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.

 

NEWS: N. Korea Won't Rule Out Pre-Emptive Attack

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1

I haven't done much research into the technological capabilities of NK's military; do they have any long range missles capable of hitting the west coast? Do they have any other means of getting the missles in range (ie subs, planes, etc.) I know we'd be able to track a plane, but would we be able to catch it in time?



check out this article in World net daily. www.wnd.com...


The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests to determine if its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight.

Scientists, including President Reagan's top science adviser, William R. Graham, say there is no other explanation for such tests than preparation for the deployment of electromagnetic pulse weapons – even one of which could knock out America's critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years.

Iran will have that capability – at least theoretically – as soon as it has one nuclear bomb ready to arm such a missile. North Korea, a strategic ally of Iran, already boasts such capability.



They may not have the means to get a nuke over here by themselves, but with a little help from Iran they could be a serious threat.




posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Could you blame Kim? When you have a tyrant like Bush breathing down your neck you will do whatever it takes to defend yourself. We'd do a preemptive strike against him so why would it be illogical for him to do the same? He probably figures he is gone one way or another so there is no loss for him to strike first. It is like the way we here treat sex crimes. You might as well kill the victim because the punishment is really no different. Kim has basically the same justification. He figures he is gone one way or another. So might as well get in a good shot first.


you don't know NK very well do you?
the problem isn't BUSH... it is the guys who sold the plant to him in the first place... and that would be RUMSFELD

can you say "agent provocateur"

that is when someone like Rumsfeld goes and sells a NUKE PLANT to NK, and then uses that as an excuse to get mad at them for having a nuke plant...
DUH!
can someone please tell me how an international Company that rumsfeld worked for didn't cause this whole mess?
Rumsfelds booboo



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
This wouldn't be like selling WMD to Saddam would it?
There seems to be a pattern to this. We stir up the mess and then try and be the hero.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
indy... your eyes see the truth...
carry it forth and propagate the tale of the entrapment that our country routinely finds itself the cause of.

Not to say that it is all intentional...

IMO that it is just greedy short range thinking by the same business leaders who coincidentaly are now our country leaders.

or is that just too much coincidence?



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
LazarusTheLong, although im loathed to do so I have to correct your point on Rumsfeld. I too was under the impression that Rumsfeld's company sold NK the reactors responsible for the nuclear crisis but its just not true.

The reactors supplied by Rumsfeld's company were the Light Water reactors as prescribed under Clinton's Agreed Framework. The previous reactors were the source of NK's plutonium and did not come from Rumsfeld et al.

Also the criticism of Bush in regards to North Korea is warranted. NK has the right to pull out of the NPT at any time, it is a right that has been used on a few occasions by the United States itself. If Bush wants NK to not excercise its sovereign right it should give NK reasons to do so. Otherwise it should keep its mouth firmly shut on the matter.

Clinton understood this and offered incentives to the North Koreans to forgo their legal rights. Clinton offered NK energy assistance and financial assistance in exchange for the NK's to relinquish their rights to withdraw from the NPT.

You cant force NK to not make nuclear weapons when they are fully within their rights to withdraw from the NPT. Unless you give them something to change their minds, which is just not in Bush's agenda. Hence a nuclear armed North Korea.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Thank you for correcting me subz...
I was under the impression that they could only afford one or two reactors... and they obviously don't really use them... the whole country is dark at night...

so they had some already that they didn't use much... and bought more...hummm. and now want the people of the world to feed his populace...
Nope... sorry.... we offer no more food, until they do something for us... like cease all nuclear research and dvelopment of weapons grade plutonium...

otherwise, Kim does not deserve to be at the worlds table...

this is a power play by the crazy living troll doll...

someone please... Just do the right thing and shoot the poor rabid loon.
It is just an act of mercy...
I mean.. we do shoot rabid dogs don't we?



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Youre welcome.

They didnt buy more, they were to be given to the North Koreans by the U.S, Japan and South Korea. The funding fell through mainly due to partisan politics in the U.S Senate and the light water reactors were never built.


North Korea began construction of 50MW(e) Nuclear Power Plant in 1985 or 1986, and it was due to be completed in 1995. North Korea used either the British Calder Hall reactor or the French G-2 reactor as a model for its 50MW(e) reactor in Yŏngbyŏn. Both are graphite-moderated, gas-cooled reactors, and good sources of weapon-grade plutonium. If the 50MW(e) reactor had been completed, it would have been capable of producing about 55kg of plutonium per year. The construction of this reactor has been frozen under the terms of the Agreed Framework, which was signed by the US and North Korea in October 1994.


Nuclear profile of North Korea

[edit on 25/5/05 by subz]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join