North Korea's Nuclear Weapons

[MyndFyre]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050210/D885LA8G2.html

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea on Thursday announced for the first time that it has nuclear arms and rejected moves to restart disarmament talks anytime soon, saying it needs the weapons as protection against an increasingly hostile United States.

The communist state's pronouncement dramatically raised the stakes in the two-year-old nuclear confrontation and posed a grave challenge to President Bush, who started his second term with a vow to end North Korea's nuclear program through six-nation 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 claim could not be independently verified. North Korea expelled the last U.N. nuclear monitors in late 2002 and has never tested a nuclear bomb, although international officials have long suspected it has one or two nuclear bombs and enough fuel for several more.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said North Korea should return to disarmament talks and avoid a path toward further international isolation. She said the world "has given them a way out and we hope they will take that way out."

"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," Rice told a news conference in Luxembourg. "There is a path for the North Koreans that would put them in a more reasonable relationship with the rest of the world."

Previously, North Korea had reportedly told U.S. negotiators in private talks that it had nuclear weapons and might test one of them. The North's U.N. envoy said last year that the country had "weaponized" plutonium from its pool of 8,000 nuclear spent fuel rods. Those rods contained enough plutonium for several bombs.

But Thursday's statement was North Korea's first public acknowledgment that it has nuclear weapons.

North Korea's "nuclear weapons will remain (a) nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances," the ministry said. It said Washington's alleged attempt to topple the North's regime "compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by its people."

Since 2003, the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of talks in Beijing aimed at persuading the North to abandon nuclear weapons development in return for economic and diplomatic rewards. No significant progress has been made.

A fourth round scheduled for last September was canceled when North Korea refused to attend, citing what it called a "hostile" U.S. policy.

South Korea said Thursday the North's decision to stay away from talks was "seriously regrettable." Foreign Ministry spokesman Lee Kyu-hyung said "we again declare our stance that we will never tolerate North Korea possessing nuclear weapons."

In recent weeks, hopes had risen that North Korea might return to the six-nation talks, especially after Bush refrained from any direct criticism of North Korea when he started his second term last month.

On Thursday, North Korea said it decided not to rejoin such talks any time soon after studying Bush's inaugural and State of the Union speeches and after Rice labeled North Korea one of the "outposts of tyranny."

"We have wanted the six-party talks but we are compelled to suspend our participation in the talks for an indefinite period till we have recognized that there is justification for us to attend the talks and there are ample conditions and atmosphere to expect positive results from the talks," the ministry said.

Still, North Korea said it retained its "principled stand to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations and its ultimate goal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula remain unchanged."

Such a comment has widely been interpreted as North Korea's negotiating tactic to get more economic and diplomatic concessions from the United States before joining any crucial talks.

In Vienna, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said that "North Korea remains our single highest priority."

"We know they have raw materials to build nuclear weapons. We also know that they have a delivery system and they've expressed their intentions to have a nuclear arsenal," spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said.

In Japan, the top government spokesman said he wanted to confirm the North's intentions.

"They have used this sort of phrasing every so often. They didn't say anything particularly new," Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda told a regular news conference.

For months, North Korea has lashed out at what it calls U.S. attempts to demolish the regime of leader Kim Jong Il and meddle in the human rights situation in the North. Washington has said it wants to resolve the nuclear talks through dialogue.

In his Jan. 20 inaugural speech, Bush vowed that his new administration would not shrink from "the great objective of ending tyranny" around the globe.

In his State of the Union address earlier this month, Bush only mentioned North Korea once, saying Washington was "working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions."

Bush's tone was in stark contrast to three years ago, when he branded North Korea part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq, raising hopes of a positive response from North Korea.

The nuclear crisis erupted in October 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.

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.

[MyndFyre]

Here we are, more then 10 years following the end of the Cold War, and we're still seeing the effects of the Soviet Union in Asia.

What is most bizarre about this entire situation is that even scholars believe that the United States is a status quo power -- they have no reason to want to attack or invate the DPRK.  The conclusion that we would -- and therefore the development of nuclear arms is required to deter the US -- is erroneous.

We've known they've had the nuclear weapons for some time now.  But now they want to be all bad-ass.

Very perplexing.

[Arta]

They're paranoid, that's nothing new.

I'll be interested to see how Bush responds to this.

[Adron]

What is most bizarre about this entire situation is that even scholars believe that the United States is a status quo power -- they have no reason to want to attack or invate the DPRK.  The conclusion that we would -- and therefore the development of nuclear arms is required to deter the US -- is erroneous.

From reading that article, it is known that you invaded Iraq and it is known that Bush has bunched Iraq and North Korea together into the same group. Why would they not want a deterrent? Bush invaded Iraq on false premises, later justified by the world being a better place without Saddam Hussein. He could easily say the same about "liberating" North Korea. I see every reason for them to make sure they have as strong deterrents as they possibly can. They need to make Bush feel he can't take them without unacceptable losses.

[CrAz3D]

Why not say the same about N Korea?  They said themselves they have WMD, we don't have to be MISGUIDED this time.

I wonder what China, Japan, South Korea, & Russia have to say about this.

[MyndFyre]

From reading that article, it is known that you invaded Iraq and it is known that Bush has bunched Iraq and North Korea together into the same group. Why would they not want a deterrent? Bush invaded Iraq on false premises, later justified by the world being a better place without Saddam Hussein. He could easily say the same about "liberating" North Korea. I see every reason for them to make sure they have as strong deterrents as they possibly can. They need to make Bush feel he can't take them without unacceptable losses.

The United States is a status quo power with respect to the Korean peninsula.  There was an odd but general stability there, on which the US had no reason to disturb; the US had no reason to attack, until now that the DPRK has announced that it has nuclear weaponry.

Kim Jong-Il has no interest in defending his country from the United States; that isn't why he developed the system.  He knows the US has little reason to attack.  This is a risky move for Kim, but given his continued resilience, it is one upon which the United States will again not act.

From my paper (this section is more concerned with the DPRK's Taepo-Dong II delivery system than nuclear power itself, but I believe it applies equally):

However, I posit that there may be another explanation for these test flights and missile systems development. Through the development of missiles, and through proper procedures, the DPRK has the potential to kill three birds with one stone: demonstrate the use of the missiles to generate income, give the United States the impression that it has long-range missiles to encourage deterrence, and use missiles to coerce the United States and Seoul to come to the bargaining table willing to make concessions.

Although there is little available empirical evidence of this assertion aside from Cha's statement that the DPRK is the most active provider of missile technologies to Iran, Syria, and Pakistan (Cha, 2000), it is likely that there is a weapons trade of some kind set up through the DPRK. The United States has found evidence of illicit drug smuggling (Central Intelligence Agency, Korea, North) as a rather large industry,

The rationale behind the test-firing of the Taepo-dong II missile system depends on the reasoning for the system in the first place. I contend that the most pragmatic reason to have the system is to sell it; given this argument, test-firing the system (in this case the Taepo-dong I) over Japan is an extremely effective way to get the attentions of various potential clients, such as states or terrorist cells. Additionally, the firing of the missile is possibly an alert to the United States and other highly-developed countries – Kim wants to be treated with the respect he believes he deserves from the international community.
[...]
On the surface, for a state branded a "terrorist" regime, part of the "axis of evil" described by President Bush, it may seem cavalier to pursue nuclear weaponry. There are, however, several good reasons for the North to pursue such an apparently-radical goal. First, it is an extremely effective deterrent; the North has continually made clear that it perceives the United States as a threat. Whether or not that perception is accurate is beside the point; according to the principle of bounded rationality, if the North feels that it must deter the United States from a preemptive attack, it is entirely rational to pursue nuclear weapons. Further, it is apparent that Kim has no qualms about appearing to be an aggressor, and so it is entirely reasonable to believe that he may not be only using weaponry as deterrence, but also as bargaining tools. Finally, a state such as the DPRK, which is not only poor but spends a large portion of its GDP on the military, may reasonably seek a return on investment. Consequently, the largest concern of the United States and its allies should not be that the North will use its nuclear weaponry itself, but that it will sell its nuclear weaponry to a non-state terrorist cell.

(Paveza, 12-14).
Sources cited:
Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). The World Factbook. Retrieved December 8, 2004, from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
Cha, Victor D. Continuity behind the Change in Korea, The. Orbis. Fall 2000.

For Kim Jong-Il, it's all about the money.

[Hazard]

Hussein had stated that he had such weapons. North Korea now says that they have nuclear weapons. Are you suggesting that we don't believe them until they roll them out and let us take a peek? Personally, if North Korea points their finger at us I would support war.

[CrAz3D]

I don't think Kim wants to start anything, he is just one of those people you met in highschool that had a fancy car, that was handed to them, & smoked just to look cool.  He HAS to know the consequences of starting a nuclear war with anyone

[Falcon[anti-yL]]

As long as N. Korea doesn't make use of its nuclear weapons the US should just leave them alone, after all the US itself probably has more nuclear weapons than all the other countries combined, so why can't other countries have them as protection?

[CrAz3D]

As long as N. Korea doesn't make use of its nuclear weapons the US should just leave them alone, after all the US itself probably has more nuclear weapons than all the other countries combined, so why can't other countries have them as protection?

That makes sense, but then there are evil places (i.e. N Korea) that might sell weapons to terrorists then we can't strike back w/same force.  Terrorists wouldn't be afraid to nuke some huge US city, they'd love to do it.

[Hazard]

So you think that putting Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a maniac is okay as long as the United States has more of them?

[dxoigmn]

So you think that putting Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a maniac is okay as long as the United States has more of them?

No.  We should destory our nuclear weapons to set an example so these "maniacs" will follow in our footsteps.

[Mephisto]

So you think that putting Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a maniac is okay as long as the United States has more of them?

No.  We should destory our nuclear weapons to set an example so these "maniacs" will follow in our footsteps.

As much as you'd like that to be so, and all of us for that matter, we don't live in that kind of world, so that doesn't seem to be a viable option.  In fact, it'd expose the U.S. as "weak" from a terrorist's perspective IMO.

However, I would strongly oppose Bush even more if he attempted to go to war with North Korea without first gaining approval of our allies and other nations, and having strong evidence for his claims to war, and justifyable reason for doing so.  Hopefully the issues in North Korea can be solved diplomatically with no loss of life, but I'd have to wonder if that would ever happen.

My opinion is that a country should have rights to posses nuclear weapons as they have every right to produce them.  There are no documents to my knowledge which state that a country is forbidden to develop nuclear weapons.  The U.S. has developed and used nuclear weapons and continues to develop them today, and for some reason other countries aren't allowed to?  I understand the risks in allowing other countries to develop nuclear weapons, but putting it into perspective of other countries, it's completely unfair to say that the U.S. is allowed to develop nuclear weapons and other countries not, even if those countries scorn other countries (like North Korea to the U.S.).

[dxoigmn]

So you think that putting Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a maniac is okay as long as the United States has more of them?

No.  We should destory our nuclear weapons to set an example so these "maniacs" will follow in our footsteps.

As much as you'd like that to be so, and all of us for that matter, we don't live in that kind of world, so that doesn't seem to be a viable option.  In fact, it'd expose the U.S. as "weak" from a terrorist's perspective IMO.

However, I would strongly oppose Bush even more if he attempted to go to war with North Korea without first gaining approval of our allies and other nations, and having strong evidence for his claims to war, and justifyable reason for doing so.  Hopefully the issues in North Korea can be solved diplomatically with no loss of life, but I'd have to wonder if that would ever happen.

My opinion is that a country should have rights to posses nuclear weapons as they have every right to produce them.  There are no documents to my knowledge which state that a country is forbidden to develop nuclear weapons.  The U.S. has developed and used nuclear weapons and continues to develop them today, and for some reason other countries aren't allowed to?  I understand the risks in allowing other countries to develop nuclear weapons, but putting it into perspective of other countries, it's completely unfair to say that the U.S. is allowed to develop nuclear weapons and other countries not, even if those countries scorn other countries (like North Korea to the U.S.).

Damn pragmatists!  Anyways, yes more power to North Korea.

[Hazard]

So you think that putting Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a maniac is okay as long as the United States has more of them?

No.  We should destory our nuclear weapons to set an example so these "maniacs" will follow in our footsteps.

Stupidest thing I have ever seen. Why don't we disarm the entire military while we are at it? This is ridiculous, it will never happen, and would mean open season on the United States by foreign agressors with nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan, North Korea, (Russia?), etc. would have a lot of fun with us. To quote Crimson Tide "There are half a dozen third world countires that would love to drop a nuke on us."