North Korea confirms it has nuclear weapons

billy the squid

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/10/nkorea.talks/index.html

...so the thought there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq, so they bombed it.

now they know north korea has weapons of mass destruction and there is no bombing. why is this. is it because there is no oil there or is it the fact that the US is afraid to take on a country which really has WMD

my opinion is it is the latter.

will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Hobbes

I would say partly that and partly because it allows the US to increase miltary contracts with Korea and still have its somewhat pax americana in S.K.

garthv

Good on ya North Korea,its about time someone stood up against that american idiot.

MeatProduct

I'm sure there's a really obvious answer to this but why can't North Korea have WMD? The US has them, why should'nt anyone else have them? Please forgive me if this is a very stupid question.

Nick

PS: I know that "rogue" nations shouldn't have WMD but imo the US is a bit of a rogue nation.

HomesickAlien

ya know, i read in noam chomsky's "hegemony or survival", that the reason america took on iraq was that it was virtually defenceless and they could invade and win the war with few american casualties (they didn't expect the insurgency). this would have been a pr dream come true for bush after not finding osama bin laden in afganistan. they wouldn't invade north korea because they have a HUGE military force + (apparently) wmd. the us would suffer massive casualties if it invaded, so they wouldn't do it.

plus i think bush only added north korea to the axis of evil so it would seem less like a war against islam.

Nuttzz

The US have fought in both Korea and in the Gulf before, given the options to the US administration what would you want to repeat? the easy victory in the gulf like in 91 or a bloody conflict like the Korean War. It all boils down to bodycount, the US losses in military terms in Iraq since the end of major combat operations has only been 1% of their force in just over a year. This is nothing in military terms, in fact they have more non combat casualities than combat casualities. If there were an attack on North Korea or even an attack by North Korea on the south then US casualities would easily hit 1000 within a few weeks rather than years. Its all a numbers game.

links:
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/7368173.htm
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/237ADM.htm

por

GaRtH_V wrote:

Good on ya North Korea,its about time someone stood up against that american idiot.

Yea, brilliant, I love it too when a totaliterian state announces it has nuclear weapons...

toiletduck

GaRtH_V wrote:

Good on ya North Korea,its about time someone stood up against that american idiot.

ya, why bother feeding your people when theres a huge famine on when instead you can build weapons to kill millions....

vorbis

agree N. Korea would want to concentrate on feeding its people instead of wasting vast sums of money on unneeded WMDs.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mr_angry

I think the Americans don't want to invade because its likely North Korea has a number of nukes pointed directly at Japan, and whats more, there's a meglomaniac with his finger on the button. Sure, they could easily take NK, but not without Kim Jong Il getting a couple of missiles off in the process and destroying a couple of major Japanese cities. Not really that attractive a thought.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Nuttzz wrote:

The US have fought in both Korea and in the Gulf before, given the options to the US administration what would you want to repeat? the easy victory in the gulf like in 91 or a bloody conflict like the Korean War. It all boils down to bodycount, the US losses in military terms in Iraq since the end of major combat operations has only been 1% of their force in just over a year. This is nothing in military terms, in fact they have more non combat casualities than combat casualities. If there were an attack on North Korea or even an attack by North Korea on the south then US casualities would easily hit 1000 within a few weeks rather than years. Its all a numbers game.

links:
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/7368173.htm
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/237ADM.htm

This all assumes, of course, that the US (or any other country for that matter) has the right to invade another just because they posses WMD's.
Which they don't.

sovtek

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

So it's ok to attack any country that violates the NNPT then?

dathi1

Kim what's his name had a go with this sort of thing in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. This has major repercussions so far as Bush's stance with Iran and makes it look like a sideshow. Excellent!!

Nuttzz

sovtek wrote:

This all assumes, of course, that the US (or any other country for that matter) has the right to invade another just because they posses WMD's.
Which they don't.

quite true, but when GWB came out with his axis of evil statement "you" knew that he was going to attack somewhere, given his options which was the easiest one to win, Iraq was (and still is) IMO when compared to NK

sovtek

dathi1 wrote:

Kim what's his name had a go with this sort of thing in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. This has major repercussions so far as Bush's stance with Iran and makes it look like a sideshow. Excellent!!

"I'm sor wronry....sor very wronry..."

Redleslie2

Nuttzz wrote:

quite true, but when GWB came out with his axis of evil statement "you" knew that he was going to attack somewhere, given his options which was the easiest one to win, Iraq was (and still is) IMO when compared to NK

If it was so easy why are they still there and still losing troops 2 years later.

toiletduck

the best way to deal with NK is santions and the possibilty of increased aid if they halt their WMD programmes

kasintahan

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It's about 30 km. That's a 2 hour jog.

Nuttzz

Redleslie2 wrote:

If it was so easy why are they still there and still losing troops 2 years later.

I didnt say it was easy, I said that it was easier than fighting the North Koreans. As for the occupation of Iraq I think the yanks will be there for many years to come, after WWII the "wolverines" kept killing US troops up to 1949, I cant see why Iraq would be any different.

tuxy

toiletduck wrote:

the best way to deal with NK is santions and the possibilty of increased aid if they halt their WMD programmes

yup good idea because we all know how much Kim Jong-il cares about the well being of his citizens

Daveirl

Daveirl wrote:

Because the vast majority of the world don't want everyone to have weapons. There are 170 countries who are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The basic idea is that Nuclear weapons are very bad and it's a pity anyone has them, but since that genie is out of the bottle we'll do our best to limit who else gets them.

And like all good ideas it needs to be backed up. However, the nations that are there to back this up, aren't exactly the best role models. The US continues its research in Nuclear weapons, France has demolished an Atol in its tests etc. Its all very well to say lets prevent other nations from having nuclear weapons, but you kind to have to lead by example.

N. Korea seeking Nuclear weapons, at such a huge cost is because of the need for a massive defensive weapon against the superpower that won't stop flexing its muscles. It remains a factor that the US doesn't think very much of International Treaties, even ones it instigated in the first place.

When the US starts decommissioning the largest stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the world, then maybe I'll start expecting other nations to follow suit. Not going to happen though.

toiletduck

tuxy wrote:

yup good idea because we all know how much Kim Jong-il cares about the well being of his citizens

not only aid for civilians but oil aswell. the deal clinton struck with NK in '94 included a nuclear reactor and oil.

ionapaul

The announcement is just another move in the ongoing effort by North Korea to extract as much economic aid / bribery as possible from the Japanese, South Korea and the US before agreeing to wind down the nuclear programme. Although it has proven extremely difficult to get reliable reports from inside the 'Hermit Kingdom', the last decade has been disastrous for them and Kim thinks this is his best bet at getting out of the hole he has dug himself and his people.

Ahh, communism, how I love thee...to be fair I suppose the cult of personality problems have ruined anything good communism ever hoped to give.

Boggle

So you want to reward him for building them so he could remove them??

Dont make sense...to be honest the answer to this is simple but brutal. The UN (America but under a different flag) should hit them hard and fast and act as a warning that building nukes, instead of protecting you, will lead to invasion. No if's, no but's.

Wont happen though - the UN is toothless, and the US are like the playground bully... pretty impressive until someone stands up to them.

Redleslie2

Nuttzz wrote:

As for the occupation of Iraq I think the yanks will be there for many years to come, after WWII the "wolverines" kept killing US troops up to 1949,

Source of this rubbish?

I cant see why Iraq would be any different.

Same thing isn't it? Because Hitler was a Bad Man and Saddam was a Bad Man.

growler

mr_angry wrote:

I think the Americans don't want to invade because its likely North Korea has a number of nukes pointed directly at Japan, and whats more, there's a meglomaniac with his finger on the button. Sure, they could easily take NK, but not without Kim Jong Il getting a couple of missiles off in the process and destroying a couple of major Japanese cities. Not really that attractive a thought.

Ironic is'nt it ? As America is the only nation to have used WMD's against Japan.

I imagine part of their seeming reluctance to attack NK would be because they probably have worse intelligence about what's going on there than they did have on Iraq , they won't want another ground war so any military intervention is likely to be missile / air strikes against suspected nuke sites and without the intel they might miss some risking a retaliatory strike on the south or Japan.

And it doesn't have oil so their really is no need to liberate them from oppression.

David19

ionapaul wrote:

The announcement is just another move in the ongoing effort by North Korea to extract as much economic aid / bribery as possible from the Japanese, South Korea and the US before agreeing to wind down the nuclear programme. Although it has proven extremely difficult to get reliable reports from inside the 'Hermit Kingdom', the last decade has been disastrous for them and Kim thinks this is his best bet at getting out of the hole he has dug himself and his people.

Ahh, communism, how I love thee...to be fair I suppose the cult of personality problems have ruined anything good communism ever hoped to give.

Thats it. I don't think north korea is any danger to the US. Afaik they don't support terrorism. Obviously north korea is never going to attack the US. The US isnt going to bomb north korea because they have nuclear weapons. They'd only bomb if north korea was a major threat.

Nuttzz

Redleslie2 wrote:

Source of this rubbish?

Rubbish? So history is rubbish now?

But since you insist
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0752417932/qid=1108048018/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2372124-3939052?v=glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802008623/qid=1108048018/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-2372124-3939052?v=glance&s=books

Frank Grimes

David19 wrote:

They'd only bomb if north korea was a major threat.

Exactly as what happened in Iraq then.
Seriously though, if there is any chance of real retaliation from the Koreans I doubt there'll be any confrontations with them.
They'll just continue threatening Iran over what they might potentially be doing rather than confront a very real (regional at least) threat.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Frank Grimes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't know what people said in October, I've always thought the North Korean reigme is a brutal one run by a lunatic, but Bush (IMO of course) will not confront someone who will be prepared to seriously fight back.
Also the risks associated with any potential invasion/attacks on NK would have implications for US allies in the area i.e. South Korea and Japan, so the chances of Bush acting unilaterally again are slim.
The other countries in that region also seem to favour diplomacy with the North Koreans.
I wasn't suggesting anything about "anti US brigades" by my comment and tbh I can't see where you're getting that idea from.

ReefBreak

GaRtH_V wrote:

Good on ya North Korea,its about time someone stood up against that american idiot.

This one of the more daftest throwaway comments I've read on Boards. If you think that it's a good thing that the psychopathic Northern Korean leader has nukes, you're on your own, even on Boards.ie.

billy the squid

Source of this rubbish?

germany, japan, south corea, guantanimo bay,

most countries the US have "liberated" they have stayed there.

Redleslie2

Nuttzz wrote:

Rubbish? So history is rubbish now?

But since you insist
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0752417932/qid=1108048018/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2372124-3939052?v=glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802008623/qid=1108048018/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-2372124-3939052?v=glance&s=books

Tinfoil hat nazi propaganda rubbish. Like the sekrit UFO bases in the arctic.

Have you read either of those? How big was this organisation, and how many allied troops did they bag, to the nearest thousand.

Daveirl

Daveirl wrote:

They are reducing the size of their nuclear arsenal and have been since the initiatives in the 70s/80s 2004 Reductions

And yet the research they have in place for WMD's is still as active as ever. Bush's pet project is a good example of this. Thing is, while the US has conformed with the gradual reduction of its arsenals, its constantly creating newer, and more destructive versions of the original weapons.

While N.Korea may have Nuclear weapons, its likely that they're of the type produced in the early stages of the cold war. I doubt they have the technical backgrounds/facilities to create the more modern nuke types. The US on the other hand are at the foremost of weapon research.

While its good that the US are reducing their stockpiles, all they're really doing is decommisioning older models, in favour of newer more powerful weapons, which they would have done anyway.

I don't mean to target the US as the only nation doing this, France is another example of a nation expanding its nuclear knowledgebase, and upgrading of existing weapons.

Nuttzz

Its been a while since I read them but let me dig them out and see, I cant remember off hand but as far as I remember the US had something in the region of 4000 post war casualities.

Tinfoil hat nazi propaganda rubbish.

says you, I look forward to reading your published works........

Have you read either of those?

why else would I have posted them :rolleyes:

Have you read either of these? or do you just dismiss everything you dont agree with?

/edit
with regard to the author of the books
http://www.trafalgarsquarebooks.com/books/TempusFall04/0752429671.html

Perry Biddiscombe is Associate Professor of History at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. He is the world expert on the Nazi Werewolf bands. His next book, The SS Hunter Battalions, will be published by Tempus.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

Tinfoil hat nazi propaganda rubbish. Like the sekrit UFO bases in the arctic.

A little exaggerated perhaps but I doubt it is anything as conspiratorial as ‘tinfoil hat nazi propaganda rubbish’ - that’s a tad hysterical, with respects.

Have you read either of those? How big was this organisation, and how many allied troops did they bag, to the nearest thousand.

The Wehrwolf resistance-insurgency at the end of World War II was actually quite limited. While it continued for a few years it only claimed the lives of fewer than 1,000 people and all the front organisations associated with them had already been shut down by mid 1946.

THB, the US was probably hoping for a similar level or resistance-insurgency as that found in post war Germany. In reality it’s become more and more like the resistance-insurgency in Vietnam, which probably explains why they’re presently looking for a new Hanoi to bomb.

Redleslie2

Nuttzz wrote:

Its been a while since I read them but let me dig them out and see, I cant remember off hand but as far as I remember the US had something in the region of 4000 post war casualities.

How many of those were accidents and other non combat thingys and so on.

Well it says here.

Werwolf tales have been a favorite of schlock novels, but the reality bore no resemblance to Iraq today. As Antony Beevor observes in The Fall of Berlin 1945, the Nazis began creating Werwolf as a resistance organization in September 1944. "In theory, the training programmes covered sabotage using tins of Heinz oxtail soup packed with plastic explosive and detonated with captured British time pencils," Beevor writes. "… Werwolf recruits were taught to kill sentries with a slip-knotted garrotte about a metre long or a Walther pistol with silencer. …"

In practice, Werwolf amounted to next to nothing. The mayor of Aachen was assassinated on March 25, 1945, on Himmler's orders. This was not a nice thing to do, but it happened before the May 7 Nazi surrender at Reims. It's hardly surprising that Berlin sought to undermine the American occupation before the war was over. And as the U.S. Army's official history, The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany 1944-1946, points out, the killing was "probably the Werwolf's most sensational achievement."

Indeed, the organization merits but two passing mentions in Occupation of Germany, which dwells far more on how docile the Germans were once the Americans rolled in—and fraternization between former enemies was a bigger problem for the military than confrontation. Although Gen. Eisenhower had been worrying about guerrilla warfare as early as August 1944, little materialized. There was no major campaign of sabotage. There was no destruction of water mains or energy plants worth noting. In fact, the far greater problem for the occupying forces was the misbehavior of desperate displaced persons, who accounted for much of the crime in the American zone.

My German friends grandfathers post war experionces are perhaps more typical of the reality and a more accurate reflection of history than the one you're presenting. One, who had served in the army from 1936 til the end of the war, escaped from a US run POW camp because everyone was dying of disease and the like, another walked from Poland to Hamburg to escape the Russians. I've been assured that they were rather more interested in looking after their families future than fighting for what was left of the loony nazi fantasists (who had all legged it to south america anyway).

All you're doing is parrotting the propaganda rubbish the US have put out to try convince us that the Iraq war is a straightforward Good v Evil, democracy v nazis part 2 jobby.

Nuttzz

I stand over my sources, I dont think he has an political axe to grind he is after all a history professor. I disagree with you stance that everything the US does is wrong but I am not going to change your mind and you arent going to change mine!

Redleslie2

Nuttzz wrote:

I stand over my sources,

I'm standing over them too.

I dont think he has an political axe to grind he is after all a history professor.

You think all academics are completely objective paragons of apoliticism then? La la land stuff.

I disagree with you stance that everything the US does is wrong

Where's this bit. Are you on drugs?

Nuttzz

ecksor wrote:

Nuttzz, if you give a source and the person is too lazy or unwilling to check it or accept it then I think you've reached the end of your discussion ...

On a forum like this one I'd prefer a print published reference to be honest because if it is something that I actually give a toss about to go check up myself then at least having made it into print probably puts it ahead of the game in terms of being a quality source and then I could go read it and see for myself if I agreed with it (and your interpretation ) or found it useful.

I think we have reached the end of our discussion.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

Where's this bit. Are you on drugs?

You'd better hope so if you expect him to believe you're not the Boards posterboy for anti-Americanism.

Redleslie2

Nuttzz wrote:

I think we have reached the end of our discussion.

Welcome to my ignore list.

The Clown Man

Anyone see that documentary on NK called "holidays in the axis of evil"? Was on BBC after the Iraqi war broke out. Some very interesting and bloody scarey viewing. According to the majority of NK civilians interviewed on the street they are all ready to go to nuclear war with the US. They firmly believe they are better prepared for a nuclear war that the US. If you marvel at the propaganda machine that is in operation in the US you should see this country's effort. It is amazing.

From seeing that and then going into about 2 weeks of researching the Korean wars and the aftermath I reckon it is only a matter of time before NK start their war with the US. Long range nuclear weapons are all they need and they can start. They are not participating in talks because they have no interest in a peaceful solution. All their propaganda imbues nothing but a burning hatred for the US that stems from their participation in the Korean war.

Although personally, I'd still be much more comfortable if the US didn't have nuclear weapons.

They are not participating in talks because they have no interest in a peaceful solution. All their propaganda imbues nothing but a burning hatred for the US that stems from their participation in the Korean war.

The reality of it is, that the US has publicly names N.Korea as being part of the Axis of Evil, and have constantly made references towards N.Korea as being an origin of terrorism, and lack of freedoms. Sure they're correct, but their lack of tact, justifies N.Korea's stance against the US. The US is only interested in peace, so that it can settle Iraq. Once its got that situation under control, they'll start preparing for other attacks.

Iraq was a good reference, to the US's attitude towards pre-emptive strikes. Part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq, at the time anyway, was that Iraq would at some future time be a threat to the security of the US. They've made similiar references to N.Korea, and to be honest, I'm not suprised that N.Korea are becoming more prepared. I definetly would.

Do you honestly believe that the Bush's posturing has actually helped tensions between N.Korea and western nations? I don't, and I'd actually point the majority of the blame for this escalation, on the US invasion of Iraq. Certain nations like N.Korea, no longer believe that anyone can stop the US from attacking another nation, so they're doing what every other nation would do. (pure speculation, of course) They're preparing for war. And despite my not liking the N.Korean government in the slightest, I can agree with their stance.

Hobbes

Its been mentioned before but NK have actually managed to drop a missile onto US soil. Was done some years ago.

Although missiles aren't the problem. A good enough balloon and you can use the jetstream. Japanese did this in WWII and hit the US.

well, I'd actually consider their chemical and biological weapons to be of more a threat. N.Korea have been producing various types for years, and it would be the perfect weapon, for a platform like Hobbes suggested (i.e. hot air balloons).

ionapaul

I wonder whether an increased nuclear or otherwise threat to the US from the North Koreans really will make the American administration (present or future) back down or even show them off as the 'playground bully' of the world that so many people here think / wish they are.

I personally believe that the closer that NK comes to legimately threatening the defences of the continental US, the closer NK comes to being attacked. At some point the massive casualities in allied troops / US military stationed in SK will become less of a liability than the risk of allowing a megalomanic dictator aim a small (but growing) number of nuclear missiles at your territory. At that point the right and wrong of pre-emptively attacking NK and ensuring untold allied nation casualities may become irrelevant, as the most powerful country in the world will take whatever steps necessary to protect its population and ensure its continued dominance.

Maybe I'm wrong - at least I would hope that (like the Japanese and West Germans post-WWII) the North Koreans *that survive* could be counted among the winners of the war.

In any case, I truly believe the current crisis is just the latest desperate gamble of a NK regime tottering on the brink...they want to be bought off and are willing to play a game of brinksmanship to get what they want.

Nuttzz

Redleslie2 wrote:

Welcome to my ignore list.

oh darn I'm so disappointed.


back on topic. I dont think that the US has the capacity to fight on two fronts at the moment so I think NK will be secure for the moment. Does anyone know if the Japanese are still prevent from deploying outside their own territory. Japan and SK are at a bigger risk from the North than America.

NK Missile Tests
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/11/wkor11.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/11/ixworld.html