North Korea and the Bomb

By the way, if I'm not mistaken it's Kim Yung Il's (spelling?) birthday next wednesday. I'll bet we're gonna see a good old military parade. He deserves it, you know. He was born on a holy mountain.
 
Really? Is he into Korean Shamanism?

Oh and looks like the North Koreans are into bragging-

N. Korea Boasts About Nukes, Nixes Talks

59 minutes ago World - AP Asia

By SANG-HUN CHOE, Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea (news - web sites) boasted publicly for the first time Thursday that it has nuclear weapons and said it will stay away from disarmament talks, dramatically raising the stakes in the 2-year-old dispute. The Bush administration called on Pyongyang to give up its atomic aspirations so life can be better for its impoverished people.

North Korea's harshly worded pronouncement posed a grave challenge to President Bush (news - web sites), who started his second term with a vow to end North Korea's nuclear program through six-nation disarmament talks.

"We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's ever-more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North)," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. The agency's report used the word "nukes" in its English-language dispatch.

Previously, U.S. negotiators said North Korean officials claimed in private talks that they had nuclear weapons and might test one. The North's U.N. envoy also said last year the country had "weaponized" plutonium from its pool of 8,000 nuclear spent fuel rods.

But Thursday's statement was the first claim directly from North Korea's state media that it has a nuclear weapon, confirming the widely held beliefs of international experts that the country has one or two atomic bombs. North Korea is not known to have performed any nuclear tests, and it kicked out U.N. inspectors in 2002, so there is no way to verify its claims.

The United States and South Korea (news - web sites), the North's main rivals, played down the revelation and urged the North to return to the six-nation talks that began in 2003 and also include China, Japan and Russia. Analysts suggested the move by North Korea may be a negotiating tactic aimed at getting more compensation in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons program.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said North Korea should return to negotiations.

"The world has given them a way out and we hope they will take that way out," she said, wrapping up a trip to Europe. "The North Koreans have been told by the president of the United States that the United States has no intention of attacking or invading North Korea.

"The message is clear: give up these aspirations for nuclear weapons and you know life can be different," Rice said, adding that it was the same message Libya understood in renouncing its nuclear ambitions.

In a clear overture to North Korea to help foster the nuclear talks, Bush refrained from direct criticism of the country in last week's State of the Union address. He mentioned the North only in a single sentence, saying Washington was "working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions."

Bush previously branded the North part of an "axis of evil" along with Iran and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s Iraq (news - web sites).

Still, Pyongyang on Thursday seized on comments by Rice last month in which she labeled North Korea as one of the "outposts of tyranny" in the world.

"The U.S. disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in (North Korea) at any cost, threatening it with a nuclear stick," North Korea's Foreign Ministry said. "This compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by the people in (North Korea)."

The statement said the Bush administration was trying to "mislead" the world in calling for resuming the six-party talks while also seeking "regime change" in North Korea.

"This is nothing but a far-fetched logic of gangsters as it is a good example fully revealing the wicked nature and brazen-faced double-dealing tactics of the U.S. as a master hand at plot-breeding and deception," the statement said.

South Korea urged its neighbor to rejoin the talks, and said it maintains its previously stated estimate that North Korea has enough plutonium to build one or two nuclear bombs.

"We once again urge North Korea to rejoin the six-party talks without conditions so that it can discuss whatever differences it has with the United States and other participants," said South Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman Lee Kyu-hyung.

Both Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan played down any significance of North Korea's announcement that it has nuclear weapons, saying it was "rhetoric" that has been heard before.

"We remain committed to a peaceful diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue with regards to North Korea," McClellan said aboard Air Force One en route to North Carolina. "It's time to talk about how to move forward."

Washington now must rely on its allies with more direct influence over the North — China and South Korea — to entice North Korea to negotiate.

"The question now is whether Washington is able to persuade and cajole Seoul and Beijing to bribe and pressure North Korea to resume the six-party talks," said Gary Samore of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. "The U.S. has absolutely no influence, except through other countries."

Last week, Michael Green, the U.S. National Security Council's senior director for Asian affairs, traveled to the region to relay Bush's desire to restart the diplomatic process to the leaders of China, South Korea and Japan.

North Korea did leave an opening to return to the table, saying it would stay away until "we have recognized that there is justification for us to attend the talks and there are ample conditions and atmosphere to expect positive results." North Korea's economy has been ravished by famine and natural disasters, and it relies on outside aid to feed its people.

"Even if threats and declarations are made, it's in every party's interest to have negotiations," said Peter Beck, Seoul-based director of the North East Asia project for the International Crisis Group think tank. "Certainly this is a dark day for the negotiating process, but I don't think all is lost."

The nuclear crisis began in 2002 when U.S. officials accused North Korea of running a secret uranium-enrichment program in violation of international treaties. Washington and its allies cut off free fuel oil shipments for the impoverished country under a 1994 deal with the United States made under the condition that North Korea halt nuclear weapons development.

North Korea retaliated by quitting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in early 2003 and restarting its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program, which had been frozen under the 1994 agreement.

The CIA (news - web sites) has estimated that with a highly enriched uranium weapons program and the use of sophisticated high-speed centrifuges, North Korea could be making more. Some analysts and observers have put the estimate at six to eight.
Click to expand...

Lil' Kim is a nut.
 
welsh said:
If they have SLBMs, bought from the russkies- that could be a problem.
Click to expand...

Well, the DRPK's submarine force is primarily made up of Whiskeys and Romero's(old Russian subs from the 50's) so the threat of a SLBM attack is next to impossible(the Russians did manage to produce a few diesel powered SSBN's in the 60's/late 50's, but they had to be surfaced to fire their missiles and they were very noisy).
 
Be curious if the North Koreans are thinking of buying a russian SLBM.

China has a couple but not many. Actually, from what I recollect, China's nuclear arsenal is mostly a mobile deterrent. They have never tried arms racing with the US.
 
welsh said:
Be curious if the North Koreans are thinking of buying a russian SLBM.

China has a couple but not many. Actually, from what I recollect, China's nuclear arsenal is mostly a mobile deterrent. They have never tried arms racing with the US.
Click to expand...

Why should they? How many nuclear weapons do you need to keep the US from attacking?
 
more than a few.......its hard to use nukes against troops when they are on your terf........unless you just go along with the "im a dead man, but your comming with me" idea and Kim is crasy enought to.......so i dont know how many nukes it would take........
 
bob_the_rambler said:
more than a few.......its hard to use nukes against troops when they are on your terf........unless you just go along with the "im a dead man, but your comming with me" idea and Kim is crasy enought to.......so i dont know how many nukes it would take........
Click to expand...

Well, let me help you, then. I find it very difficult to believe htat the US would ever declare war on a country that they knew have the bomb. It would kind of remove their "edge".

*edit*

Especially North Korea, which AFAIK has the worlds largest standing army.
 
Anyone consider that North Korea may be using the threat of possessing nuclear weapons and their refusing, agreeing to, and then pulling out of the talks as a way to weasel more economic help etc.. out of the US?

Just a thought, i believe their economy is fairly poor is it not? In a situation where a country has a poor economy i wouldn't be surprised if such a tactic was used.

ratty:
On a brighter note, at least we will no longer need to roleplay Fallout.
Click to expand...

And no waiting on Fallout 3 either!

Woo-hoo!!! "Grabs gauss rifle and power armor"
 
What fucking nutcases. I wonder if anybody would miss North Korea if US nuked the shit out of them? I understand how invasion of Iraq made many countries upset (those illegal oil contracts were quite lucrative for France and Germany), but North Korea contributes to this world in no way whatsoever, yet has the audacity to flex its muscles and demand foreign aid. If that country was a man, he would getting crap kicked out of him as we speak.
 
I agree Ratty. The country has absolutely no crediability when it comes to negotiations or promises. How can you trust it?

I just feel bad for all those brainwashed North Koreans.

That said, it is interesting watching them just to learn what political and diplomatic power comes with nuclear weapons, or just the threat of nuclear weapons. Really, dance puppits,dance!
 
Well if N. Korea does find a way to get it over here, I hope that the fucking bomb is centered over that Jamster Happy plan ringtones HQ. :twisted:
 
From what i've heard, Bush has been trying to develop a bunkerbusting tactical nuke for those hard to hit North korean underground tunnels. They've been working on the catacombs since the end of the korean war. Anyways..the way i see any strike on North korea is that it's pointless, if we even try to make a strike on anything in N Korea the following will happen..

1.) United States makes a tactical missile strike in attempt to take down the nuclear threat. which succeeds in destroying most of the nukes except for one.(it only takes one)
2.) N. Korea, viewing this as an declaration of war, lobs a nuke at Seoul, killing a decent amount of american troops(we have over 10,000 there currently) and wiping out almost all S. Koreans. The prevailing winds push north and infect the N. Koreans with fallout.
3.) United States in response to N. Korea's immoral attack, responds with launching their nukes at N. Korea. officially making the pensiuala a deadzone. (severe radiation will make most electronic equipment die on you, not to mention the radcount would be too high for soliders.)
4.) Despite N. Korea's foolishness, China can not ignore the fact that the US wiped out N. Korea. (several million people in that small country so yea.) China is forced to say "You bitch!" and declare war on US in vengance, taking out any remaining american bases in the mainland. With no real landwar front and japan the only one close enough to China, the war has now become a pointless airwar
5.) the war in Iraq already unpopular to most of the world population, the allies would be forced to pull away from the US, the US population themselves would think it's bush's "imperialistic ways, most likely start riots and demand a federal recall.
6.) John Kerry is voted into office in place of George Bush which ensures the allies from ever befriending the US. The world ends somewhere around there.

Basically North korea has us at a pretty tight spot since we can't actively do much for the next couple of years without screwing ourselves over.
 
That's a pretty stupid-ass sequence of fictional events. Mostly because you make the assumtion that we'd respond to a single nuclear strike by using a portion of our own arsenal. Why nuke an entire region when we can bomb it back to the stone age conventionally? It wouldn't be that hard, really, since they're already half way there.

Also, who's to say that the Chinese wouldn't force a regime change? Or that the N. Koreans would nuke Japan?

Seoul is in the most danger of North Korean artillery batteries that have all been aimed at the South Korean capital for decades. If we wanted to try anything along the lines of destroying North Korea's nuclear capabilities, we'd have to wipe out their artillery in one fell swoop. Unfortunately, the only way this would be possible is with tactical nukes.
 
I am not so sure. Rosh posted an interesting article about bunker busting Nukes. Imagine you could take out the command and control of a missile site, maybe taking out some of the nukes as well. Better yet, because you have smoked out the site with a nuke, even those missiles not destroyed might be rendered unusuable. Plus, because the nuke might go off underground- the 'collateral' damage might be contained.

You are assuming that the Chinese would jump in, but there is good reason why the Chinese might take a different approach. The Soviets used to have very strong commitments to North Korea as well, but I am not sure what the status of those relationships are and whether the Soviets would honor them.

Assuming the worst, if the US were to go about this paranoid, and the North Koreans hit first, than the US might anticipate a launch from the Chinese. Would the US hit preemptively (and thus attempt to negate the threat to it's own survival) or wait and only launch a counterattack? IF the Chinese gave assurances that it would not intervene, than what?

And would the Chinese intervene- perhaps, to honor it's alliance commitments. But also perhaps not, to ally with an offensive strike might mean putting China back, at least 40 years more behind the rest of the world- assuming the US attacks most of China's cities. I say, at least 40 years but probably longer depending on the devestation of a US strike.

Now let's also assume that the Chinese realize that participating in a war, or backing up North Korea would also mean economic ruin. As soon as they enter, they begin to nationalize assets. As they nationalize assets, the value of foreign investments in China drop as no country can anticipate the value of their property rights. This leads to a currency crisis, and economic depression. Economic depression leads to social upheaval and major problems for the Chinese Communist Party.

So there are pretty good reasons why the CCP might not consider sustaining it's ties.

THe fact that N.Korea is demanding direct negotiations with the US. This might be a move to keep the Chinese out of regional negotiations.
 
What i would like to know is.. if we did strike N. Korea, either preemptively, or in retaliation, and China stepped in against the US, would we have the necessary amount of troops to maintain a war on both of these fronts and still keep the peace in Iraq?

I'm sure any strike we launched would begin with missile attacks but ground troops would have to move in eventually.

If the scenario of a battle with China & North Korea did come about i wonder if the US might bring back the draft. I remember hearing talks of possibly renewing the draft in the war with Iraq but i honestly didn't see that happening then: but to maintain a war on three fronts?
 
Though, if China did go to war with us, what are they going to do with all those plastic army men and calculators?
 
Y'know, when the USA was offered to abandon nuclear warfare along with the rest of the civilised world, they neglected it and decided to keep their weapons for self-defense (a concept not unfamiliar to most red-necked Americans, I'd wager).

Now if the only legitimate claim to possess nuclear weapons is self-defense, how can anyone think bad of North Korea for wanting to have nukes to keep the US from attacking them?

Heck, if I was the leader of a nation that's part of the USA's "Axis of teh EVUL" I know I would want everything that helps keeping them off me.

Unless of course nukes are not for an insurance for peace and are horrible weapons of mass destruction that can only bring death to the world. But if that was the case, nobody in their right mind would want any country to own them -- not even the USA, right?

Honestly, I've got more problems with the thought of the US having WMDs than any "smaller" country having some.
 
I am not so sure about it, but here is an Idea:

The US attacked Iraq because they said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He did not had any, but the US invaded anyways.

If Iraq would actually had any weapon of mass destruction it could be a good bargaining chip, threatening to use it against one of their neighbours if the US attempted to attack.

So, North Korea thinks they are going to invade them because they have been accused to be part of an (hear this) "Axis of Evil" that the US openly stated that wants to eradicate.

North Korea builds the bomb and now has something to defend themselves with against an unprovoked US attack like in Iraq.

Question: Don’t you think that playing cowboy and attacking other countries to institute democracy like it is the Spanish inquisition drives other countries to be a real threat instead of just being accused to be a threat to avoid an invasion from the US?

Just an idea and nothing more than that. I am not defending North Korea or anything.
 
It's currently not profitable to invade North Korea as far as I remember.

Iran on the other hand promises some economical gain. Plus: Its name is almost identical to Iraq's so it has to be evil.

Maybe Bush will claim that he sent his armies into the wrong country because of a typo and it was originally IRAN that had those WMDs.
I mean, everybody can make a mistake like that, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top