It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Korea Nuclear Weapon - Made in the USA

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 08:08 AM
link   
The Clinton and Bush administrations have played a key role in assisting Kim Jong Il in the development of North Korea’s nuclear technology since the mid-1990s. Former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was controlled by technology giant ABB when the latter made a deal to supply North Korea with two nuclear power plants. According to a SWI report from 2003, the Swiss ABB reported that Rumsfeld has been associated with the company since the beginning of 2000, when he signed a contract with Pyongyang in the amount of $ 200 million (SFr270 million).
www.swissinfo.ch...

ABB's contract was to supply equipment and services for two nuclear power plants in Kumho, on the east coast of North Korea. Donald Rumsfeld just got the baton from the Bill Clinton administration, who in 1994 agreed to start replacing North Korea’s nuclear reactors with the latest light water reactors.

Henry Sokolski, head of the Center for Nonproliferation Education Policy in Washington, said at the time that “LWRs can be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium for dozens of bombs in North Korea and Iran. This applies to all LWRs. This is a depressing fact that US policymakers have managed to block.
These reactors are similar to all other reactors, they can create weapons. Thus, we can eventually provide the worst nuclear violator with the means to acquire the weapon itself, the appearance of which we are trying to prevent. ”
www.washingtonpost.com... irect=on&utm_term=.45078a3ca6db

Then the American taxpayers actually financed the construction of these nuclear reactors in the amount of $ 95 million, which are now used to create weapons that threaten their lives. Despite this, the next president of the United States, George W. Bush, continued the nuclear weapons of the DPRK and in 2003 allocated even more money to the North Korean nuclear program. This program was allegedly further stopped, but the CIA intervened ... to help North Korea to continue its nuclear program.

In 2004, Dr. Abdul Qadir Khan, a CIA agent, an international arms smuggler and father of the Pakistan atomic bomb, recognized the exchange of nuclear technology through a worldwide smuggling network that included facilities in Malaysia where they manufactured key parts and mechanisms for centrifuges. Employee Khan B.S.A. Tahir led the company from Dubai, which sent centrifuge components to North Korea.

As Truth-Out reported at the time, Ruud Lubbers, the former prime minister of the Netherlands, reported in August 2005 that the Netherlands, where Khan had begun his nuclear career, was ready to arrest him 30 years ago. The authorities were close to arresting Khan twice, first in 1975 and then in 1986, but the CIA demanded that they allow him to act freely. Lubbers said that when he was prime minister in 1983, the Dutch authorities could resume business. However, they did not do it again due to US pressure.

“We have been following this man for almost ten years, and, obviously, he was a serious problem. But they told me again that the secret services would be able to handle it more effectively. The Hague did not make a final decision on this issue. Washington did it. ”
truth-out.org...

As a result, North Korea has its own nuclear arsenal. And this is all thanks to the US government, the CIA and the American taxpayers. The scandal is rapidly gaining momentum, inflated by Trump's enemies, and leaves no choice to the president. Trump does not have dedicated, qualified assistants and advisers, not to mention strategic think tanks and institutions. He is forced to act momentarily, based on the prevailing circumstances, sometimes even relying on intuition. Therefore, being driven into a corner, he can make a catastrophic decision for himself and his country - to start a nuclear war with the DPRK. Intuition and emotions are bad advisers, especially in geopolitics, where serious analysis and cold calculation are required. However, neither the one nor the other is still traced in Trump's actions. Perhaps his decision will be fatal for the whole rapidly degrading Western civilization.




posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: RussianTroll

OR...Trump could just dump all the evidence on the world stage for all to see, and let the fates of the perpetrators fall where they may.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: RussianTroll

last I checked NK doesn't have a nuclear weapon



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: RussianTroll

OR...Trump could just dump all the evidence on the world stage for all to see, and let the fates of the perpetrators fall where they may.



That's when the real party begins))



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: RussianTroll

last I checked NK doesn't have a nuclear weapon


And the Koreans themselves know about this?)))



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Well right now almost all nuclear power plants are LWRs and they don’t just make plutonium from normal operations it’s produced through a process referred to as “toasting” the uranium fuel in which fuel rods are only used for a fraction of the usable life and then reprocessed.




Because it’s the most “proliferation-resistant” nuclear reactor on the market. There are two ways to make nuclear weapons. You can either take fresh reactor fuel and enrich it—as many fear the Iranians plan to do with all their centrifuges—or you can reprocess used-up reactor fuel into weapons-grade plutonium. The latter option becomes much more difficult and expensive when you’re using a light-water reactor. Light-water reactors are designed for commercial use and can run for years at a time on a single batch of fuel. (“Light water” refers to ordinary H2O; “heavy water” has a higher percentage of deuterium atoms, i.e. hydrogen atoms with an extra neutron.) That long burn fills out the plutonium by-product with other isotopes that make it less useful for nuclear weapons. If you shut down a light-water reactor early—after a few months, for example—you’d waste a huge amount of money.

slate.com...

Heavy water reactors and research reactors can actually be easier to use for plutonium production, LWRs are very inefficient in plutonium production and are easier to monitor for non proliferation. Until we get thorium fuel cycle reactors like the MSR Light water uranium reactors are the best choice to give to countries as it’s the main type of reactor used throughout the world.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   
In order to add to this, there are major players in this country that would like to build Saudi Arabia's first nuclear reactor that even have a worse human rights record than North Korea.

What could possibly go wrong?
Dam the long term consequences.

www.defenseone.com...

The US Must Build Saudi Arabia’s First Nuclear Reactors

Saudi Arabia intends to award the contracts to build its first two nuclear reactors next year, en route to building 16 of them by 2040. It is a matter of national security that the United States re-establish its leading position in the global nuclear trade by successfully pursuing this and similar projects.


www.timesofisrael.com...
Saudi Arabia prepares to build first nuclear research reactor

Prince Mohammed said in March that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, Riyadh will do so too.

edit on 1-12-2018 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001
In order to add to this, there are major players in this country that would like to build Saudi Arabia's first nuclear reactor that even have a worse human rights record than North Korea.

What could possibly go wrong?
Dam the long term consequences.

www.defenseone.com...

The US Must Build Saudi Arabia’s First Nuclear Reactors

Saudi Arabia intends to award the contracts to build its first two nuclear reactors next year, en route to building 16 of them by 2040. It is a matter of national security that the United States re-establish its leading position in the global nuclear trade by successfully pursuing this and similar projects.

And they would fall under the same control regimes as all other commercial LWR reactors we help provide to other countries.
www.state.gov...



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

originally posted by: jacobe001
In order to add to this, there are major players in this country that would like to build Saudi Arabia's first nuclear reactor that even have a worse human rights record than North Korea.

What could possibly go wrong?
Dam the long term consequences.

www.defenseone.com...

The US Must Build Saudi Arabia’s First Nuclear Reactors

Saudi Arabia intends to award the contracts to build its first two nuclear reactors next year, en route to building 16 of them by 2040. It is a matter of national security that the United States re-establish its leading position in the global nuclear trade by successfully pursuing this and similar projects.

And they would fall under the same control regimes as all other commercial LWR reactors we help provide to other countries.
www.state.gov...



Read the additional link I attached.
Saudi Arabia intends to build a research reactor in order to build nuclear bombs.


www.timesofisrael.com...
Saudi Arabia prepares to build first nuclear research reactor
Raising concerns of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, crown prince lays foundations for first of 16 planned sites to be built over the next two decades

Prince Mohammed said in March that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, Riyadh will do so too.


Saudi Arabia is swimming in oil for electricity production so we know what this is all about.
MBS made it perfectly clear.
Prince Mohammed said in March that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, Riyadh will do so too.


edit on 1-12-2018 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: RussianTroll

last I checked NK doesn't have a nuclear weapon


Yes they do.

They just don't have the means to deliver it in a way the could threaten the US.
They could hit South Korea.

Maybe they could hit Japan before it could be intercepted, but they have no hope of hitting the US.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: RussianTroll

last I checked NK doesn't have a nuclear weapon


You're right, they have a few.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: RussianTroll

Uhm, history says otherwise.

It was the Soviet Union who built the nuclear reactor N. Korea uses for its nuclear weapons program. Trying to solely blame the west doesnt work.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: RussianTroll

last I checked NK doesn't have a nuclear weapon


Yes they do.

They just don't have the means to deliver it in a way the could threaten the US.
They could hit South Korea.

Maybe they could hit Japan before it could be intercepted, but they have no hope of hitting the US.


So N. Korea couldn't load a nuke onto a container vessel and set it up to detonate when it reaches its target?
How about selling the nukes to willing buyers from non state entities.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: RussianTroll

last I checked NK doesn't have a nuclear weapon


List of nuclear weapons tests of North Korea From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The construction of a crude nuclear device, from a physics point of view, is not that difficult.

Getting it to detonate on demand, making it smaller and giving it consistent yield is harder but these can be sorted out with a bit of trial and error.

The separation of weapons grade fuel is also not hard but the easier methods are relatively slow (unless you have enormous numbers of centrifuges and access to the right resources).

I'm fairly sure that NK has not only A-bombs, but H-bombs, too.

edit on 1/12/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RussianTroll

Uhm, history says otherwise.

It was the Soviet Union who built the nuclear reactor N. Korea uses for its nuclear weapons program. Trying to solely blame the west doesnt work.


What you call a "nuclear reactor" is the Soviet reactor IRT-2000 built in 1965 with a capacity of 2 MW. The IRT-2000 reactor is a research light-water pool-type reactor with a water-beryllium neutron reflector. Also in the 70s, a laboratory for the production of isotopes was built on the basis of IRT-2000. The only time in 1975, under the supervision of the IAEA, about 300 mg of plutonium from irradiated fuel elements of the research reactor IRT-2000 was obtained from spent fuel at the Laboratory. Isotope Production Laboratory used
for the production of isotopes for medical and industrial use, as well as for training and training personnel.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: RussianTroll

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RussianTroll

Uhm, history says otherwise.

It was the Soviet Union who built the nuclear reactor N. Korea uses for its nuclear weapons program. Trying to solely blame the west doesnt work.


What you call a "nuclear reactor" is the Soviet reactor IRT-2000 built in 1965 with a capacity of 2 MW. The IRT-2000 reactor is a research light-water pool-type reactor with a water-beryllium neutron reflector. Also in the 70s, a laboratory for the production of isotopes was built on the basis of IRT-2000. The only time in 1975, under the supervision of the IAEA, about 300 mg of plutonium from irradiated fuel elements of the research reactor IRT-2000 was obtained from spent fuel at the Laboratory. Isotope Production Laboratory used
for the production of isotopes for medical and industrial use, as well as for training and training personnel.

Yet LWRs provided by the US are more likely to cause proliferation? Either can be used but are the least efficient for production of plutonium. It’s the same type of deal so how what is the big deal? Centrifuges were easily obtained through the Kahn network are much more of a danger to proliferation than any light or heavy water reactor.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Your narrative is leaving out a lot of relevant background information.

By 1974, the IRT-2000 reactors that the USSR had supplied North Korea were running at the 4 MW level, thereby producing a lot of Plutonium.

By 1984, North Korea had built a spent fuel reprocessing plant to separate the weapons grade Plutonium out of the spent fuel fuel from the IRT-2000 and were constructing 2 graphite moderated breeder reactors, which is the preferred technology for mass production of Plutonium.

In 1985, North Korea signed the nuclear non proliferation (NPT) treaty but refused to allow international inspectors in the country for many years. In 1992, they finally allowed inspectors in and they found evidence that North Korea had been producing Plutonium for some time and were lying about it. By 1993, when North Korea was confronted with their lying, they threatened to withdraw from the NPT.

In 1994, Clinton was trying to keep North Korea in the NPT, so the US and North Korea signed an agreement in which the US would give North Korea financial aid which included building the two light water reactors referred to in the article in exchange for dismantling the existing graphite moderated reactors and removing the spent fuel from the country. The two reactors that were supposed to be built would have been operated under standard IAEA rules that include on-site inspections to insure that no spent fuel is diverted into weapons programs.

That would have been a good deal, if it had ever gone through to completion, but it didn’t. The Clinton administration started raising funding for the project (with contributions from Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia) and eventually let the first contracts to start building. One of those contracts went to the ABB corporation, and Rumsfield was one of directors on the board of that corporation.

However, by 2002 the George Bush administration had labeled North Korea as part of the axis of evil and effectively killed the Clinton agreement. By 2003, North Korea finalized its withdrawal from the NPT. Two years later, North Korea announced it had nuclear weapons.

You wrote:
“Then the American taxpayers actually financed the construction of these nuclear reactors in the amount of $ 95 million which are now used to threaten their lives. ….”

The reactors don’t exist.

So, once again your OP turns out to be donkey dung.
a reply to: RussianTroll



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: RussianTroll


An IRT-2000 pool-type research reactor was supplied by the Soviet Union for the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center in 1963, and began operation in 1965. After upgrades to the research reactor, the fuels now used are IRT-2M-type assemblies of 36% and 80% highly enriched uranium




edit on 1-12-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RussianTroll


An IRT-2000 pool-type research reactor was supplied by the Soviet Union for the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center in 1963, and began operation in 1965. After upgrades to the research reactor, the fuels now used are IRT-2M-type assemblies of 36% and 80% highly enriched uranium




Ah that’s just slightly more than the roughly 3-5% HEU enrichment level used for standard LWRs in the states lol.



posted on Dec, 1 2018 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: 1947boomer
Your narrative is leaving out a lot of relevant background information.

By 1974, the IRT-2000 reactors that the USSR had supplied North Korea were running at the 4 MW level, thereby producing a lot of Plutonium.

By 1984, North Korea had built a spent fuel reprocessing plant to separate the weapons grade Plutonium out of the spent fuel fuel from the IRT-2000 and were constructing 2 graphite moderated breeder reactors, which is the preferred technology for mass production of Plutonium.

In 1985, North Korea signed the nuclear non proliferation (NPT) treaty but refused to allow international inspectors in the country for many years. In 1992, they finally allowed inspectors in and they found evidence that North Korea had been producing Plutonium for some time and were lying about it. By 1993, when North Korea was confronted with their lying, they threatened to withdraw from the NPT.

In 1994, Clinton was trying to keep North Korea in the NPT, so the US and North Korea signed an agreement in which the US would give North Korea financial aid which included building the two light water reactors referred to in the article in exchange for dismantling the existing graphite moderated reactors and removing the spent fuel from the country. The two reactors that were supposed to be built would have been operated under standard IAEA rules that include on-site inspections to insure that no spent fuel is diverted into weapons programs.

That would have been a good deal, if it had ever gone through to completion, but it didn’t. The Clinton administration started raising funding for the project (with contributions from Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia) and eventually let the first contracts to start building. One of those contracts went to the ABB corporation, and Rumsfield was one of directors on the board of that corporation.

However, by 2002 the George Bush administration had labeled North Korea as part of the axis of evil and effectively killed the Clinton agreement. By 2003, North Korea finalized its withdrawal from the NPT. Two years later, North Korea announced it had nuclear weapons.

You wrote:
“Then the American taxpayers actually financed the construction of these nuclear reactors in the amount of $ 95 million which are now used to threaten their lives. ….”

The reactors don’t exist.

So, once again your OP turns out to be donkey dung.
a reply to: RussianTroll


Funny how in 98% of these conspiracy narratives they use just enough of the truth to be plausible.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join