Did the United States give North Korea Nukes,,,

reply to post by rigel4


Not really, but in retrospect, it was a lot like giving a drunk the keys to his car.

I would not be surprised with how broke financially the usa is that they sell their technology. lol your government wants to tax rain ( a thread from a few hours ago )

No one knows what their secret meetings were about in march this year but japan didn't like it nor did south korea .

Originally posted by rigel4

Originally posted by current93

Originally posted by tamusan
Even if we did give them light nuclear reactors, to replace their domestically produced ones, it was probably not so they could make nuclear weapons. There is a giant leap between reactors for power, and nuclear weapons. They were told not to refine uranium to weapons grade.

I give North Korea about 3-5 minutes after they attack, and then lights out for them.

Very good point mate, its one thing to run a nuclear reactor and another to get at any weapons grade material out of it. There is nothing wrong per se with the US providing power generation to a country like NK. It also gives us an idea of their power system, capacity, infrastructure etc. This is tech that could easily have been provided by Russia or China, so nothing overtly secret or offensive about that.

The real story is were did any spent fuel rods go, and what happened to the resultant waste and more importantly any weapon grade material that was collected.

Isn't it like giving selling rifles to the Apaches in times gone by,or at least like giving fire water to the natives.
You just know that they are going to drink it and start trouble with you.

Very very naive at best if true, frankly no one is that naive.

I do know what you mean mate, but the Soviets or China could easily have given the nuclear power capability as well. So this way the US/Allies have an idea on capacity/capability etc. It gets our guys in their for intelligence gathering. There is also the propaganda potential that it shows the west are happy to help and share with the NK people.

All nuclear generation does is create spent fuel rods. These are easily stored, don't take up much space, and have no weapon potential other than the so-called (non-nuclear) dirty bomb. There is no real need to reprocess if you have a stable and reliable source of enriched uranium ( which may have been part of the US contract and swapped for the spent rods).

reply to post by rigel4


A light water reactor is one of the harder ways to make fuel for nuclear weapons. It would require the reactor to be shut down, which would become obvious. A light water reactor uses regular water, which allows it to use one batch of fuel much longer than a heavy water reactor. To remove the fuel rods, which you'd have to do if you wanted to convert them to nuclear weapons grade, you have to basically remove the top of the reactor to get to them.

A heavy water reactor on the other hand would be a Bad Thing to give them. It uses water enriched with duterium, unenriched uranium fuel, and produces tritium and plutonium as byproducts.

A light water reactor really isn't a big deal in terms of nuclear weapons. They COULD convert it to nuclear weapons, but it's not going to be secret, and it's not going to be easy.

reply to post by freedomSlave


It's funny how people think that the U.S. government is broke. In reality, the serfs of nearly every country are really the ones who are broke. It wouldn't have been the U.S. government selling these things anyway. It would have been a private corporation which sold them.

reply to post by current93


Yes, I agree, North Korea likely would have recieved reactors from another country, if we hadn't provided them.

I would like to think of it as an attempt at humanitarianism, as I feel sorry for the people of North Korea, more than those of any other nation. Unfrotunatley, there is seldom any such thing as true altruistic purpose in the world.

reply to post by tamusan


But they couldn't be sold without approval of the US government, so for all intents and purposes it was a government sale. Businesses can't sell to North Korea without government approval, so they would have sold it to the US Gov't, then they would have turned around and sent it to North Korea to be installed.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Either way, I see it as a humanitarian effort. I honestly believe that there was a private company profiting, and not the government. I think in the very near future, every past humanitarian action towards North Korea is going to be turned into the U.S. arming North Korea.

reply to post by tamusan


I see it as that too. Not that I think they would use it that way. But as for the nuclear weapons question, it's the safest form of power they could have as far as weapons development is concerned.

reply to post by rigel4


Just a little misleading. I remember this. It was the results of deals from past "tantrums"in an attempt to allow NK to produce electricity without gaining the weapons grade material. To me the lesson is clear, it's like dealing with spoiled child. You given the concessions and the child believes it's a means to an end.

As long as North Korea gets what it wants by being belligerent it will be a belligerent nation.

We world's people should just go and "eat" all the North Koreans
"Sollent Green Koreans"

(I kid… I kid)

reply to post by rigel4


I saw it on the internet. Everything on the internet is true

Are we just running out of things to discuss on ATS?

reply to post by Ikema


The same thing is happening with NK right now. They are threatening in order to get negotiations so that the UN will lower the sanctions. Unfortunately, I think the rest of the world is getting really tired of their games

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the guts of the article are 100% true ....and we didn't give North Korea ANYTHING for nuclear development of weapons. Nada...

These same offers were made to Iran. Repeatedly. It's not about giving, it's about TAKING. Actually. If the US realizes and accepts another nation who they don't want to see have it, is GOING to build nuclear reactors come hell or high water?

What is better? Let them build and tailor make it to produce weapons program material? Or make it for them with 100% iron control over the fueling/refueling cycles and accountability by U.S. officials of every last gram of material? It's likely why places like Iran told us to stick our offers. They weren't to help anyone but to control them. Not a BAD idea either, given what we can see North Korea did do while it's demanded for over 20 years they were 100% peaceful and non-military energy efforts.

Yeah.. Peaceful..as they now threaten Tokyo with a nuke no one can be CERTAIN they don't have in a form they can deploy that way.

The idea that the CIA gave the North Korean's nuclear weapons just doesn't hold water as I'll explain below:

North Korea and Russia first established diplomatic relations on October 12, 1948 shortly after the North Korea was first established. This relationship lasted through the fall of the USSR in the early 90's.

This is important because the Russians helped start the North Korean's nuclear programme. This started with the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Centre which grew to become the centrepiece of its nuclear programme. Russia also helped train North Korean engineers and physicists at Soviet institutes to staff the North Korean research facilities. Not only did they staff the facilities with educated professionals, they financed, and equipped the facilities as well. This support lasted until the 1980s.

Around 1980, North Korea started to build a series of industrial-scale facilities capable of producing significant amounts of plutonium for a nuclear-weapons programme, as well as for the country’s nuclear-power industry.

The reactors consisted of:

• a small 5MW(e) (25MW(th)) research reactor at Yongbyon;
• a larger 50MW(e) (200MW(th)) prototype power reactor at Yongbyon; and
• a fullscale 200MW(e) (800MW(th)) power reactor at Taechon.

As the Soviets got closer and closer to their collapse in 1991 the relationship with the North Koreans became less and less of a priority for the Soviets. This isolation forced the NPRK to search for other avenues to continue their nuclear programme. Shortly after this they agreed to freeze and eventually to dismantle the key facilities associated with its plutonium production programme, including the uranium-conversion and fuel-fabrication plant, the 5MW(e), 50MW(e) and 200MW(e) reactors, and the reprocessing facility.

Enter Pakistan in the late 90's. In exchange for No-dong missiles and production technology the Pakistani's gave the North Koreans technical specifications, sample centrifuge machines, and training that would allow North Korea to duplicate the technology and to assemble a production ­scale centrifuge facility. This happened somewhere around 1997. Most of this is speculation but the father of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, A.Q. Khan, made several mysterious visits to North Korea during this period.

2002 the CIA began to investigate rumors that the North Korean's frozen nuclear programme was coming out of hibernation. And since that time the North Korean's in 2003 declares its intention to withdraw from the NPT. (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons). Later that year they declare they have nuclear weapons.

Since that time they have been going back and forth with the international community about stopping their nuclear weapons programme, breaking agreements, provoking Japan and South Korea with missile tests so on and so on.

While this is a very abridged version of the history of the North Korean's nuclear weapons programme I think it clearly shows that it is not the construct of the CIA. The North Koreans relied on the Soviet Union and Pakistan to achieve their nuclear ambitions.

If you would like more information on this please read this:

www.iiss.org... ramme/
(This won't link, so copy and paste)
A very extensive analysis of the NPRK weapons programme.


And read about A.Q. Khan the father of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal who probably had more to do with the North Korean's nuclear weapons programme then any other single individual:

www.iiss.org...

this type of information is really old news,but I can't confirm the NK connection,its common knowledge that Donald Rumsfield and Dick Cheney advised Gerald Ford to give Iraq nuclear powerplants,to "prevent" them from using up all "OUR" oil! Maybe back then we were trying to woo them over to be an ally against China or the USSR? With all the current advances,why not give them thorium reactors? Cheaper,safer,and no weapons to be made,case solved. And did Isreal have they're own nuke program? I doubt it...we just needed a foothold there.

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by freedomSlave

 

It's funny how people think that the U.S. government is broke. In reality, the serfs of nearly every country are really the ones who are broke. It wouldn't have been the U.S. government selling these things anyway. It would have been a private corporation which sold them.

um ok so what is your national debt now?

I don't know.

I am an American who does not live in the U.S. I married a foreigner and contribute to her countries GDP.

Don't you see how the U.S. hides it's assets right in front of us. All the debt is nothing. Especially, when the dollar crashes, and they pay everyone back with monopoly money. Then they will get right back to where they left off.

reply to post by tamusan


I have a feeling that Euro will outlast the Dollar.

Having said this, dollar will not disappear overnight or due to some currency swap. USA and dollar will go together.

This sale of these reactors had been negotiated by Clinton during the 1994 crisis.

The idea was to provide NK with oil and (harmless) nuclear reactors to solve their energy needs and prevent them from doing their own research on plutonium reactors (which use highly-enriched fuel that can be weaponized).

wow, you guys actually doubt this 'treaty' ??
which .gov site would clarify it for you ?

ok, this isn't a .gov but it's a start ... www.armscontrol.org...

On October 21, 1994, the United States and North Korea signed an agreement-the Agreed Framework-calling upon Pyongyang to freeze operation and construction of nuclear reactors suspected of being part of a covert nuclear weapons program in exchange for two proliferation-resistant nuclear power reactors.

yeppers, Clinton did that, however, once the foot is inside the door, do you really think the govt quit interfering ?

nah, not the US govt ... they have their foot in the door

U.S. Obligations
Establish and Organize KEDO: This includes the securing of diplomatic and legal rights and guarantees necessary to implement the light-water reactor project.

Implement the Light-Water Reactor Project: The United States is to facilitate the construction of two 1,000-megawatt light-water nuclear power reactors.

KEDO announced November 21, 2003 that it would suspend construction of the two light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea for one year beginning December 1.

and the battle continues.