Article

2003-11-09 Korea

CIA: N. Korea Doesnât Need Nuclear Tests

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-09 1:11:45 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Russian strength during cold war, Iraqi strength..etc. The CIA assessments are starting to remind me of Pinkerton assesments during the civil war.

Posted by B 2003-11-9 6:44:19 AM|| 2003-11-9 6:44:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Past CIA blunders aside, there may be a kernel of truth here. One of the things stolen from the national labs by the Chinese was a sophisticated modeling database for nuclear weapon's design. Basically, the software allows you to "test" a weapon without actually making a hole in the ground.

Of course, this would mean our good buddies in Beijing either sprung a leak or gave the software to North Korea.

Posted by Douglas De Bono 2003-11-9 8:24:16 AM|| [http://www.douglasdebono.com] 2003-11-9 8:24:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The CIA assessments are starting to remind me of Pinkerton assesments during the civil war.

Bobby Lee was notorius for 50,000 Virtual Rebs in reserve.

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-9 9:24:54 AM|| 2003-11-9 9:24:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 software verification works only if you've proven your technology in the first place - i.e.: am actual test. They don't know if the tech they got from China or Pakland was accurate (IMHO) unless they 'splode one in the first place. I agree that the ambiguity is a lot more useful for extortion than a botched test. The CIA has good reason to err on the conservative (worst case) side since they've been caught so often on the short end of the intel stick

Posted by Frank G 2003-11-9 11:32:49 AM|| 2003-11-9 11:32:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 maybe they work... maybe they don't... they aren't much value for detterence/extortion if you don't pop one off every once and a while though.

Posted by ----------<<<<-- 2003-11-9 10:10:01 PM|| 2003-11-9 10:10:01 PM|| Front Page Top

23:58 RMcLeod
23:56 Bomb-a-rama
23:54 Larry
23:52 Bomb-a-rama
23:44 Bomb-a-rama
23:43 Larry
23:42 John
23:42 rg117
23:39 John
23:36 John
23:34 CrazyFool
23:23 charlie32
23:17 Raj
23:10 Raj
22:38 Alaska Paul
22:34 Alaska Paul
22:15 Angie Schultz
22:13 JP
22:10 ----------<<<<--
21:49 John Anderson
21:39 ----------<<<<--
21:38 Uncle Joe
21:23 eLarson
21:01 Bomb-a-rama