Korea: U.S."Hawks" pushing us to brink of nuclear war

North Korea has relatively short-range missiles pointed at it from every cardinal direction. That country could be reduced to a smoking cinder in seconds. Now, Ideally, you don't kill an entire civilian population in the 100,000s because they sink a carrier, or blow up a cruise ship, or shoot down some planes. On the other hand..If they fire an ICBM or nuke Japan....well, that's the last strike they'll make.

I wish we could just make the deal to hand it to china and let them kill Kim, then own and run the thing. They'd do a better job.
Get Korea forget Taiwan seems a good deal to me.

 

Yeah but if you nuke North Korea then South Korea may not be inhabitant-friendly. The fallout will consume the whole peninsula probably. At the very least, the entire peninsula will suffer health problems(high cancer rates, higher rates of death, etc.) for years to come.

North Korea blatantly broke their 1994 nuclear agreement. It seems ever since Bush lumped North Korea in the "axis of evil"...that they feel they can now do whatever they want to protect themselves. They certainly are talking tough. All they have to do is backdown but that doesn't seem likely with the way they are talking these days. The truth is they don't have any real allies like we do and if they think this is just us and them their dead wrong.

The stupidest move North Korea could do is start a war. They want to talk tough...fine. However, if they start a war, then their right to exist just went out the window. If they used a WoMD, then they are royally screwed. As much as North Korea wants it to be between the US and North Korea alone, that is never going to be the case. Our allies know North Korea is in the wrong. They want to continue to suffer economically and be isolated...then it's all their doing. As Rumsfield said, diplomacy is still an option since this latest stand-off is relatively new. However, at some point if North Korea continues to have their collective heads up their asses, then war may be inevitable. This is an international crisis and I don't see the US in this completely alone. That is why we are consulting our allies on the matter. NK can't win as much as they think they our invincible. The worst that would happen probably is NK would nuke SK...then they would be nuked themselves. It doesn't bode well for the peninsula or its inhabitants.

 

Other than the military-weapons complex, North Korea is impoverished and will require billions of dollars to build the civilian part of the country.

Taiwan is prosperous and worth having.

 

PYONGYANG, North Korea (CNN) -- The refusal by the United States to negotiate with North Korea over its nuclear program could lead to an "uncontrollable catastrophe," North Korea's state-run Rodong Sinmun newspaper has warned.

In Seoul, the South Korean Cabinet was told that North Korea is moving nuclear fuel rods containing enough plutonium to build two warheads out of a holding area at a nuclear plant that had been sealed.

The United States has been trying to handle the North Korean nuclear crisis diplomatically as it gears up for possible war with Iraq.

Over the weekend, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell consulted with allies in Asia about North Korea's moves.

But the North Korean newspaper said only the United States and North Korea can come to a settlement.

"If the U.S. persistently tries to internationalize the pending issue between the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] and the U.S. in a bid to flee from its responsibility, it will push the situation to an uncontrollable catastrophe," the newspaper said.

In addition, North Korean Defense Minister Kim Il Chol was quoted by the state news agency as saying the crisis was reaching "an extremely dangerous phase."

In the event of a nuclear conflict, he said, North Korea would deal a "merciless punishment" to the United States.

"If they, ignorant of their rival, dare provoke a nuclear war, the army and people of the DPRK led by Kim Jong Il, the invincible commander, will rise up to mete out determined and merciless punishment to the U.S. imperialist aggressors with the might of single-hearted unity more powerful than A-bomb," he said.

While North Korea has said it wants to open negotiations with the United States, U.S. officials have so far refused, saying the United States will not enter into dialogue in response to threats or broken commitments.

South Korea's outgoing president, Kim Dae-jung, condemned Pyongyang's decision to take down monitoring cameras, break seals on its nuclear plants and move the fuel rods.

"We have said it repeatedly and sometimes we presented it on documents that we can never go along with North Korea's weapons of mass destruction, including missiles or nuclear weapons, and that this is the absolute condition for talks," Kim said.

While Bush administration officials said they are continuing to work diplomatically, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned North Korea not to assume that the United States was not capable of acting militarily on two fronts, even as it prepares for a war with Iraq.

"If they do, it would be a mistake," Rumsfeld said at a news conference Monday.

If necessary, Rumsfeld said, the U.S. military was perfectly capable of fighting both North Korea and Iraq simultaneously.

"We are capable of fighting two major regional conflicts," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon briefing.

"We're capable of winning decisively in one and swiftly defeating in the case of the other. And let there be no doubt about it."

Over the weekend, the North started removing the safety seals and blocking surveillance cameras placed by international monitoring agencies at facilities in Yongbyong.

On Tuesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the North Koreans were continuing to dismantle the monitoring devices and break seals on its nuclear facilities.

IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said North Korea had unilaterally continued the process of disrupting IAEA safeguard measures at its nuclear facilities.

"On 23-24 December, the DPRK cut most of the seals and impeded the functioning of surveillance equipment installed at both the fuel rod fabrication plant and the reprocessing facility," ElBaradei said.

"To date, seals have been cut and surveillance equipment impeded at a total of three facilities at Yongbyong: the 5 megawatt reactor including the associated spent fuel pond, the fuel rod fabrication plant and the reprocessing facility."

Unless the IAEA is able to reinstate its safeguard measures without delay at the facilities, ElBaradei said, it will not be able to provide assurances that North Korea is not diverting nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices as required by its safeguard agreement pursuant to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

ElBaradei said the rapidly deteriorating situation in the DPRK raises "grave non-proliferation concerns." He is currently consulting with the chairman and member states of the IAEA board of governors on ways and means to address this "disturbing development," an IAEA statement said.

In an interview with CNN on Monday, ElBaradei said not only have the North Koreans taken "the cameras and surveillance verification monitoring equipment from the power reactor where they supposedly want to produce electricity, but [they] continue to take all the equipment from the spent fuel and the reprocessing plant which would enable them, if they restart the program, to make plutonium in a pretty few months and that's a pretty disturbing trend."

North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear program in 1994 in exchange for new reactors and shipments of alternative fuel oil.

North Korean officials said they have been forced to restart the program because a U.S.-led consortium decided to stop the alternative shipments after Pyongyang disclosed it had an active nuclear weapons program. The United States believes North Korea already has as many as three nuclear warheads in addition to the plutonium that could be used to make two more.

 

I'd like to see what all those non-interventionists out there think of N Korea saying they will only deal with the US, and that US attempts to bring other countries into the negotiations will lead to N Korea nuking us.

Sheds a different light on the problems of a nuclear power run by a nutcase. Sure do wish we let Saddam obtain nukes as well ...

 

<A HREF="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20021224_318.html">U.S. Fears N.Korea Could Get 50 Bombs a Year</A>

<i>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - North Korea could churn out enough plutonium to build up to 50 to 55 nuclear weapons a year if all three of its frozen nuclear reactors entered operation in coming years, a U.S. government official said on Tuesday.

The issue is critical to world security, partly because North Korea has been developing long-range missiles possibly capable of delivering nuclear warheads.............


WEAPONS POTENTIAL

North Korea, denounced by President Bush as part of an "axis of evil" with Iraq and Iran, set alarm bells ringing over the weekend by removing U.N. monitoring equipment at a nuclear reactor capable of yielding weapons-grade plutonium.

Restarting a 5-megawatt plant at its Yongbyon complex, as Pyongyang has taken steps to do, would spin off about 6 kg (13 pounds) a year of weapons-grade plutonium, said the U.S. official who declined to be identified.

That would suffice for just one nuclear bomb, given the rule of thumb that it takes about 5 kg (11 pounds) of plutonium per weapon. Yongbyon is about 55 miles north of Pyongyang.

The output from two unfinished reactors -- a 50-megawatt unit at Yongbyon and a 200-megawatt plant at nearby Taechon -- could be added to generate as much as a combined total of 275 kg (600 pounds) of plutonium a year from all three plants, the official said, or enough for 50 to 55 weapons, depending on how they are configured.

"It would take several years for them to complete construction of those reactors, but if they complete the construction, that's the potential," said the official.

The United States has urged Pyongyang not to restart any of its frozen nuclear facilities. A State Department official said on Tuesday it had no indication Pyongyang had gone beyond dismantling U.N. monitoring devices to actually reactivate the 5-megawatt plant at Yongbyon.

Keeping the North from extracting bomb-grade plutonium from spent fuel rods has been a top U.S. foreign policy priority for years -- one that brought the Clinton administration to the brink of war before a landmark 1994 nonproliferation deal.

By that time, Pyongyang had probably already recovered enough plutonium to produce two nuclear weapons, the CIA has concluded.

Under the 1994 deal, North Korea agreed to freeze the 5-megawatt reactor plus the partially built 50- and 200-megawatt plants. Also frozen were a reprocessing facility and a fuel-rod fabrication plant at Yongbyon.

In exchange, Washington agreed to provide a $5 billion package to include two proliferation-resistant light-water reactors and 500,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil a year until the first light-water reactor was built.

REMOVING SEALS

The North began removing U.N. controls last weekend from its nuclear reactors and, perhaps most ominously, from a large supply of weapons-grade fuel at Yongbyon.

In Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, said on Tuesday North Korea was continuing to dismantle seals and disable surveillance devices meant to police its compliance with deals to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.

"They have already done three facilities and now they are working on the fourth," IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky told Reuters.

North Korea says it has a right to possess nuclear weapons if it chooses and insists that Washington sign a nonaggression pact as a basis for talks on their differences.

Pyongyang acknowledged to U.S. officials in October it had been pressing ahead with a secret highly-enriched uranium program in violation of the 1994 agreement and other nonproliferation pacts. That prompted a U.S.-led consortium to cut off fuel oil shipments to the North, which said it was resuming its nuclear program to generate electricity.

Having taken possession of about 8,000 spent fuel rods, Pyongyong could separate enough plutonium for about five nuclear weapons in six months to a year "or perhaps quicker" once it fired up the reprocessing plant, said David Albright, a nuclear physicist who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

Albright, co-editor of Solving the North Korean Nuclear Puzzle and a member of the IAEA's Iraq monitoring team from 1992 to 1997, said the frozen reprocessing plant itself could be back in business in one to three months.
</i>

 

Why would we sign any pacts with a country that has admitted to breaking agreements already? Hello?

 

Hayes, others, we are seeing the ultimate failure of the US policy of 50 years of trying to spread nukes, but only to our friends. I know spread is a bit strong, but we don't object when countires we like such as France, Britain, Israel etc. get them. We do believe that we are justified in going to war against any other country that tries to get them.

Those who oppose nuclear weapons have been predicting this day for years, the day when third rate countries with great instability acquire these weapons. Is it realistic to think that we can just keep invading any country that seeks to acquire these weapons as the technology to do so becomes more available?


We constantly seek to upgrade our own arsenal and circumvent any agreements on limiting nuclear weapons or testing that we have signed. I can't remember the details but didn't Bush II just back out of the main nuclear arms reduction treaty we had with Russia?

Current policy actually encourages countries to try to get these weapons, because once they do so then at least they are safe from most invasions or threats of invasion by the US. Pakistan for instance is relatively safe from invasion by the overwhelming US ground forces now that they have acquired these weapons.

Current Bush II policy in which they threaten publicly to use nuclear weapons against Iraq or other countries that might use poison gas or other weapons we don't like does not help things. Talking constantly about using bunker busting mini-nukes does not help the cause of anti-nuclear proliferation.

In short the Bush II gang is not against using nuclear weapons or the threat of nuclear weapons to achieve froeign policy goals.

Do not be fooled into thinking that Bush II is for nuclear arms reduction. It does, however, upset them greatly when they can't unilaterally threaten nuclear action against countries that they oppose.

They are also very ready to use the very legitimate fear of nuclear weapons as a lever for moving US political opinion for their goals.

 

You do realize all the information you receive is being orchestrated by the government right!

Good perhaps we can all get a doze of real life.

When Bush wants to do something he can make up reasons for it and everybody buys it! It has to stop soon before that man does something really fatal.

Look even the CIA says there are no indications that Saddam would do anything to anyone in the moment, and don't you think that country has suffered enough in the past decade!!!! Let the civilian population get a chance to live a reasonable life and stop the blocade that would be a start.

The situation will be really dangerous when Saddam senses the USA is closing in on him then he will start to use his weapons and it could get really ugly in a hurry!!

That starshield project is BS. Bush knows it won't work in real life but he also knows that it will give a sense of comfort for the population so he can continue to get support for the next military operation.

I think it is an outrage the way Bush and co. has been putting pressure on the UN inspectors. It is not in Bush's interest if they tell him that there really is no threat from there, so Bush says it's bad work by the inspectors.

Now stop that man!1

 

It was China who mostly built N. Korea's nuclear program. If some President wanted to actively prevent nuclear proliferation in N. Korea, he'd have to go through China first. Only now that China has something to lose in this affair that they're nudging N. Korea towards nonproliferation.

 

What makes you think these countries wouldn't we be trying to acquire these weapons no matter what the US does? Believe it or not, there are some crazy people out there that will start murdering their own citizens and invading nearby countries for the hell of it. (Hitler and Stalin were leaders only recently! And the US had to stop both of them.)

It's the responsibility of the US right now to keep these countries in line whether people (i.e. the UN) like it or not. Maybe you are scared of Bush "I and II" more than the tryants out there but I certainly am not, certainly not after 9/11.

And what actually failed with regard to North Korea specifically was the agreement they signed with the Clinton administration. Which goes to show how much diplomatic means are really worth with tyrannical dictators. It had nothing to do with US possession of nuclear weapons.

And you act as if the US would invade Pakistan if they did not have nuclear weapons. Why on earth would the US do this? Is your opinion of the US so low that you think America will just start taking over countries for no reason?

 

Do you really want to ask him that question? Since he has done almost nothing but complain about President Bush since he took office, I'm sure he'd love to use this question as a launching pad for "Emperor Bush I". Gee Turkey and Pakistan have allowed us to use them and their bases for operational procedures, surely Bush will use that as an excuse to annex them! Wait, Saudi Arabia allowed us to use them during the Gulf War, surely they're a territory of ours now, aren't they?

Mr. Bush is doing what he thinks right to safeguard our nation from threats. Do I think he's gone overboard? No, but then I'll admit to usually being more hawkish than doveish when it comes to national security. I can see where some people might feel he's pushing things, but all I see is the President making sure 9/11 won't repeat itself on a larger scale. And if a state sponsored terrorist group manages to sneak a "briefcase nuke" (a 1 to 5 kiloton warhead in a shielded package no bigger than a suitcase, the former Soviet Union had quite a few) into Washington, N.Y.C., L.A., or Houston (and that's just assuming a sea based approach) that's exactly what you'll have.

And by the way stra, do you REALLY think the FBI, CIA, or president can "doctor" every single piece of news we get? When the government tries to control the news media the backlash can be very ugly for the President. This "Bush wants to invade the world" makes Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory look normal. Tell me, did we really land on the moon? Who assassinated JFK, the Mafia, CIA, or KGB?

 

So you think we should have invaded the USSR, France, Britain, Israel, India, and Pakistan? Or alternately not tried to stop the spread at all?

Your generalization shows how little you know of the policies dealing with proliferation since they have been quite varied over the 'last 50 years.' In addition those policies have kept nuclear programs from becoming active in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, and a host of other countries.

Pretty much any pissant 'country' run by a two bit dictator should NOT have nuclear weapons. Not N Korea. Not Cuba. Not Libya. Not Iraq. It IS justified stopping any of those places from achieving nuclear strike capability.

Those who favor retention of nuclear weapons have been predicting this day for years. In the immortal words of Derrick Coleman: "whup dee damn doo."

Uh, yes. If they are legitimate and stable then there is little propensity for them to be considered a threat.

Upgrading increases safety. Circumventing agreements? Like what? Links please.

No. Stop getting those anti-war.com wireless updates on your cell phone.

And the alternative to forceable preventing proliferation is what? Saying 'pretty please don't do that?'

Nor does it increase the risk of proliferation. It is pretty much irrelevant to this thread. Stop muddling the issue.

Nor should they be.

How is this relevant at all to the North Korea problem. If you're going to mix your anti-nuclearism with a dab of your anti-bushism and a pinch of your conspiracism, at least APPLY it in a way that is relevant.

 

I hate the tit for tat type of reply, but it does provide a sort of pseudo efectiveness, so here goes.

QUOTE]So you think we should have invaded the USSR, France, Britain, Israel, India, and Pakistan?[/QUOTE]

No, don't be silly. It is you who advocate invasions and wars to prevent nukes strategy. Unfortunaely you have gone from a "Peace Trhough Strength" position to an Orwellian "Peace Thorugh War" position.

Exactly. How does this support your policy of invasion to prevent preliferation? Surely you aren't suggesting all this was accomplished by invasions,wars or threats of nuclear first strikes?

CNN: Bush unilaterally withdraws fron ABM treaty


You then argue that you are in favor of the US threatending the use of nukes to achieve foreign policy goals.

You argue that threatening the use of nukes and talking about developing bunker busting mini nukes is irrelevant.

I disagree. Can you provide any cites or arguments?

I suppose you hope that all foeign policy foes will just submit to nuclear blackmail and never try to respond with nuclear weapons programs. Is this realistic?

Hey, thanks for the idea. Is it really cost effective and sufficiently readable? Can you provide details or a link?

 

There is an easy solution to this, just have Bush set up a 3 way call with Saddam and N. Korea.
Bush: N Korea please stop making bombs
N Korea: No we don't have to
Bush: Saddam you still there?
Saddam: Yep
Bush: Saddam where are your weapons of mass destruction?
Saddam: (Innocently) What weapons of mass destruction?
Bush: (Turning from the phone to his cellphone) Mr. Rumsfield fire at will
(Big explosion and Saddam is off the call)
Bush: Now N Korea where were we?
N Korea: We were just disarmming ourselves. Thanks!
Bush: No thank you!

Honestly N Korea is bluffing. They just want someeconomic benefits from this whole issue. Tehy will cave in a soon as we negotiate (AKA give them money).

 

Yet another French conspiracy theorist on the loose.

 

Well, sort of. There was a bi-polar power structure in the world at the time. We kept those in our sphere of influence from proliferating and the Soviets kept those in theirs from proliferating through economic incentives and extensions of our nuclear umbrella to those proxies. Now there is not a Soviet Union which is why you are seeing the increase in instability and the increase in risk of proliferation. That is why Cold War deterrence and containment is no longer feasible as a stand alone answer to nuclear proliferation.

The ABM Treaty does not limit nuclear weapons. Your claim was that Bush had backed out of agreements 'limiting nuclear weapons.' The ABM Treaty actually did the opposite. It encouraged an increase in the number of nuclear weapons so as to make any strike overwhelming. Try again.

Why would it? It is your assertion that this 'talk' from the Bush administration increases proliferation. Yet the proliferation in N Korea and Iraq started well before the Bush administration.... oops.

They are already building nuclear weapons. It is not realistic to expect these regimes to become MORE reasonable AFTER they have acquired nuclear weapons. Do you think that is realistic? Have you noticed that NONE of the regimes we are talking about are viewed as legitimate or reasonable participants in the global scheme of things? The only possible rationale you have for defending two horrific totalitarian regimes is your inherent bias against US intervention. And that is really sad. Look at who you are defending. It's ridiculous.

In addition you need to try and examine the logic chain of events if N Korea does go operational with nuclear weapons. Do you think S Korea or Japan will have ANY choice but to proliferate themselves in the face of US inaction? Is it realistic to assume that those populations will have faith in US security guarantees when the only US action MIGHT come AFTER their countries are wiped off the map? How will China and the rest of East Asia react to a rearmed and nuclear Japan? Do you think they are OVER their anti-Japanese insecurities? Is the world really MORE secure and safe with a nuclear North Korea, South Korea, China, and Japan in East Asia? I think you've lost the plot.

 

(Parenthetically, as this is irrelevant to the main thread:

Way to ignore the rest of us! You know, the ones fighting since 1939? )

 

I wasnt aware of a conflict between New Zealand and the USSR in 1939 ...