North Korea May Have Six Nukes

Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN 'Late Edition' that North Korea could have up to five or six nuclear weapons. This report surfaces just a few days after U.S. intel claim to have spotted Pyongyang's North Korea's nuclear testing ground.



Just more development on what could be called the 'Great North Korea Nuclear Scare of 2005'. Pyongyang is just a nut trying to see just how far America will bend in order to bring our U.S. military to the negotiation tables. Hopefully, the either North Korea will wise up or the U.S. will squelsh the nuclear threat and prevent this from turning into another Cold War.

[edit on 5/9/2005 by Simulacra]

NK could have 6... or 0. Depends on your political motivations. Kind of like the Iraq evidence.

last check North Korea was known to have possessed some 8000 fuel rods used to power its reactor in the early 1990s and which are thought to have contained between 25-30kg of plutonium, enough for 5 or 6 nuclear weapons but who knows what they are up to now making bombs or not

Originally posted by Simulacra
This report surfaces just a few days after U.S. intel claim to have spotted Pyongyang's North Korea's nuclear testing ground.

Pyongyang is just a nut trying to see just how far America will bend in order to bring our U.S. military to the negotiation tables.

Pyongyang is the capital of NK. I couldn't tell if you were personifying the city or mistaken about what pyongyang is. The leader of NK is Kim Jong Il.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Quest]

Originally posted by Quest
Pyongyang is the capital of NK. I couldn't tell if you were personifying the city or mistaken about what pyongyang is. The leader of NK is Kim Jong Il.

Trying to personify the city, however it didn't quite work.

North Korea's quest to acquire more nukes will succeed.

We are quite capable of send them some.

And we'll make sure they arrive in working condition.

Originally posted by periwinkle blue
North Korea's quest to acquire more nukes will succeed.

We are quite capable of send them some.

And we'll make sure they arrive in working condition.

If you are implying the US would nuke NK over them having nukes, you are mistaken. We will sabre rattle just like they do but in the end we are at a standoff with them. Attacking NK would only devastate SK and Japan, not to mention anger China.

We'll sit in a stand off til something serious happens or leadership changes for other reasons.

To Quest........ not offended by your retort. Actually agree. What will be done and what 'oughta' be done are distinctly different.
A nuke reponse would actually not be necessary. our arsenal of MOABs, Bunker-Busters, Daisy-Cutters and Air/Gas bombs would be sufficient, should an offensive option be taken.

I once heard the North Koreans described as the "Irish" of the Orient. That's a most disturbing analogy.

Originally posted by periwinkle blue
I once heard the North Koreans described as the "Irish" of the Orient. That's a most disturbing analogy.

Being 3rd generation US-irish (half), i find that really disturbing. For the most part, we can probably just leave them alone, throw them a bone now and then, and wait for them to blow themselves up.