Game now, if a nuke goes off *anywhere* with your isotopic spectrum all over it, we'll rapidly raise 80% of your country to 100,000 C within 24 hours" ? Deterrence has worked for 60 years because it has been believed that the US will retaliate massively if nuclear weapons are used against itself or its allies. Nothing I've read has implied to me that the doctrine has changed. It's been said that after you kill your first man, the rest are easy - the US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons in wartime. I think there might be a lesson there, the Mullahs in Iran and the fucktards in NK *really* ought to take note of this. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2004-09-29 7:10:04 PM |
| #10 well mitch you can screw yourself - if your an american shame on you. a seditious traitor if i have ever seen (read) one. and a bit of an ahole? where you from..some little shit town on the plains? with country men like you who needs an enemy? big fucking dumbass if la goes so does the US economy..california represents so much of our economy (and LA is a huge piece of california's economy.) you will feel the pain, regardless of your views on the politics. instantly be reduced by a few trillion dollars. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-09-29 6:38:41 PM |
| #9 Feed Us, we have a bomb. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-09-29 5:27:01 PM |
| #8 Isn't it traditional to detonate a nuke in order to prove that you have them? Really, it wouldn't change anything - they could destroy a major city *last* year, and they can destroy one *now*. I suppose it doesn't make me a very good American, but I don't value a million Los Angelenos more than I value a million South Koreans. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2004-09-29 5:09:29 PM |
| #7 it doesn't matter what ush doesin the situation. the north koreans are gonna do what they want too until someone finally kicks the shit out of these ppl. Only damn thing being done wrong is that we are still sending them foo, let them starve. QAn dif anyone in beijing is worried about it whether western diplomats or not why won't they do anything about it? If we did do something about it then they would say that america is bullying another shit hole country around right? TOO hell witht he whole lot of them |
| Posted by: smokeysinse 2004-09-29 4:42:39 PM |
| #6 I suppose that it's a measure of power that the press believes everything bad that happens in the world is GWB's fault. It could be that the 8 "work accidents" scheduled for next year in North Korea will be his fault as well. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-09-29 4:40:46 PM |
#5  YS - Remember This From Imus Interview... IMUS: Either give us a name (foreign policy advisors) or we won't vote for you. KERRY: But there are people who are advising me and who are very respected in the community. IMUS: Holbrooke? KERRY: He is one who is advising me. I have Joe Biden is advising me. There are -- Madeleine Albright obviously you know.
|
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-09-29 4:07:00 PM |
| #4 I do not see how bush screwed up. The nkors were well on their way years before Bush. This is something that should of been dealt with in the 90's. So Bush instead of paying tribute said no more. Why should the US negotiate under threat? It is the countries of the region that have the most to lose. And anyways a war in korea, be it nuke or conventional is not in the US best interests. We should now do two things. 1. Loan Japan a nuke arsenal till they get one up and running. 2. We should state clearly any attack will be met with the total destruction of every nkor city, and sales to terrorists will be met with the same fate. OR Just toast the place and let the diplo cards fall where they do. Let the chicoms wallow in the mess they created. They will now have to deal with a resurgent, nuclear Japan. By the time Bush came into office our options were very limited. Unless we bowed and did what the nkors wanted. The statement 'Give me liberty or give me death' rings true here. As for Iran we still have some time on our side, plus you do not have the dymanics that exist in SE asia. It will be a much easier fight (just a figure of speech comparing fighting in Korea as compared to Iran - not that it will be easy). |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-09-29 3:16:40 PM |
| #3 YS - I just read a very good article on all this: It confirms my suspcions that other countries undermined what we've been trying to do. |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2004-09-29 2:57:32 PM |
| #2 Just call me anonymous. 8 - the news just gets better and better. |
| Posted by: Criger Griger4633 2004-09-29 2:55:22 PM |
| #1 Even though I'm voting for Bush - I think he really screwed this up. I don't have allot of faith in what he'll do about Iran either. I think they know a helluva lot more about this than we do - and I wonder if that means they aren't doing anything because both countries alreay have the bomb fielded. Hope I'm wrong. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2004-09-29 2:32:24 PM |