Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
North Korea Making Nuclear Bombs  
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4477 posts, RR: 15
Posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1669 times:

N. Korea Says It Is Making Nuclear Bombs

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031002/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear&cid=516&ncid=716

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea (news - web sites) said Thursday it has completed reprocessing its 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods and is using plutonium extracted from them to make atomic bombs.


"The (North) successfully finished the reprocessing of some 8,000 spent fuel rods," a spokesman for North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the North's official news agency, KCNA. The spokesman was not named.


Accusing the United States of taking a "hostile policy" toward the North, the statement said that North Korea "made a switchover in the use of plutonium churned out by reprocessing spent fuel rods in the direction increasing its nuclear deterrent force."


North Korea also said it will reprocess more spent fuel rods to be produced from the small reactor in its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon, north of Pyongyang.


Earlier this week, North Korea claimed that it was taking "practical measures" to boost its nuclear weapons program as a deterrent against what it calls a U.S. plan to invade.


The claim came as some U.S. intelligence analysts are becoming increasingly concerned that the communist regime may have three, four or even six nuclear weapons instead of the one or two the CIA (news - web sites) had estimated.


New atomic bombs would give Pyongyang more authority at the negotiating table, and may allow it to part with one, either in a test or by selling it, experts say.


The United States and its allies are trying to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear programs. The North says it will do so only if the United States signs a nonaggression treaty, provides economic aid and opens diplomatic ties.


The nuclear dispute flared in October 2002 when U.S. officials said North Korea admitted running a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of international agreements.
----------------------------------------


Looks like thinks are heating up. I'm seriously wondering what the eventual response to North Korea is going to be from the international community. In all honesty, their government is certainly getting threatening, but I don't think it'd be a good idea for the USA to sign a non agression pact with north korea. I'm not in favor of going to war with them of course, but signing a non agression pact could bite us in the rear in the future, for sure.

[Edited 2003-10-02 10:17:22]

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1643 times:

Awe how cute, somebody is feeling left out and needs a hug...


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1628 times:

Non-agression pacts are made to be broken, judging from history.

The North Korean government will eventually fall. This is a historical certainty. The only question is whether or not it will go quietly or whether it will insist on taking others with them.

Charles


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1621 times:

Well, they have WMD's, so why aren't we invading them? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? (dripping with sarcasm).

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1605 times:

The US should consider a lightning attack on NK's nuclear program. If it comes to fruition, n-bombs will be sold by NK to rogue regimes thru-out the Middle East.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1603 times:

Care would have to be taken in any sort of invasion... if a nuke detonated in N.Korea during a destruction raid: the fallout radius could make the entire Korean peninsula (plus parts of Japan and China) practically uninhabitable!

User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13518 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1601 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well, they have WMD's, so why aren't we invading them?

All sarcasm aside, what's your stance on the DPRK's attempts at building a nuclear arsenal, Alpha 1? Do you think we should level these facilities militarily, or should we just shrug and say, "Hey, they can do what they want," ?

Or do we cave in and give in to their blackmail in exchange for them getting out of the nuclear weapons business entirely?

Seriously. I'd like to know your solution.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1602 times:

Care would have to be taken in any sort of invasion... if a nuke detonated in N.Korea during a destruction raid: the fallout radius could make the entire Korean peninsula (plus parts of Japan and China) practically uninhabitable!

I agree, but the option of not invading and allowing NK to develop N-weapons could be worse.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13518 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1597 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

if a nuke detonated in N.Korea during a destruction raid

A nuclear weapon would not detonate as a result of conventional weaponry destroying it. It takes a very controlled chain reaction to trigger an atomic detonation.

Also, if the DPRK does have some weaponry, they're of the low-yield (less than 20KT) variety, a-la the Fat Man and Little Boy designs. Fallout would not be a huge event in the region, although there would be some near the blast site.

Only a HYDROGEN device is capable of a thermonuclear detonation that would result in large yields (greater than 1MT) and the large fallout plumes that accompany them.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

Alpha 1,

Iraq was suspected of having chemical and biological weapons on short, battlefield-range weapons in a (relatively) sparsely-populated region. North Korea is known to have nuclear weapons and other WMDs, and is also known strategic-range missiles to carry them. It is arguable that the Iraqi WMD threat was more manageable in terms of limiting the risk to the populations of surrounding countries, than that in North Korea, where "Dear Leader" can choose to kill 50 million people at any time.

Charles


User currently offlineUal747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

"Well, they have WMD's, so why aren't we invading them? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? (dripping with sarcasm)."

Alpha 1,

You and I see pretty much eye-to-eye on the Bush administration, but I have to stray a bit here.

North Korea is an ENTIRELY different animal than Iraq is. First of all, it's got a highly developed army with many more capabilities than the one in Iraq. Secondly, you have South Korea to defend, which will likely bare the brunt of the attack. You also have to consider the relationship North Korea has with China, and how all this will affect Japan. This one, the administration has to be much more cautious about. We think we are having a lot of casualties in Iraq, North Korea would make Iraq look like a day in the park, unfortunately.

Political pressure is still a viable way to deal with them at this point. I honestly think the Bush administration isn't ignoring this threat, and they are doing things, although secretly, to ward off any N. Korean agression.

UAL747



Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
North Korea Shows ‘nuclear Deterrent’ To U.S. Dele posted Sat Jan 10 2004 18:14:15 by MidnightMike
North Korea Admits Nuclear Weapons Program posted Thu Oct 17 2002 03:56:59 by Rai
Did North Korea Conduct Second Nuclear Test? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 02:00:19 by AerospaceFan
North Korea Admits To Possessing Nuclear Weapons posted Thu Apr 24 2003 20:18:39 by B757300
Royal Navy Feared "Too Weak" Re: North Korea posted Mon Oct 16 2006 07:37:34 by AerospaceFan
John Kerry Plays Politics With North Korea posted Sun Oct 15 2006 17:09:28 by AerospaceFan
North Korea: Can Sanctions Work? posted Sat Oct 14 2006 23:21:30 by 9V
Did North Korea Pull A Mulligan On Us? posted Fri Oct 13 2006 23:07:40 by Jetjack74
McCain Critical Of Clintons On North Korea posted Wed Oct 11 2006 00:50:53 by AerospaceFan
N Korea Conducted A Nuclear Test? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 04:53:42 by Dtwclipper