North Korea Says It Is Making Nuclear Bombs

jimnyc

...
Aug 28, 2003
20,368
273
83
New York
*** Didn't these scumbags originally state reviving the nuclear program was solely meant as a source of energy for the country? ***


SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea said Thursday it is using plutonium extracted from 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods to make atomic weapons, a move that could dramatically escalate tensions on the Korean peninsula and strengthen its hand in negotiations with the United States.

The claim came as some U.S. intelligence analysts are becoming increasingly concerned that North Korea might have three, four or even six nuclear weapons instead of the one or two the CIA now estimates.

"The (North) successfully finished the reprocessing of some 8,000 spent fuel rods," a spokesman from Pyongyang's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the North's official news agency KCNA. The spokesman was not named.

Accusing the United States of taking a "hostile policy" toward the North, the statement said North Korea "made a switchover in the use of plutonium churned out by reprocessing spent fuel rods in the direction (of) increasing its nuclear deterrent force."

When reprocessed with chemicals, the 8,000 rods can yield enough plutonium for North Korea to make five or six more nuclear weapons, according to experts.

North Korea has claimed before that it has completed reprocessing its pool of 8,000 spent rods, but Thursday's statement clarified for the first time that it was using plutonium yielded from the rods to make nuclear weapons.

U.S. and South Korean officials have been skeptical about the claims that the rods have been reprocessed.

The bombs also could mean that the Stalinist regime might part with one bomb, either in a test or by selling it, although a senior official and the main communist newspaper Rodong Sinmun said North Korea has pledged not to export its nuclear capability.

Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon said the North is expanding its "nuclear deterrence" but wouldn't say how many weapons it has, China's official Xinhua News Agency reported Thursday.

"We (have) no intention of transferring any means of that nuclear deterrence to other countries," Choe was quoted as telling reporters in New York, where he was attending the U.N. General Assembly.

North Korea also said Thursday that when necessary, it will reprocess more spent fuel rods to be produced from the small reactor in its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon, 50 miles north of Pyongyang.

North Korea says it has restarted its frozen 5-megawatt reactor at Yongbyon after kicking out U.N. nuclear inspectors and quitting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in January. Experts say it would take a year of operation before the reactor can produce enough to make a new weapon.

North Korea tends to escalate its harsh rhetoric in attempts analysts say are aimed at extracting concessions in crucial negotiations.

Last month, several U.S. government officials told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity that intelligence analysts are debating the extent of North Korea's nuclear capability.

Among the issues is whether the North Koreans have refined their nuclear weapon designs so they are able to use less plutonium to make a working weapon. Some analysts presume the North Koreans have made steady advances and thus are able to use their existing stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium more efficiently, the officials said.

However, the CIA as an agency has not reached that conclusion. It is sticking with its unclassified estimate of one or two weapons, the officials said. Other U.S. estimates put the number at three or four; still others are floating five or six weapons as a possibility.

The United States and its allies are trying to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear programs. North Korea says it will do so only if the United States signs a nonaggression treaty, provides economic aid and opens diplomatic ties.

The nuclear dispute flared last October when U.S. officials said North Korea admitted running a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of international agreements.

The United States and its allies suspended oil shipments to the North. North Korea in turn expelled U.N. nuclear inspectors, withdrew from the global nuclear arms-control treaty and said it was reactivating its main nuclear complex, frozen since 1994.

The United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia met in Beijing in August to try to defuse the crisis. The meeting ended without agreement on when to hold the next round, as Washington and Pyongyang differed widely over how to resolve the dispute.

North Korea has since said it was no longer interested in further talks.

South Korea (news - web sites) Vice Unification Minister Cho Kun-shik suggested North Korea's move was a "tactic to boost its negotiating power" when the talks resume.
 
Told you a while back that they are going to go further with this, and a NUKE WAR on the way! I am not sure if I believe in all those predictions these people claim that I have in these books and magazines, but, N. Korea was in one of them, and a Holy War with Nukes was in the future. Damn nukes is what's going to bring this world to it's knees and end it. Everyone says it's just North Korea looking to be heard, to go this far, I don't think so, they have more on their minds.
 
Wait a second here ppl, remember North Korea was never the threat, it was always Iraq. Of course we could always solve the solution in north korea diplomatically, but we just had to invade Iraq, i mean he could have had weapons of mass destruction as opposed to North Korea who plans to test their weapons. Obviously this makes North Korea less of a threat.

HINT: i was being sarcastic!!
 
Man of 1951..We'd all be toothless from radioactivity if you ran the show....You remind me more of the man on the moon....No offense..but you are so wrong on alot of the issues here....
 
Originally posted by Creek
Man of 1951..We'd all be toothless from radioactivity if you ran the show....You remind me more of the man on the moon....No offense..but you are so wrong on alot of the issues here....

Toothless from radioactivity! LOL

(I agree, Creek)
 
Nope..N.Korea is no threat to American lives...just their own people..and nations now in range of their dirty nukes...No threat at all...Ever think about the world having a tad of security?..If we just worried about our territory man 0f 1951...we'd of been swallowed long ago...

I hate death,war..and the loss of life...I can't even watch the news anymore dude..The world is full of people with hearts cold as ice...if we took a J.W approach..man..we'd all be screwed....I'm glad some Americans got the guts...and thank God for it....
 
the thing is, when you're dealing with nuclear power, it doesn't matter, the world is threatened. Nukes are powerful, it doesn't matter where they are dropped their effects are wide spread. North Korea is a much bigger threat than Iraq. Firstly the chief weapons inspector was saying war was not necessary, they are effectively disarming iraq, he clearly said it wouldn't take years nor weeks, but months. Secondly, with this in mind, and the lack of finding proof that saddam had WMD which was what was proclaimed, seems to prove that Iraq hadn't been much of threat at all.
North Korea is much more of a threat, they have nuclear weapons and i would say would be willing to trade off some nukes to a couple of al qaeda ppl in exchange for some money. I think they need the money more than the nukes. So from this perspective, north korea IS more of a threat.

And please prove me otherwise on the so many issues that i'm apparently wrong.
 
Originally posted by Man of 1951
the thing is, when you're dealing with nuclear power, it doesn't matter, the world is threatened. Nukes are powerful, it doesn't matter where they are dropped their effects are wide spread. North Korea is a much bigger threat than Iraq. Firstly the chief weapons inspector was saying war was not necessary, they are effectively disarming iraq, he clearly said it wouldn't take years nor weeks, but months. Secondly, with this in mind, and the lack of finding proof that saddam had WMD which was what was proclaimed, seems to prove that Iraq hadn't been much of threat at all.
North Korea is much more of a threat, they have nuclear weapons and i would say would be willing to trade off some nukes to a couple of al qaeda ppl in exchange for some money. I think they need the money more than the nukes. So from this perspective, north korea IS more of a threat.

And please prove me otherwise on the so many issues that i'm apparently wrong.

NK is not currently slaughtering its own people. NK is not harboring terrorists or keeping camps to train terrorists. NK was not given 12 years to abide by UN resolutions.

You say they'd be willing to trade nukes with Qaeda, do you have any proof of this? And if it does ever happen, surely you'll see swift action taken.

You're running in circles looking for anything you can to bash America, and quite frankly, you're starting to look a bit foolish. First you'll argue that we shouldn't "interfere" with other countries, then you'll argue how we didn't do enough to stop a potential threat.

How about while we are busy taking care of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Canadians take care of the issue with North Korea? Oh, you say Kim Jong will laugh at you? LOL
 
Ah, the hell with NK! words words, it's all they want is to be heard.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
NK is not currently slaughtering its own people. NK is not harboring terrorists or keeping camps to train terrorists. NK was not given 12 years to abide by UN resolutions.

You say they'd be willing to trade nukes with Qaeda, do you have any proof of this? And if it does ever happen, surely you'll see swift action taken.

You're running in circles looking for anything you can to bash America, and quite frankly, you're starting to look a bit foolish. First you'll argue that we shouldn't "interfere" with other countries, then you'll argue how we didn't do enough to stop a potential threat.

How about while we are busy taking care of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Canadians take care of the issue with North Korea? Oh, you say Kim Jong will laugh at you? LOL

Seriously Jim, you really need to get your definitions straight in this thread and some of your other threads aswell:

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Now is that clear??
Now you say NK isn't doing anything like harbouring terrorists or training terrorist. But you don't seem to know what a terrorist is or what terrorism is. You seem to define terrorism as something that non sovereign, or something that only Al Qaeda would do. You need to understand what terrorism is.
NK has threatened to test their nuclear weapons. Now is that not a threatened use of force and violence by a organized group against ppl with the intention of intimidating them for political reasons?? No? Please explain how this is not the case.

You say they'd be willing to trade nukes with Qaeda, do you have any proof of this? And if it does ever happen, surely you'll see swift action taken.
I never said this as fact, simply a possibility. And actually if Al Qadea does aquire nukes, you'll see how quickly the US will stop action against them. As powerful as the US is, they are afraid of ppl who get nukes and will surely back down if Al Qaeda aquires these nukes.

You're running in circles looking for anything you can to bash America, and quite frankly, you're starting to look a bit foolish. First you'll argue that we shouldn't "interfere" with other countries, then you'll argue how we didn't do enough to stop a potential threat.
Actually what i was trying to say was that the US government says that they went to eliminate the huge threat of the world, Iraq. They say their reason was because he is a great threat who is trying to or has nuclear/chemical weapons. But with NK even though he has declared openly that they have nukes, hes not as big of a threat? I'm questioning the reasons for going into Iraq. They say it was because he was a threat, but NK is even more of a threat. So what I'm saying is that they went into Iraq simply for more power in the middle east, and more control over the oil of the country with the second largest amounts of oil. Dont you find that interesting?
 
I won't dispute your definition, but the definition I have is:

"the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments"

I don't see the violence coming from North Korea, yet. I do agree with you that their threats to use nuclear weapons fit the bill. The differences between Iraq and NK are overwhelming. North Korea's people aren't dire need of assistance from it's leader using weapons on them. North Korea isn't harboring terrorists that could have been involved in 9/11. How long has it been that we have been in talks with them? How long were we in talks with Iraq before going to War 6 months ago?

Something will need to be done, and lets all hope it's a peaceful resolution. Personally, I think we'll end up giving them assistance with their issues as long as it comes with a guarantee to disarm. If not, heavy sanctions will be imposed and we'll have another standoff. Either way, they aren't being ignored as a threat.

I also disagree that the US will back down to Al Qaeda for any reason at all. Nuclear weapon threats from Al Qaeda will only bring more of the world on our side and strengthen the initiative.

Good post, except for the mention of oil, again! Answer me this, why didn't the USA just take control of the oil in 1991 when many more people were on our side? If all we wanted was their oil, why did we give them so many chances and so much time to come clean?
 
Both you dumbasse's should talk to the other dumbass from Rutger's College! It's not about the oil, it's about the new water resevoir that Hussein so call has - me, I never heard anything about it, and no, I have no links either! I heard this when we first went to War about the water! hahahah! true though, I heard it 2 times already, so it's not about oil, it's WATER!
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
Answer me this, why didn't the USA just take control of the oil in 1991 when many more people were on our side? If all we wanted was their oil, why did we give them so many chances and so much time to come clean?

Why is it people tend to disappear when asked this question?

It's simply not a credible accusation and nobody can ever back it up with solid facts.
 
Answer me this, why didn't the USA just take control of the oil in 1991 when many more people were on our side? If all we wanted was their oil, why did we give them so many chances and so much time to come clean?
Thats a good point. Perhaps it is because they had recently become friends with Saudi Arabia, which has even more oil than what Iraq has. So maybe they didn't need Iraq's oil. But now, with the growing resentment towards Saudi Arabia because of the numerous Saudis in the sept. 11 attacks, maybe they need a new place to get oil before they start attacking Saudi arabia for their terrorist activities. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory but it sounds logical to me.
Also, considering the numerous amounts of evidence towards the US leading a war for oil in iraq (haliburtons contract, and the priority of the oil, considering the oil wells were far better protected than museums, hospitals and other places early in the war). And if it was a war to just take out a big threat, wouldn't North Korea be a bigger threat? Wouldn't they want to take out the biggest threat and then take the next biggest threat and so on and so forth? With this idea, North Korea should have been first. Oh wait, North Korea doesn't have the second most oil reserves. I'm just saying its interesting how they went to take out the biggest threat, when the truth was they left the biggest threat to continue threatening because they didn't have economic interests in the region as they do in Iraqi region.
 
Hi. I am new to this site and I hope you don't mind me piping in.

The North Korean issue is much more delicate. Seoul is within easy striking distance of the border and artillery can hit Seoul without ever having to cross the DMZ. Therefore, the North must be handled cautiously. Otherwise, all hell could break loose and millions of South and North Koreans will die in the blink of an eye.

I do agree with you about the oil situation in a sense. I keep hearing people say we should cut off the Saudis, etc. However, if we do that, where are we going to get the oil that we MUST have to survive? We have lots of oil in our own country, but the politicos will not let us drill for it. Therefore, what option do we have as a nation but to protect our supply?

In a sense, you could make the argument that the liberals consider the lives of the Alaskan Caribou more than they do the lives of OUR American soldiers dieing in Iraq.

My take on the entire situation is this:

During the 80's and 90's we appeased the Islamists throughout the world. Actually, we have been appeasing them since the end of the first world war. In any event... we have been allowing the Islamists to get away with terrorists attacks for many, many years. We have been letting them get away with it for so long, they decided to do 9-11. Hell, they figured we would just try to prosecute like Clinton did instead of saying, hey,"F" it, you want a fight, you've got one.

By fighting in Iraq and Afganistan, we don't have to fight them here. We had to draw the terrorists into a fight and where else but Iraq? Doing so kills two birds with one stone: It provides us with oil since the liberals won't let us drill here in the USA and it draws the terrorists into a theater where we can engage them while keeping the exposure to innocent AMERICANS minimal. Therefore, we should be thankful to our soldiers for fighting this fight for us and far from our shores thereby keeping our families safe. I guess there could be a third bird too, but I do not have much hope. The third bird is democracy. If we can establish democracy in Iraq, then perhaps democracy will take an ernest foothold in the region and spread like a welcomed disease. Welcomed to the sain and reasonable but a disease to the Islamasists that want to control the region and the world through religious domination. Don't kid yourself, these folks are scary.

Anyway, you may feel that I am digressing from the topic of this thread. In a way I am, but now I will tie North Korea into all this.

I was in the Army during the first Gulf War with the 24th Infantry Division under General Barry McCaffrey (they guy you often see on MSNBC). We were the hail marry that went into Iraq. During our route, we captured many, many weapons that came from North Korea. Almost all of the anti-aircraft guns and many ground-to-air missiles captured came from there. Furthermore, it is known that the North has been providing missile technology to Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. in exchange for hard currency and nuclear technology. That is why North Korea was thrown into the "Axis of Evil". In my opinion, Pakistan should have been included too as Musharraf really is not in much control there.

Ok, I am digressing a bit...

Anyway, back to the topic at hand... North Korea does want nukes and they will continue to try and develop them. The following link is to an excellent article on the subject. I do not know if this link or the article itself has been posted anywhere on here yet, but it is good reading.

A word of warning though.... No matter which side of the political spectrum you stand - liberal or conservative - you are going to find in the article that both sides are at fault in regards to this issue. If there is one hero, in the eyes of many of the North Korean watchers and the North Koreans (okay, not a hero to them, but respected by them - which says a lot since Koreans do not generally like to respect wae-gook sa-ram (foreigners) it is.... ta-da, believe it or not, George Herbert Walker Bush. That's right, Bush-41.

The article is obviously written by somebody that is either extremely unbiased or, perhaps, even leaning a little towards the support of North Korea. However, if one is intellectually honest with themself, they will see that this article probably hits the nail right on the head....

http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1717.html

Please let me know what you think. I have a lot of opinions I am dieing so share with those interested in engaging in spirited but intellectually honest debate!

Regards and I look forward to participating in the discussions.

FREEANDFUN1
 

Forum List

Back
Top