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.

 

N. Korea

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Question. Why does N. Korea need/want nuclear missiles? I know that this question has probably been asked a lot, but it is still an issue. N. Korea continues to not allow UN weopons inspectors into N. Korea. N. Korea litterally said that they were withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, wich bans nuclear weopons. Why would they withdraw from this treaty if it was not making nuclear weapons?



dom

posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Fox - The answer is simple. With nuclear weapons they can threaten to unleash huge destruction on South Korea if the US decide to attack them. That's what this attack on Iraq has shown... "if you don't like the US, you better have nuclear weapons".

As for the non-proliferation treaty. That actually governs the sale of nuclear weapons, or facilities which could produce nuclear weapons, to other countries. So what N Korea is saying is "listen to our problems, or we'll arm all of the rogue states across the world with nuclear weapons too".



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 04:41 AM
link   
First and formost NK lost its economic energy supplies.
Pyongyang has taken increasingly aggressive steps since the US and its allies halted urgently needed oil supplies to North Korea, now in the grips of a harsh winter.
In responce they said they would restart the nuclear power plants, The crisis seems to be a rerun of 1994, when the US was preparing to strike a North Korean nuclear reactor. The dispute was solved when North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear program, in return for oil and help in building two light-water reactors. Sound familiar, it should. As history repeats itself.

read more here:

search.cometsystems.com...



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 04:47 AM
link   
That is a good point. Still, why would the US want to attack N. Korea?


dom

posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 04:50 AM
link   
The Korean war? N Korea is a communist state threatening a pro-US South Korea. Personally I think it's unlikey that the US could attack North Korea without the agreement of China.

However, when Dubya starts talking about an axis of evil that includes Iraq, N Korea, Iran and then attacks Iraq, it becomes pretty obvious that N Korea better watch it's back...



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 07:57 AM
link   
First it was a threat, to squeeze a little more money out of Uncle Sam... People talk about us cutting off their oil, as if it is our duty to provide NK with oil... No, we were essentially being blackmailed, and we grew tired of it...

As Dom said, he knew that he needed nukes to lessen the chance of invasion...once added to Bush's list....


dom

posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Well Gazrok, strictly speaking, the oil provided to North Korea was to satisfy their fuel needs, which would otherwise have had to be satisfied using nuclear reactors... call it blackmail if you want, but I'd call it a negotiated settlement.

I am intrigued about the reports that N Korea admitted having alternative, active, nuclear weapons programs. This was denied rapidly by their government, but was cited as the reason for stopping the oil shipments. Seems like it came along at just the right time to force the N Korean's into a militant attitude (the US must have known that N Korea wouldn't just lie down and take it after something like that, restarting their nuclear weapons program was entirely predictable once the oil stopped).



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 09:00 AM
link   
what do nuclear weapons have to do with meeting the country's energy needs? Nope, the only reasons would be to reinstitute the blackmail (and yep, thats basically what I think it is), or provide a little insurance against attack.


dom

posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Nuclear reactors have a lot to do with generating electricity. N Korea have 1 experimental 5MW reactor, a 50MW reactor, a 200MW reactor and two 1000MW reactors (currently in development). The latter two are allowed to be built under the agreed framework, the first two reactors are useful for producing weapons grade plutonium, the third one was under construction and doesn't have the necessary safeguards to prevent it being used for weapons development.

So, provide fuel oil for conventional reactors, or N Korea start using the lack of fuel as an excuse to restart reactors... it's just politics really. N Korea are asking for their energy shortfall to be supplied by the US in return for them stopping their nuclear programs. If the US back out on their side of the bargain, why should we be surprised when N Korea do too?



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 10:49 AM
link   
of my question, hehe... So then, what do you make of Kims threats against the US, such as his state posters, etc.? It's one thing to thumb your nose...quite another to make threats... Of course, Rumsfeld is doing likewise... Is it time for the 2004 elections yet?


dom

posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Sorry, I didn't actually mean to ignore your nuclear weapons point, must have lost that bit in a redraft of the reply.


Basically, I'm fairly certain that the necessary byproducts will end up getting used to create nuclear weapons. So if the US remove the fuel, it's obvious that they'll restart the reactors, and potentially start creating nuclear weapons once more. The deal that was struck wasn't really blackmail, N Korea weren't threatening to nuke the US, they were just threatening to create nuclear weapons...

I just wonder how manufactured this diplomatic crisis is... (i.e. how much do the US *want* a conflict with N Korea to eliminate one more thorny issue)



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 11:03 AM
link   
to have purposefully pushed their buttons....



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The North Korean government survives on making threats. The harsher the threat, the stronger the hand that they play with. When they make a concession they are in a good position because they started at the most extreme point.
The nuclear weapons are there to basically threaten the world. They have nothing else. They can't feed themselves, heat themselves or do anything that a normal industrial country can. They rely solely on handouts.
What better way to get a bigger hand out than by implying your willingness to use nuclear weapons?



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
The nuclear weapons are there to basically threaten the world.


I believe countries acquire nuclear weapons so they can't be threatened or pushed around. You can't threaten a country with nuclear weapons if they also have them.

If you knew other nations larger had nuclear weapons and have used them before, wouldn't you also want to have nuclear weapons? Of course you would.



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 02:54 PM
link   
But you may use them if you've got nothing to lose.
What have the North Koreans got to lose?
It's not a definite that they would go nuclear, but if they're scraping the bottom of the barrel and dying of hunger isn't it more likely?
Will Western governments take that chance? Will China or Japan?



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 02:59 PM
link   
You've also got to remember that North Korea has literally thousands of artillery pieces trained on Seoul. They're under no threat of invasion from the South or the US because conventionally they could wipe Seoul off the face of the planet. I don't believe that's a risk that the US would take.
The nuclear posture gets you noticed. You have a definite bargaining chip. One that North Korea has used before. It closed it's nuclear power programme in exchange for aid.
Rather strange that when the aid dried up it went back and opened it's reactors again whilst making all of these threatening remarks. Coincidence?



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
You've also got to remember that North Korea has literally thousands of artillery pieces trained on Seoul. They're under no threat of invasion from the South or the US because conventionally they could wipe Seoul off the face of the planet. I don't believe that's a risk that the US would take.
The nuclear posture gets you noticed. You have a definite bargaining chip. One that North Korea has used before. It closed it's nuclear power programme in exchange for aid.
Rather strange that when the aid dried up it went back and opened it's reactors again whilst making all of these threatening remarks. Coincidence?


I hear what you're saying, though the reactors have a legitimate use. They need electricity and they stopped getting oil shipments correct?

I'm not saying they aren't trying to threaten anyone. I don't know how those people think. I do know that I wouldn't be happy with any other country having a say at all with my economic business deals.



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I dunno dude. When the other countries are paying to keep you afloat don't you think they should be able to point you the way on your economy?
If you keep getting it wrong you're only going to be sucking up more of those other countries goodwill and resources.
The North Korean regime has proven itself totally inept in the running of the economy. If they won't listen to anyone else how do they expect to survive? Do they expect handouts forever? And what if those handouts aren't enough. How does the regime stop itself going down?
I agree with you that the nuclear power stations heat North Korean homes. But the one that they have reactivated provides minimal electricity for the North Korean needs. The main point about reactivating it is that a by product of nuclear power is weapons grade material.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join