North Korea says they have Nuclear Weapons

[UZI Suicide 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/1...alks/index.html

 

(CNN) -- Citing what it calls U.S. threats to topple its political system, North Korea said Thursday it is dropping out of six-party nuclear talks and will "bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal," North Korea's official news agency KCNA reported.

 

This is the first public claim by North Korea to actually possess nuclear weapons.

 

In the past, Pyongyang has claimed to have the ability and the right to produce them. U.S. officials said in April 2003 that North Korea claimed in private meetings to having at least one nuclear bomb.

 

Interviewed by RTL TV in Luxembourg Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Pyongyang is making a mistake if the KCNA report is true.

 

"The North Koreans are only deepening their isolation," Rice said, "because everyone in the international community, and most especially North Korea's neighbors, have been very clear that there needs to be no nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula in order to maintain stability in that region."

 

In the statement reported by KCNA, the North Korean Foreign Ministry said: "We have shown utmost magnanimity and patience for the past four years since the first Bush administration swore in," "We cannot spend another four years as we did in the past four years and there is no need for us to repeat what we did in those years."

 

The United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of six-party talks since 2003, aimed at persuading the North to abandon its nuclear weapons development in return for economic and diplomatic rewards.

 

But no significant progress was reported in those talks, all hosted by China, North Korea's last remaining major ally.

 

A fourth round of talks scheduled for last September did not take place because North Korea refused to attend, citing what it called a "hostile" U.S. policy.

 

Thursday's statement from the North Korean foreign ministry said the country's nuclear weapons are "for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)."

 

The communist state said it feels "compelled to suspend" participation in the six-nation talks "for an indefinite period."

 

"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 Foreign Ministry said.

 

"The U.S. disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in the DPRK at any cost, threatening it with a nuclear stick. This compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by the people in the DPRK.

 

In his inaugural address on January 20, U.S. President George W. Bush did not mention North Korea by name. But he said U.S. efforts have lit "a fire in the minds of men.

 

"It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world," he said.

 

In his February 2 State of the Union address, Bush only briefly mentioned North Korea, 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 his speech three years ago, when he branded North Korea part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq. It raised hopes for a positive response from North Korea.

 

Earlier this month, Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun agreed to push for an early resumption of the six-nation talks.

 

But Pyongyang called Bush's call for the spread of freedom in his January 20 inaugural speech as a diabolical U.S. scheme to turn the world into "a sea of war flames."

 

"In his inauguration speech, Bush trumpeted that 'fire of freedom will reach dark corners of the world.' This is nothing but a plot to engulf the whole world in a sea of war flames and rule it by imposing a freedom based on power," North Korea's state-run Pyongyang Radio said early this month.

 

Despite pulling out of the six-nation nuclear talks and saying Thursday it will "bolster" its nuclear arsenal, the Foreign Ministry statement said North Korea's "principled stand to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations and its ultimate goal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula remain unchanged."

 

Sohn Jie-ae, CNN's Correspondent in the South Korean capital Seoul, said the possibility of North Korea returning to the talks could not be ruled out.

 

She said officials from the other countries involved would try to convince North Korea to reverse its decision.

[Jingus 0]

Time to send in Team America.

[2GOLD 0]

Time to begin COLD WAR V2.

Everyone under your desk.

 

 

I'll just be sitting here calmly waiting for the, "This is all America's fault", post that will come sooner rather than later.

[Guest goodhelmet]

I'll just be sitting here calmly waiting for the, "This is all America's fault", post that will come sooner rather than later.

 

I was actually waiting for the "It's all Clinton's fault" response that is so popular with neocons these days.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well, it's a good thing we got rid of that bigger nuclear threat in Iraq....

[ISportsFan 0]

I'm taking a math issues in national security class (with 3 professors (including an Air Force official), all involved in a Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security program), and all of my professors are quite skeptical that N. Korea has a nuclear weapon. They're not saying that they don't have one, but they all agree that it's not a guarantee and N. Korea might just be trying to scare off any attack.

 

Also, they all said there's no possibility that N. Korea could hit any target in the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, with the possible exception of Alaska. They simply wouldn't have the technology (or finances to get the technology going) to have the capability for such a long distance launch. But, the real possibility would be to hit another nation in the Far East (such as Japan). That is where the real fear lies, if it is true that N. Korea actually does have the weapon ready.

 

Jason

[Guest MikeSC]

I'll just be sitting here calmly waiting for the, "This is all America's fault", post that will come sooner rather than later.

 

I was actually waiting for the "It's all Clinton's fault" response that is so popular with neocons these days.

Nobody says it was Clinton's fault. His team entered negotiations in good faith and N. Korea screwed us over royally. Albright was REAL slow in figuring out what was going on, however. But, it's Madeline Albright and competence is not a strong suit.

 

HOWEVER, anybody who wishes to claim that Clinton had them under control might need to study what actually happened.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Can anyone explain the criteria that the U.S. government uses to determine who should have nukes and who shouldn't?

[Guest Cerebus]

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[Styles 0]

Can anyone explain the criteria that the U.S. government uses to determine who should have nukes and who shouldn't?

I think it's common sense that democracies with no longing for territorial expansion or blackmail and can be trusted to have their weapons only for safety and detterence of attacks should be ok.

 

Ask yourself something, do you really trust Iran or North Korea with nuclear weapons? Do you honestly equate the US as being just as dangerous possesing such weapons? Can you admit a logical difference in intentions between the countries?

 

EDIT: Well, yeah Cerebus answered you legally, I'm just going for a common sense approach...

[Guest sek69]

Didn't North Korea say this before a couple of months ago? I swear I remember it wasn't that long ago everyone was all OMG NORTH KOREA HAS TEH NUKE~!

 

Their leader reminds me of a toddler trying to get the attention of the grown ups in the room.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I would have MUCH rather we gone after N. Korea than Iraq. Fuck North Korea. If you were Japanese you should be shitting your pants right about.... now.

[SuperJerk 0]

Can anyone explain the criteria that the U.S. government uses to determine who should have nukes and who shouldn't?

Ask yourself something, do you really trust Iran or North Korea with nuclear weapons? Do you honestly equate the US as being just as dangerous possesing such weapons? Can you admit a logical difference in intentions between the countries?

Are the US, North Korea, and Iran the only countries in the world, though? I'm sure there's plenty of countries in the world that already have nukes that I don't trust. And yet, we're not going after them. Hence my question about what the criteria was.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I'll just be sitting here calmly waiting for the, "This is all America's fault", post that will come sooner rather than later.

 

I was actually waiting for the "It's all Clinton's fault" response that is so popular with neocons these days.

Actually it's Carter's fault because he was the one that negotiated with them.

[Guest Cerebus]

Can anyone explain the criteria that the U.S. government uses to determine who should have nukes and who shouldn't?

Ask yourself something, do you really trust Iran or North Korea with nuclear weapons? Do you honestly equate the US as being just as dangerous possesing such weapons? Can you admit a logical difference in intentions between the countries?

Are the US, North Korea, and Iran the only countries in the world, though? I'm sure there's plenty of countries in the world that already have nukes that I don't trust. And yet, we're not going after them. Hence my question about what the criteria was.

The bedrock of nuclear non-proliferation hasn't changed since I posted it an hour and a half ago. It's still the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[SuperJerk 0]

Can anyone explain the criteria that the U.S. government uses to determine who should have nukes and who shouldn't?

Ask yourself something, do you really trust Iran or North Korea with nuclear weapons? Do you honestly equate the US as being just as dangerous possesing such weapons? Can you admit a logical difference in intentions between the countries?

Are the US, North Korea, and Iran the only countries in the world, though? I'm sure there's plenty of countries in the world that already have nukes that I don't trust. And yet, we're not going after them. Hence my question about what the criteria was.

The bedrock of nuclear non-proliferation hasn't changed since I posted it an hour and a half ago. It's still the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I was justifying why I asked the question in the first place, not re-asking the question.

[Guest Cerebus]

Fair enough.

[SuperJerk 0]

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, it's a good thing we got rid of that bigger nuclear threat in Iraq....

If you want to be invaded, talk loudly about wanting a nuclear weapon.

 

If you want to be left alone, go acutally get one.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

The NK situation is the embodiment of Bush's concept of why we cannot wait until there is an imminent threat. The Japanese are probably shitting bricks if this is true. And now we're going to have to dance on egg shells to figure this out.

[2GOLD 0]

I would have MUCH rather we gone after N. Korea than Iraq. Fuck North Korea. If you were Japanese you should be shitting your pants right about.... now.

 

You wanted us to attack North KOREA?!?!

[Guest Vitamin X]

Of course, some of you seem to be neglecting the fact that North Korea has a very powerful regional (and ideological) ally in China, right next door.

 

An attack on North Korea could feasibly start a massive global conflict. Not exactly the smart way to go about things.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Q for Cerebus (or anyone else who knows):

 

How do India & Pakistan get off scot free w/ nuke development? Are they not party to the treaty? (I guess I could look this up, I just thought you might know)

[Guest MikeSC]

Q for Cerebus (or anyone else who knows):

 

How do India & Pakistan get off scot free w/ nuke development? Are they not party to the treaty? (I guess I could look this up, I just thought you might know)

Wow, you just want to attack everybody, don't you?

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

Q for Cerebus (or anyone else who knows):

 

How do India & Pakistan get off scot free w/ nuke development?  Are they not party to the treaty?  (I guess I could look this up, I just thought you might know)

Wow, you just want to attack everybody, don't you?

-=Mike

Yet he makes a valid point. Especially considering Pakistan's dealings with Syria...

[SuperJerk 0]

I think the point of the criticism of Bush in this thread is that Iraq was hardly the biggest threat to us, so drawing their name first in the "Here We Come to Take Your WMDs" sweepstakes maybe wasn't the sharpest move.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think the point of the criticism of Bush in this thread is that Iraq was hardly the biggest threat to us, so drawing their name first in the "Here We Come to Take Your WMDs" sweepstakes maybe wasn't the sharpest move.

It is better to attack a country BEFORE they have WMD than it is to try and attack them afterwards.

 

Add into that our UTTER lack of any kind of good human intel in N. Korea and going there isn't a great move for us yet. Our intel in Iraq wasn't good --- our intel in N. Korea is significantly worse.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I think the point of the criticism of Bush in this thread is that Iraq was hardly the biggest threat to us, so drawing their name first in the "Here We Come to Take Your WMDs" sweepstakes maybe wasn't the sharpest move.

They were however the easiest to beat. The idea seems to be to beat Iraq and scare the other bad guys into giving up their weapons without a fight. It didn't work.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think the point of the criticism of Bush in this thread is that Iraq was hardly the biggest threat to us, so drawing their name first in the "Here We Come to Take Your WMDs" sweepstakes maybe wasn't the sharpest move.

They were however the easiest to beat. The idea seems to be to beat Iraq and scare the other bad guys into giving up their weapons without a fight. It didn't work.

Libya seemed to disarm. I wouldn't say it was totally ineffectual.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I think the point of the criticism of Bush in this thread is that Iraq was hardly the biggest threat to us, so drawing their name first in the "Here We Come to Take Your WMDs" sweepstakes maybe wasn't the sharpest move.

It is better to attack a country BEFORE they have WMD than it is to try and attack them afterwards.

Yes, of course. You're 100% right on this point.

 

However, I thought when we went into Iraq we thought Iraq DID already have them.

 

Add into that our UTTER lack of any kind of good human intel in N. Korea and going there isn't a great move for us yet. Our intel in Iraq wasn't good --- our intel in N. Korea is significantly worse.

 

No, of course invading North Korea is a bad idea. But, in my opinion, so was invading Iraq. I'm not saying we should invade North Korea, I'm saying we should not have invaded Iraq.