It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Korean Issue

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 09:37 PM
I still can't believe that none of the Sunday morning talkshows, Air America, Internet press etc. picked up on this story: Kerry Confirms North Korea has Nukes

This is a site I rely on for in-dept analysis of what goes on in Asia . They seem to really know what they are talking about and cover Asia very well with lots of great commentaries IMHO (note: I have no financial interests

They also have no news on the Kerry confirmation.


When it comes to where both candidates stand on the Korean issue this is what they have to say: Bush-Kerry debate: Both wrong on N Korea

Regardless of whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, if you are concerned about events on the Korean Peninsula, you had to come away from the first presidential debate feeling quite distressed. Neither US President George W Bush nor Senator John Kerry had his facts straight and, collectively, they managed to significantly reduce the already slim chance that there would be any near-term progress in the currently stalled six-party talks process.

They go on to explain why they are messing up

By repeatedly pledging that his administration would not discuss the problem one-on-one with the North because "it's precisely what Kim Jong-il wants", the president has once again undercut the credibility of his own negotiators while seemingly putting his personal disdain for North Korea's leader ahead of the pursuit of America's national security interests.

In an opinion piece ( Kerry dead wrong on North Korea) I found plenty of facts about the recent history of the region.

The 1994 US - North Korea "Agreed Framework" (signed October 1994) provided that Pyongyang would "freeze" and later dismantle its nuclear facilities in return for being supplied with proliferation-proof nuclear reactors. The US (and South Korea and Japan) went slow on starting reactor construction (now abandoned).

There is much more on the site.

Why cant we get this level of analysis in our press?

The construction of the proliferation-proof nuclear reactors promised in exchange for NK giving up on nukes was delayed for several years before being abandoned.

When the US failed to keep-up its end of the bargain (by building the reactors for much needed electricity for irrigation pumps in a drought stricken country), NK turned back to their nuclear power program using the old proliferation type reactors. The US accused them of making weapons, imposed sanctions and listed in the Axis of "Evil".

A nuclear North Korea could have been avoided by building a few new reactors for them and dismantling the old ones.

More mud-slinging anyone?

Or will it be nukes?

[edit on 10/4/2004 by Gools]

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 09:52 PM
I don't get it if North Korea is known to be a big thread how come US and the UN has not done something more than just empty threads to them, NK seems like it realy does not care one way or another what US think they have already the nuclear capability.

What is next? We are up to our necks in Afghanistan and Iraq, how is NK affair is going to be handle.

Now not only they have nukes but may very well they will have oil too, what an irony for the rest of the world.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by marg6043
We are up to our necks in Afghanistan and Iraq, how is NK affair is going to be handle.

Yes and there is Iran too.

The US seems to be focusing on Iran right now rather than the more pressing problem of a nuclear North Korea.

The last link in my post states that Kerry missspoke when he said NK already had 4-7 nukes. It seems that they have enough material to make that many but there is still an open question as to whether or not they have succeeded. [edit: my question was did Kerry spill the beans on some intelligence he was privy too]

The report of the mushroom cloud explosion was dismissed as a nuclear test and the administration still refuses to deal directly with NK. It seems the US WANTS NK to have nukes and are purposely driving them towards nuclear development.

[edit on 10/5/2004 by Gools]

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Gools
The report of the mushroom cloud explosion was dismissed as a nuclear test and the administration still refuses to deal directly with NK. It seems the US WANTS NK to have nukes and are purposely driving them towards nuclear development.

That's what I found so're right - there does seem to be some degree of involvment hidden under the surface - like we're purposefuly aiding them by being inactive...

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
I don't get it if North Korea is known to be a big thread how come US and the UN has not done something more than just empty threads to them?
North Korea and Cuba. Both countries have little or no oil resources of their own, both relied upon the Soviet Union for their oil imports, and both experienced a swift and severe drop in their oil imports following the demise of the Soviet empire.
The United States blandly explains that the North Korean situation can be handled by other means, not war.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 02:27 PM
Thanks for the links mrmulder, now I see why US may want to stay keep his hold of Iraq and aim next to Iran.

If a country like North Korea has black gold Its not going to make US any happier I wonder if US is awared of the possibility of North Korea becoming more powerful if they start devoloping their oil fields capabilities.

And how real their claim on oil is.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:38 PM
The citizens of NK are oblivious to the rest of the world ie) reality and most truly believe what the massive cult of personality has indoctrinated them to believe. Eliminating Dear Leader's regime would devestate the South Korean economy and create a massive humanitarian crisis.

Imagine a blow to your psyche akin to "the reptilians" holding a press conference on the White House lawn announcing that everything you ever knew or believed was WRONG.

Also they don't have oil

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:51 PM

Originally posted by deevee

Also they don't have oil

Well they are claiming that they do, so if is true, then what is going on?

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:01 PM

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by deevee

Also they don't have oil

Well they are claiming that they do, so if is true, then what is going on?

They claim many many funny things. If they had oil they wouldn't need to sell methamphetamine in the west to raise foreign exchange.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:10 PM
Deevee even south Korea admitted to the oil.

TexNorth Korea was found to have been producing 2.2 mm barrels of crude oil annually since 1999, a South Korean government official has reported. According to a high-ranking official, North Korea succeeded in experimental production of the crude oil from the seas off Sukchun in North Korea's South Pyongan Province in 1998 and has been producing oil since then. t

I am smelling fish here or is just my imagination.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:15 PM
Marg- Check this link

Kim's first time at golf he scored 38 under par with 5 holes in one. The North's claims are the funniest thing on the net IMHO

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:18 PM
I did check the link but still why will south korea will agree with the oil statment if it was not true.

Is south korea playing games also?

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:22 PM
Who knows? Notice they didn't call him on his golf score either though

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:26 PM
Well thanks deevee, but I will keep checking into the "oil" thing and see what can I come out with.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 05:53 PM
North Korea...How many Nukes?

I recently read this article...its kinda scary if its true...and as we all know our NK intel is very suspect.

How Many Nukes Does North Korea Have? Zero? One? Two? Eight? 100?

by Kim Myong Chol

American experts offer varying estimates of how many nukes the DPRK has. Some put the figure at two, others at eight and some others twenty or more. AP quoted Charles Kartman as saying, "North Korea may have only a single nuclear weapon and there is no proof that the reclusive country has actually produced any." A key question remains yet to be answered: How many nukes does North Korea have, zero, or one, or two, or eight, or 100 or 300? Recently North Korean Vice-Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon stated at the UN General Assembly: North Korea has turned plutonium from 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods into weapons to serve as a deterrent against a possible nuclear strike by the United States.

Assume that there is no proof that North Korea has actually produced any nuclear weapons, then it means that there is no evidence to believe that the North Koreans have may only a single nuke. It follows that Mr. Choe Su Hon told a lie. if this is the case, the Bush Administration has no factual ground at all to allege that the North Koreans are in material breach of the 1994 Agreed Framework or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It also means that the North Koreans deliberately bluffed: North Korea is a non-nuclear power with obsolete weapons.

Then a question arises why the Clinton Administration invested so much diplomatic assets in resolving the non-existent nuclear crisis before hammering out the nuclear accord with the DPRK. In the first place, there was no reason to warrant the creation of the KEDO to oversee the promised construction of two light-water reactors. Why did Clinton send the then Secretary of State Albright to Pyongyang? Why did Clinton receive Kim Jong Il's special envoy Vice-Marshal Cho Myong Rok?

If Kartman is right, it indicates beyond doubt that the six-party talks are senseless from the beginning because the Americans duped China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea into the multilateral talks on the dubious nuclear program. What a tricky Bush!

If Kartman is right, South Korea's clandestine nuclear weapons program, more than twenty years old, is more of a problem than the phony nuclear program in North Korea. Kartman should instead insist that Seoul's nuclear program be a top agenda item at the next round of six-party talks. North Korea, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea have every reason to accuse the Bush Administration of cheating. The re-emergence of North Korea as a front-burner issue in the US presidential election should totally be misplaced.

If Kartman is right, a new Administration in Washington, DC will have no worry about launching preemptive precision strikes on North Korea. They must be reasonably confident that a war against North Korea will be a walkover. They may safely dismiss the North Korean warnings that they will put the nuclear torch to New York and other major cities on the US mainland.

The super-hawk Bush could have eliminated two members of the axis of evil, Kim Jong Il and Hussein, and could proudly claim, "The world is much safer and better off without them."

To be blunt, the North Koreans successfully completed their nuclear weapons program by the mid-80s and put into operational service a small fleet of ICBM by the mid-90s. Their arsenal comprises not less than 100 and not more than 300 nukes, all locked on major strategic targets on the US mainland. Yongbyon is nothing more than a decoy. American intelligence on North Korea is ten years or twenty years behind reality.

Nuclear weapons technology is not high technology. It is very primitive technology, going as far back as 1945. The 1945 technology needs five to seven kilogram of plutonium to make a single weawpon. North Korean technology requires one or two kilograms to make a bomb. For the North Koreans, it is a joke. Super-computers are not necessary for nuclear detonation simulations. North Korean ICBMs have the whole mainland USA within their easy range.

For Pyongyang to claim nuclear capability is one thing, while for Washington to be skeptical is another. It is entirely up to the Americans to believe what the North Koreans say. It is characteristic of the Americans to be skeptical of whatever others say. If the North Koreans deny nuclear capability, the Americans would say, "You may have nuclear capability." If the North Koreans claim that they are nuclear-armed, the conditioned American response is skepticism. Their demand remains the same: lie-detectors and verification.

Why are the Americans skeptical? Why do not they trust others? An answer is to be sought in the American culture of cheating as the New York Times noted in its October 4, 2003 edition. Bush told lies about Iraq. Cheney told lies about Enron. They lied to dodge being drafted into the Vietnam war. Clinton was unfaithful to his wife. So was Kennedy. Nixon was called Tricky Dick. To be more blunt, the US is in material breach of the NPT by transferring nuclear technology and hardware to the United Kingdom.Most questionable are the American double standards on nuclear technology.

The DPRK has no obligation to show to the US any physical evidence of its nuclear deterrence or have it verified by foreign inspectors. The DPRK is outside the NPT. The Nort Koreans make it plain that their nuclear arsenal will grow in quantity and quality as months go by. Whether talks are under way or not, the North Koreans keep relentlessly pressing ahead with their nuclear weapons program.

The North Koreans mean what they say. William Perry once observed: I had to conclude that regular threats issued by North Korean mass media must be taken at face value. Ashton Carter said: The US should be the last to meet with a nuclear North Korea.

A simple way to know how many nukes the DPPK has is to launch a preemptive precision strike on Yongbyon. Diplomatic demands to pry open the North Korean nuclear facilities will be time-consuming. In less than half an hour, the Americans will get a clear-cut answer of whether New York, Washington, DC, Chicago and Los Angeles will evaporate in a sea of nuclear fire. If Kartman and others are right, the US mainland will survive unscathed. Instead, North Korea will be bombed back to the Stone Age.

Why not calll North Korea's bluff by unleashing a nuclear attack on Pyongyang?

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 06:14 PM
Maybe NK does have a bit marge, but 2.2m barrels a day is barely enough to have much needed power in this country. See how dark North Korea is on this map Earth at Night.

Back to the main topic...

It seems that both candidates do not have their entire facts straight and neither approach is promising. This is because the US failed to uphold its part of the deal by delaying construction of the reactors for at least three years while the North Korean people were dying from famine. No wonder they hate the US and look to Kim Jong-il as a cult figure.

I'm surprised that the Bush administration has not jumped on this failure of Clinton's as an opportunity to set right a "mistake" by the democrats.

Instead they have embraced the situation to saber-rattle and gaud the North Koreans. Remember this is a "War" president. That's what the W stands for.

And Kerry will have no credibility due to the breach of the past.

So North Korea has good reason the pursue nuclear power, both civil and military. They go hand in hand. What right does one nuclear power have to tell another country they cannot have nuclear weapons?

North Korea does or will very soon have the bomb.

Maybe its time we stop being self-righteous and pissing this country off.

Or is Kim Jong-il the "evil" unapproachable madman the neocons say he is. These conmen have been caught in lies before.


posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 06:32 PM
you dont stir up the drums of war when other matters need attention first.

also an established base (and relative situational control) in Iraq would be of more strategical value than North Korea, regardless of oil possibilities.

now countries like china would have to aim thier nukes at 2 different fronts in order to combat the US. both the homeland and the strategic middle east.

thus creating a situation that the US would be able to defend itself regardless of international allies. (nuclear war perhaps?first strike on everyone?)

oil is a big bonus as it has a limited world supply that the future of the US depends on. (again, a large worldwide military conflict when things start to run low)

maybe the US wants to control most of the worlds oil supply before starting a nuclear engagement with North Korea? it makes sense to me.

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 06:35 PM
MTZ you summed it up perfectly IMHO

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 07:04 PM
I found this tonight.

Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy

It covers events going back to 1985 and ending in 2003. Things seemed to be going along just fine until dubya showed up.

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 10:56 AM
Perhaps the US is hopping that it's two main allies in the region will responde to the NK threat by going nuclear?

Source: Seoul, Tokyo and the forbidden nuclear card

As hopes fade for a speedy resolution of the crisis over North Korea's nuclear-weapons program, there have been indications that South Korea and Japan - Pyongyang's principal enemies in the region - might themselves have been or might be considering embarking on the road to nuclear weapons, or at least giving thought to the option, and not for the first time. While the short-term threat stems from North Korea's nuclear weapons, over the longer term both South Korea and Japan are increasingly pursuing a path of "strategic independence" from their principal security guarantor of the past 60 years, the United States.


If both nations possessed nuclear weapons, that arguably would defuse the North Korean nuclear crisis, as well as change the geostrategic landscape of North Asia.

There is much more in the article with respect to the interplay of politics between North Korea, Korea, Japan, China and the US and concludes.

Regardless of what Washington and Beijing want, and even though it is not yet inevitable, the chances that South Korea and/or Japan might go nuclear in coming years has risen substantially of late. While the US is busy fighting a global "war on terrorism", it may find that the emergence of a nuclear Northeast Asia - and the emergence of independent new powers in South Korea and Japan - does more to undermine its global hegemony than the ongoing insurgency in Iraq and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions. Emphasis mine.

Thoughts/views on where all this is going?

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in