N. Korea 'boosts nuclear arsenal'

[BTS]

(CNN) -- North Korea, in a statement identical to one issued two years, says it has finished extracting 8,000 fuel rods from its reactor at Yongbyon, which it shut down a month ago, according to a report on its official news agency.

That step would allow the North Koreans to reprocess the spent fuel into weapons-grade plutonium -- after the rods are cooled, a process that could take two to three months -- but Wednesday's Korean Central News Agency report does not indicate whether they are preparing to do so.

North Korea is "taking necessary measures to bolster its nuclear arsenal for the defensive purpose of coping with the prevailing situation, with a main emphasis on developing the self-reliant nuclear power industry," the report quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying.

The North Koreans have previously claimed to have extracted the rods and reprocessed the fuel into plutonium, accounting for the five to six nuclear weapons the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency believe the country already has.

U.S. officials said that the statement was a re-release of an identical statement made two years ago. The officials ventured no opinion on why the North Koreans would re-release the previous statement.

Asked if the United States believed the North Korean statement, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "North Korea's provocative comments only isolate it further from the rest of the international community. We would hope that North Korea would return to the six-party talks soon."

He repeated the answer when asked a second time.

Nuclear experts say the extracted fuel rods could provide enough plutonium for three to four more.

The country announced in February that it had nuclear weapons, saying it would not take part in another round of six-party disarmament talks because of U.S. hostility towards its government.

China on Wednesday urged restraint from all parties to six-way talks. "We ask all the parties to exercise restraint and we hope that they will do nothing that is detrimental to the resumption of the six-party talks," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told Reuters.

A U.S. Defense Department official said that recent satellite images indicate the North may be preparing for a nuclear weapons test -- a prospect that IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei chief said could open "a Pandora's box" with "disastrous political repercussions." (Full story)

But, he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Sunday, the agency has received no satellite information and "cannot do very much as an international institution right now on this issue other than to express concern."

The same Defense Department official also said that the activity seen on the satellite imagery may be designed to mislead.

North Korea did test a conventional short-range missile, firing it into the Sea of Japan on May 1.

North Korea withdrew from its nuclear agreements in 2002 and restarted Yongbyon, which it had shut down in 1994. It kicked out U.N. inspectors and monitors as well.

"The DPRK had already declared in December 2002 that it would re-operate the above-said plant and resume the construction of two other nuclear plants, one with a capacity of 50,000 kw and the other with a capacity of 200,000 kw which had been frozen according to the DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework -- the keynote of which is the provision of light-water reactors to the DPRK -- because the Bush administration threatened the DPRK with nuclear weapons in violation of the AF," a foreign ministry spokesman told the state news agency.

DPRK is short for the formal name of the country, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

North Korea agreed to six-party talks with the United States, Russia, China, South Korea and Japan, but opted out of those talks in September 2004, citing a 'hostile" U.S. policy toward it.

Then, in February, Pyongyang declared it had nuclear weapons and would continue its boycott of talks indefinitely unless Washington agreed to one-on-one talks. The Bush administration has refused, arguing that the issue affects the entire region and therefore the other parties should be included.

In March, the United States threatened to take the matter to the United Nations Security Council, and in the past two weeks, both sides have traded insults with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il calling President Bush and his advisors "hooligans" and Bush labeling Kim "a tyrant."

CNN's Sohn Jie-ae contributed to this report.

[Scrat]

Why not? The one way to defend yourself against American aggression is to have nuclear weapons, this is what we have proved to the world in the last decade.

It seems we only invade 4th world countries ravaged by war and years of sanctions and the we can't even govern what we conquer.

[BTS]

Originally Posted by Scrat

Why not? The one way to defend yourself against American aggression is to have nuclear weapons, this is what we have proved to the world in the last decade.

It seems we only invade 4rd world countries ravaged by war and years of sanctions and the we can't even govern what we conquer.

So you are saying America has been aggressive towards North Korea....
Bush is damned if he does and damned if he don't.
I believe we have tried to let the Asian countries hash it out with little intervention

I remember Bush getting slammed for not doing more over there a while back?

[Scrat]

This is not only about NK. THIS IS ABOUT THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Americas aggressive stance economically and politically has brought this about. The corrupt regimes we empower such as SK, Israel and Pakistan are allowed to have nuclear weapons why can't their adversaries? If they are not allowed to have them why not take them away?

As for NK why is it any of our business to begin with? The Korean war was 55 years ago. SK whines that they are in danger from the evil communists in NK and expects us to pick up the tab to defend them. Leave and let the 2 countries settle the problem themselves.

I agree that not all of this is Bush's fault, we should have washed our hands of it in 1953.

I am editing this to add that the idiot Bush has only made things worse since he has been in office.

[David813]

Originally Posted by Scrat

This is not only about NK. THIS IS ABOUT THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Americas aggressive stance economically and politically has brought this about. The corrupt regimes we empower such as SK, Israel and Pakistan are allowed to have nuclear weapons why can't their adversaries? If they are not allowed to have them why not take them away?

As for NK why is it any of our business to begin with? The Korean war was 55 years ago. SK whines that they are in danger from the evil communists in NK and expects us to pick up the tab to defend them. Leave and let the 2 countries settle the problem themselves.

I agree that not all of this is Bush's fault, we should have washed our hands of it in 1953.

You're absolutely correct. With terrorist apartheid states like Israel and a rogue superpower like the US, NK has every right to defend itself. BTW their armed forces are 3 times larger than the US and they are philisophically rigid and have modern arms. They could wipe their butts with our chumps in fatigues!

[BTS]

Originally Posted by Scrat

This is not only about NK. THIS IS ABOUT THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Americas aggressive stance economically and politically has brought this about. The corrupt regimes we empower such as SK, Israel and Pakistan are allowed to have nuclear weapons why can't their adversaries? If they are not allowed to have them why not take them away?

As for NK why is it any of our business to begin with? The Korean war was 55 years ago. SK whines that they are in danger from the evil communists in NK and expects us to pick up the tab to defend them. Leave and let the 2 countries settle the problem themselves.

I agree that not all of this is Bush's fault, we should have washed our hands of it in 1953.

I am editing this to add that the idiot Bush has only made things worse since he has been in office.

Here is a more realistic point of view from Jan. 2001-June 2004

Following the inauguration of President George W. Bush in January 2001, the new Administration began a review of North Korea policy. At the conclusion of that review, the Administration announced on June 6, 2001, that it had decided to pursue continued dialogue with North Korea on the full range of issues of concern to the Administration, including North Korea's conventional force posture, missile development and export programs, human rights practices, and humanitarian issues. In 2002, the Administration also became aware that North Korea was developing a uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons purposes.

When U.S.-D.P.R.K. direct dialogue resumed in October 2002, this uranium enrichment program was high on the U.S. agenda. North Korean officials acknowledged to a U.S. delegation, headed by Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James A. Kelly, the existence of the uranium enrichment program. Such a program violated North Korea's obligations under the NPT and its commitments in the 1992 North-South Denuclearization Declaration and the 1994 Agreed Framework. The U.S. side stated that North Korea would have to terminate the program before any further progress could be made in U.S.-D.P.R.K. relations. The U.S. side also made clear that if this program were verifiably eliminated, the U.S. would be prepared to work with North Korea on the development of a fundamentally new relationship. In November 2002, the member countries of KEDO’s Executive Board agreed to suspend heavy fuel oil shipments to North Korea pending a resolution of the nuclear dispute.

In late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea terminated the freeze on its existing plutonium-based nuclear facilities, expelled IAEA inspectors and removed seals and monitoring equipment, quit the NPT, and resumed reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for weapons purposes. North Korea subsequently announced that it was taking these steps to provide itself with a deterrent force in the face of U.S. threats and the U.S.'s "hostile policy." Beginning in mid-2003, the North repeatedly claimed to have completed reprocessing of the spent fuel rods previously frozen at Yongbyon and later publicly said that the resulting fissile material would be used to bolster its "nuclear deterrent force." There is no independent confirmation of North Korea's claims.

President Bush has made clear that the U.S. has no intention to invade North Korea. He has also stressed that the U.S. seeks a peaceful end to North Korea's nuclear program in cooperation with North Korea's neighbors, who are most concerned with the threat to regional stability and security it poses. The U.S. goal is the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. North Korea's neighbors have joined the United States in supporting a nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula.

Beginning in early 2003, the United States proposed multilateral talks among the most concerned parties aimed at reaching a settlement through diplomatic means. North Korea initially opposed such a process, maintaining that the nuclear dispute was purely a bilateral matter between the United States and the D.P.R.K. However, under pressure from its neighbors and with the active involvement of China, North Korea agreed to three-party talks with China and the U.S. in Beijing in April 2003 and to six-party talks with the U.S., China, South Korea, Japan and Russia in August 2003, also in Beijing. During the August 2003 round of six-party talks, North Korea agreed to the eventual elimination of its nuclear programs if the United States were first willing to sign a bilateral "non-aggression treaty" and meet various other conditions, including the provision of substantial amounts of aid and normalization of relations. The North Korean proposal was unacceptable to the United States, which insisted on a multilateral resolution to the issue, and refused to provide benefits or incentives for North Korea to abide by its previous international obligations. In October 2003, President Bush said he would be willing to consider a multilateral written security guarantee in the context of North Korea's complete, verifiable, and irreversible elimination of its nuclear weapons program.

China hosted a second round of six-party talks in Beijing in February 2004. The United States saw the results as positive, including the announced intention to hold a third round by the end of June, a willingness of all parties to form a working group to keep the process going between plenary sessions and an acceptance by China, Japan, Russia and the R.O.K. of the United States position that the central objective of the process was the complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement (CVID) of the North’s nuclear programs.

A third round of talks occurred in June 2004, with all participants agreeing in principle to meet again before the end of September. The U.S. is presently working with its partners to urge the DPRK to adhere to this agreement.

[BTS]

Originally Posted by David813

BTW their armed forces are 3 times larger than the US and they are philisophically rigid and have modern arms. They could wipe their butts with our chumps in fatigues!

Are you sure David?
DEFENSE AND MILITARY ISSUES
North Korea now has the fourth-largest army in the world. It has an estimated 1.2 million armed personnel, compared to about 650,000 in the South. Military spending equals 20%-25% of GNP, with about 20% of men ages 17-54 in the regular armed forces. North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (approximately 2 or 3 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers.

The North has perhaps the world's second-largest special operations force, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime. While the North has a relatively impressive fleet of submarines, its surface fleet has a very limited capability. Its air force has twice the number of aircraft as the South, but, except for a few advanced fighters, the North's air force is obsolete.

[john8pies]

Very dangerous situation. Especially for South Korea

[Scrat]

A Most Dangerous Message
By Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian UK

Wednesday 13 April 2005

Contradictory US and British nuclear proliferation policies will lead other states to conclude that nuclear weapons earn respect and deter attack.
A few days before the general election, an international conference will confront one of the most pressing issues facing the planet. Its outcome will help determine the future security of states around the world, including Britain. It is a safe bet it won't get a mention during the election campaign.

The issue is nuclear weapons. On May 2, representatives of 189 countries will gather in New York to discuss how to stop them spreading further. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) review conference comes at time when Iran is widely suspected of trying to acquire nuclear weapons, North Korea says it has nuclear weapons, western governments are warning about the threat of nuclear terrorism and the US administration is toying with the idea of building a new generation of "usable" mini-nukes.

Britain too has a particular responsibility. Last year the government renewed, with no debate, the US-UK mutual defence agreement first negotiated in 1958 and regarded in Whitehall as a cornerstone of the special relationship.

George Bush said the agreement helped Britain maintain a "credible nuclear force", giving weight to the argument put by the British American Security Information Council, an independent thinktank, that it is an "open-ended arrangement for two named states to 'disseminate' information, technology and materials in their pursuit of more sophisticated nuclear weaponry". Yet the purpose of the NPT, it points out, is "the pre vention of the wider dissemination of nuclear weapons". It also commits its signatories to work in good faith towards nuclear disarmament.

Yet what is happening? The US is developing new nuclear warheads that don't need testing and can be stored much longer than existing ones. The Bush administration is not discouraging US nuclear scientists from asking Congress for money to develop a relatively low-yield bomb designed to attack underground bunkers - hiding places, in its view, for terrorists or the arsenals of "rogue states".

Sophisticated equipment, including what is said to be the world's most powerful laser, is being installed at the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston as part of a ё2bn scheme that will enable Britain, with US help, to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads, though the Ministry of Defence says there are no existing plans to do so. The technology will enable Britain to get around obligations imposed by the comprehensive test ban treaty.

The government turns on its head the logic of the NPT. Britain cannot disarm, it suggests, precisely because such weapons will inevitably spread. As the MoD put it in its December 2003 defence white paper, the "continuing risk from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the certainty that a number of other countries will retain substantial nuclear arsenals, mean that our minimum nuclear deterrent capability, currently represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element of our security".

A decision on whether, or how, to replace Trident will have to be taken in the next parliament. Sir Alan West, the first sea lord, recently told the Commons defence committee: "There has got to be a decision made, an absolutely political decision: do we want to keep nuclear weapons?"

Both the US and Britain are muddying the waters in ways that will scarcely make non-nuclear states feel more secure. The US has weakened the concept of "negative security assurances" - whereby nuclear states would not threaten or attack non-nuclear states with such weapons - by suggesting that it might use them in response to a biological or chemical attack, or even in other circumstances.

Britain's defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, told MPs earlier this month that the government "would be prepared to use nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence". He continued: "A policy of no first use of nuclear weapons would be incompatible with our and Nato's doctrine of deterrence, nor would it further nuclear disarmament objectives... Our overall strategy is to ensure uncertainty in the mind of any aggressor about the exact nature of our response, and thus to maintain effective deterrence."

Does that really amount to effective deterrence? Whitehall officials sometimes give the impression that the main reason no British government would give up nuclear weapons is because it would leave France as the only European nuclear power. In other words it is simply a matter of prestige and national pride.

The Bush administration has suggested that the "13 steps" agreed at the last NPT review conference in 2000 is simply a "historical document". The steps included a commitment to arms control, lowering the nuclear threshold and reaffirming "the ultimate objective of complete nuclear disarmament".

While freeing the US from any commitment, Bush wants other countries to make ever more binding ones. The NPT does not stop states using enriched uranium to produce nuclear energy, as opposed to weapons. He does not want them to have any enriched uranium. Without irony, Bush stated last month: "We cannot allow rogue states... to undermine the NPT's fundamental role in strengthening international security." His target was, of course, Iran.

Iran, meanwhile, accuses the US and others of hypocrisy by turning a blind eye to the nuclear arsenal of Israel, which, unlike Iran, has not signed the NPT.

The lesson non-nuclear states seem to be learning is that nuclear weapons earn you respect and deter foreign countries from attacking you. That is a very dangerous message, one that can't be allowed to go unanswered.

(Richard Norton-Taylor is the Guardian's security affairs editor.)

[Scrat]

Here is a more realistic point of view from Jan. 2001-June 2004

What does that have to do with anything? The whole world knows that NK has nukes. The whole world knows that America is in a terrible position right now economically and has to force other states to cooperate with them. This means that they are vulnerable to American imperialism unless they do something to defend themselves.

Nukes are here to stay and coinsidering the agitated state of the world are going to be built.