On 12 October, 1994 the United States and North Korea signed the "Agreed Framework": North Korea agreed to freeze its plutonium production program in exchange for fuel oil, economic cooperation, and the construction of two modern light-water nuclear (LWN) power plants. Eventually, North Korea's existing nuclear facilities were to be dismantled, and the spent reactor fuel taken out of the country. Soon after this agreement was signed, US Congress control changed to the Republicans, who did not support the agreement. Some Republican Senators strongly opposed it, regarding it (perhaps not unreasonably) as appeasement. So initially US Department of Defense emergency funds not under Congress control were used to fund the transitional oil supplies under the agreement, together with international funding. From 1996 Congress provided funding, though not always sufficient amounts. Consequently some of the agreed transitional oil supplies were delivered late. Some analysts believe North Korea agreed to the freeze primarily because of the U.S. agreement to phase out economic sanctions that had been in place since the Korean War. But because of congressional opposition, the U.S. failed to deliver on this part of the agreement. International funding for the LWR replacement power plants had to be sought. Significant spending on the LWR project did not commence until 2000. There was increasing disagreement between North Korea and US on the scope and implementation of the treaty. When by 1999 economic sanctions had not been lifted and full diplomatic relations between US and North Korea not been established, North Korea warned that they would resume nuclear research unless the US kept up its end of the bargain. The US, in turn, repeatedly stated that further implementation would be stalled as long as suspicions remained that the North Korean nuclear weapons research program continued covertly. In October 2002, a US delegation visited North Korea to confront the North Koreans with the US assessment that they had a uranium enrichment program. The US delegation believed the North Koreans had admitted the existence of a highly enriched uranium program, but the North Koreans stated the US made these assertions in an arrogant manner but failed to produce any evidence such as satellite photos, and they denied planning to produce nuclear weapons. They stated that as an independent sovereign state North Korea was entitled to possess nuclear weapons for defense, although they did not possess such a weapon at that point in time. Relations between the two countries quickly deteriorated into open hostility. Fuel oil shipments were halted in December. On January 10, 2003, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. On February 10, 2005, North Korea finally declared that it had manufactured nuclear weapons as a "nuclear deterrent for self-defence". The rest you know...
Anyone seen Team America? I think that the issue is more of a paranoia leverage with the new buzz-word Big Bad Evil Entity (BBEE) known as "Terrorists." Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US hasn't really had a real threat to direct its economic resources into (see 1984 by Orwell) to promote "peace by war" at home. After the 9/11 attacks (which were really just a successfull attempt after several similar but failed attempts) the US had a new BBEE to rally its people around for the purpose of morale and unity, and a new cause to pour funding and economic growth into. Pakistan has nukes. India has nukes. Have we sanctioned either of those countries for posession of them? Not to any serious extent that i've ever heard of. Is there a real threat of either of those countries selling their wares or tech to "Terrorist" organizations? Sure. Just as much as all the rogue soviet fragments and all of their "unaccounted for" weapons systems. Have we placed sactions on Tajikistan or Turkmenistan or Georgia? Not that I'm aware... In fact, I'd be willing to believe that we've given them aid, despite their lack of accountability. SO... Being the quasi-intelligent person that I am, I say let em have em. Even a whackjob like Kim has brains enough not to use them for offense. The real threat to a Superpower in this day and age isn't military strength, it's economics. I remember hearing on a NPR (BBC for the US) broadcast about 8 years back that China was on the verge of selling off its ICBM program lock stock and barrel to feed its people. Today, they have their ICBMs, and are rapidly becoming an economic superpower that rivals the US and most of Europe. What's more frightening to you: a madman with his finger on a button that will end all of humanity, or your entire country going bankrupt because you've sold off your labor and manufacturing to the very country you were "at war with" just a few decades prior? Discuss...
Dirka dirka? The way I see it, nukes are just really expensive security systems. Their function is predominantly defensive in purpose and the only way they could get detonated for offensive purposes these days is if some small group of individuals gets a hold of one, it would be suicidal for any nation to set one off on another country. And as I have heard others say, the business of a dictator is to stay in business. They wouldn't go about doing anything that would threaten to end their rule. They like their power and they intend to keep it.
So...what's the difference between NK testing nukes, and any other country that did nuclear testing, like America?
They've already tested their nukes (despite a bit of opposition) If you've built your first-ever nucular bomb, you test it. To expect anything else is a bit simple-minded. And guess who's set off 1,054 nukes like a kid with a box of fireworks...
Who do you mean by his cronies? I keep seeing on news sites(which have comments sections, most of the big ones seem to now) people responding to the assertion, that we in fact have nukes so NK should be allowed them also, people responding to this saying that NK might use them in a first strike(something which seems stupidly unrealistic to me) or that they might sell them. Why do people delude themselves so much? As much as we'd love to call the guy that, old kim ain't evil, he's human just like the rest of us and he's not going to get paid enough by any terrorists organisation for his nukes, even if he were, it'd be so painfully obvious that they came from him that one being used somewhere would for sure result in at least his deposition and quite possibly his death.
hmm and if NK uses its nukes against Japan? and 350 miles north of the capital, isnt that a small distance for a nuke blast and radiation fallout?
If North Korea uses a nuclear bomb against Japan then North Korea gets bombed into inhospitability for a few hundred years. North Korea attacking any country other then South Korea is an act of suicide on their part. As for the test, it was done deep underground, as these things frequently are. Everything can be measured nicely and precisely, but the fallout is extremely limited to nil.
And given the level of US presence in SK, and our ability to swiftly bring force to bear in that theatre, not just suicide, but pointless suicide.
You know, I'm wondering... The reposts I've seen so far (along with nice, if totally unrelated, mushroom cloud graphics) say that they're not sure of the yield from the test, but it appears to be less than a kiloton. That suggests three possibilities. The most likley, in my mind anyway, is that they had a fizzle. For some reason the bomb failed to perform at it's designed yield. Assuming this was a plutonium implosion design, the most likley cause of failure is incorrect desigfn of the explosive lenses or else initiator failure (The iniator provoides Neutrons to get the chain reaction started once it is compressed to a supercritical mass by the explosives). The second possibility is that the bomb performed at it's designed yield, which was very small. This is possible if this device was designed to be either an extreemly compact (backpack) device or else only an ignighter for a two stage thermonuclear weapon. From the NK standpoint, neither of these explinations seems terriably likley since both the sub-miniature and first stage designes are highly advanced refinements of the standard implosion designs for specific uses. A third possibility is that this wasn't a nuclear blast at all. Perhaps the NKs filled a large tunnel with conventional explosives and detonated them to make noise on the world scene. Something to think about...
Nukes *only* work if everyone has them. Unless you have a nutter in power that either doesn't understand or doesn't care about Mutually Assured Destruction. The whole point of nukes is that they're supposed to stop wars from happening because it could escalate to something nuclear and take out the entire planet. Of course, as always, Nexxo's pretty much nailed it.
^^^ QFT. As I keep saying again, and again (and again), a dictator's business is staying in business. he is quite happy with the powerbase he has. He is not going to risk it by selling nukes to terrorists, or by using them himself in a pointless hystrionic suicidal act.
Ah that's where I had heard the phrase before before. The thing is he seems like a mindless lunatic to us because that is how our government(s) describe him. My friend is convinced that the guy is so crazy that he belongs in an institution. However from what I have heard he is a very smart and calculating individual. There is just a conflict in political agendas, everything is all relative to your perspective.
