OT: North Korea has nukes

[Skins24]

(sure are alot of OTs)


Well well well
Maybe people really should listen to the U.S.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Oct16.html

U.S. Source: N. Korea Says Has Nukes


By George Gedda
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, October 16, 2002; 7:55 PM

WASHINGTON –– North Korea has told the United States it has a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of an agreement signed with the Clinton administration, a senior administration official said Wednesday night.

North Korea also told U.S. diplomats it no longer beholden to the anti-nuclear agreement, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The disclosure, which stunned senior administration officials, is certain to chill U.S.-North Korean relations. President Bush had labeled the country part of the "axis of evil" – along with Iraq and Iran – but hopes were raised that the reclusive nation wanted to build international ties when Bush sent Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly to Pyongyang for security talks.

Kelly visited North Korea on Oct. 3-5 and demanded that the communist state address global concerns about its nuclear and other weapons programs.

In response, the Pyongyang government accused Bush's special envoy of making "threatening remarks." The United States refused all comment on the discussions,

Under a 1994 agreement with the United States, North Korea promised to give up its nuclear weapons program, and it promised to allow inspections to verify that it did not have the material needed to construct such weapons.

But it has yet to allow the inspections, drawing criticism from the Bush administration.

The source said Kelly also raised with North Korea evidence that North Korea may have a uranimum-enrichment program. The program, which the United States believes would only be used to develop a nuclear bomb, began under the Clinton administration, according to the official.

Surprisingly, North Korea confirmed the allegation.

The administration has not decided how to respond. "We're going to keep talking," the official said.

After months of tension with South Korea, the North resumed high-level talks in August that restarted stalled reconciliation efforts on the Korean peninsula – divided by the most heavily armed border in the world.

The Koreas were divided after World War II and remained that way at the end of the inconclusive Korean War from 1950-53. About 37,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea as a deterrent against the North

[Riggo-toni]

Next to get the bomb will be Iran. Seriously! Count on it.

[Art]

I've been leaving the Sniper stuff on the main page because of how close to home that is for everyone. While this is an important issue too, I think it's best discussed here.

[indyskinsfan]

For years, the U. S. warned of this and even when Pakistan was using spies and smuggling in our country for the components for nuclear capabilities, North Korea was in the hunt. It mattered not that half their humanity at the time was dying from starvation (soon to take the whole nation), because they kept at it. Now I ask you.

If they are willing to TELL that they in fact are packing, isn't it clear, they are already ready to launch?

They (N. Korea) wouldn't say a word without having leverage. We only hear what DOD and the State Dept. wants us to hear.

This is another low in human history!

[Yomar]

it seems almost inevitable that sometime in the not too distant future, although maybe not in my lifetime, more countries will have nuclear capability than will not. pandora's box was opened a long time ago, God help us all.

[fansince62]

thank god the clintonistas were in place to secure america's future!!!! what a great deal they negotiated!

[gbear]

And what would you have done Fan since 62? What would you have done differently and how would it have changed things?

I know I know everything that happened that went bad in the world during Clintons term is his fault. Never mind that the program, discovered in 1994 probably didn't happen overnight. But of course it couldn't have been during papa Bush's tenure? Nah...all tha is right in foreign policy comes from Republicans. All that is wrong is from Clinton. That is an incredible naive approach.

Funny thing, outside the U.S., Clinton is looked at as the ultimate foreign policy president and Bush is looked at as a blundering fool. I'm not saying they are right. Lord knows Clinton did somethings I hated, but enough with the blaim everything on Clinton game. I've read your posts, and I generally find them more indepth than that superfiscial Clinton stuff.

[fansince62]

well...since you asked........

- i have actually been in that part of the world......unlike you probably

1) of course the rest of the world prefered the clinton team: american security was a second priority with these folks. you think there is some outside chance that americans are targets around the globe today because of conditions established over the past 10 years? far as I can tell, the strategy for dealing with terrorists was to lob a few tlams and then return to business as usual.

the burden is on you to establish what clinton did to stem the tide of terrorism. what did he do to improve security? what lasting testament is there to his brilliant orchestration of american foreign policy? did his policies succeed in stemming the course of NK militarism into more democratic avenues?

2) the duty response isn't always "Clinton is responsible". however, his foreign policy performance was mediocre at best. his "policy" was ambiguous. but, while on the subject. no matter how you cut it....the man lied to a grand jury. you might rationalize it away as driven by politics and questionable attacks. i don't particularly care. if your ethics are so situationally dependent then that kinda opens the door for everyone, now doesn't it?

3) it was his team that negotiated the treaty with NK. obviously, the inefficacy of the monitoring/enforcement mechanisms in NK should give one pause to think about similar strategies being proposed elsewhere. i never really heard clinton, in betwen laughing at funeral services for american sailors, state "trust but verify".

4) there are other, mostly traditional options
- encourage the ties to SK
- beam unfiltered information into the country
- economically isolate NK
- pressure their suppliers if they are nation states
- if the suppliers are drug or terrorist oriented, find them and kill them
- encourage internal resistance
- enforce the *amn treaties you sign
- isolate them internationally
- agree to treaties that have specific language/consequences for handlng violations

how about build foreign policy teams that don't equivocate over the moral stature of democracy generally, and the international roles/responsibilities of the US specificly?

[Sarge]

Another pile of clinton sh1t that's leaking out form under the closet door into the daylight. And now liberals want to know what President Bush is going to do about it. I wonder how many more ingenious clinton plans are going to come home to roost?

[Tarhog]

I'll tell you, this is a very complex problem. When I was an Infantry Officer in that part of the world, I got some very scary N.K. briefings. There is no clear approach to containing them as there is with Iraq. You've got to worry about their large conventional forces rolling into S. Korea if you act. You've got to worry about the Chinese getting in the mix if you act. But I just don't see us allowing a menacing regime like N. Korea's developing a nuclear stockpile. Maybe Pandora's box is open, but I think sometime, somewhere the US is going to have to roll back the clock. I am betting the US is putting max pressure on our Asian players (namely China) to either take care of the problem, or we'll take care of it for them. I think ultimately the US is either going to have to commit itself to TAKING OUT militarily any future nuclear facilities (I think we should have done so with India and Pakistan) before they are operational, or we are going to have to develop a new doctrine ('You use a nuke on your enemy, and you become the US's enemy' or something along those lines). I also think we need to start making it clear to every country in the world that they'll not receive a CENT of assistance from the US if their government or private corporations within their borders are caught dealing advanced nuclear technology to other nations). The true future dilemma is 20 years down the road when States not only have nukes, but have ICBM's capable of delivering them worldwide. Then we will rue the day we lacked the backbone to address this problem. I'd love to hear the peacenik solution for this scenario? This whole revelation clearly demonstrates the limited value of diplomacy when you are dealing with States/Govt's that have no integrity. Not only did we allow this to happen, we helped pay for it! Scary stuff!

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Originally posted by riggo-toni
Next to get the bomb will be Iran. Seriously! Count on it.

Thanks to Russia, they are well on their way. However, don't think for a second that Sharon (or any other Israeli PM for that matter) will stand by and let reactor come on line. Israel has the balls, brains and weapons - it's not happening. And there isn't a f'in thing they can do about it. The Russians, you wonder? Hah - they could give a shi* - they have their ca$h.