News & Politics - North Korea has nukes

Eddy · 02-10-2005, 06:32 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...north_talks_dc

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea (news - web sites) declared Thursday for the first time it possessed nuclear weapons and pulled out indefinitely from six-party talks on its atomic ambitions, saying it needed a defense against a hostile United States.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) played down the dramatic announcement, saying the United States had assumed since the mid-1990s that North Korea could make nuclear weapons.

But she said North Korea would only deepen its own isolation, and forego international security guarantees if it pulled out of six-party talks on its nuclear program.

Britain said it deplored the North's announcement, which comes as some of the world's largest military powers have been trying to coax the reclusive communist government to return to the stalled disarmament talks.

"We ... have manufactured nukes to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

DPRK is short for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

"Nuclear weapons will remain (a) nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances," the ministry said.

The statement marks the first time the North has publicly said it has nuclear weapons and is Pyongyang's first response to resuming six-party talks since President Bush (news - web sites) said in his inauguration speech on Jan. 20 that he was committed to ending tyranny.

While Bush did not specify countries in his address last month, Rice has singled out North Korea as one of six tyrannical regimes.

CHALLENGE FOR BUSH

The statement also poses a challenge to Bush, who has long backed a diplomatic solution to the crisis but now faces two nations he once named as part of an "axis of evil" being openly defiant about their nuclear programs -- North Korea and Iran. He went to war with Iraq (news - web sites), the third nation in his declared axis.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) said Thursday he believed North Korea could be brought back to the negotiating table, while Russia's Foreign Ministry said it regretted the North's declaration of intent to build up its nuclear arsenal and halt its participation in the six-way dialogue.

Neighboring South Korea (news - web sites) and Japan responded swiftly to the North's move to raise the stakes in a crisis that has engulfed North Asia for more than two years, urging it to abandon its nuclear programs.

"We express our grave concern over North Korea's comment on its possessing nuclear weapons and we make it clear again that we won't tolerate North's nuclear weapons," a South Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

China said it hoped the six-party talks would resume, noting that Beijing had persistently sought denuclearization along with peace and stability on the Korean peninsula.

Speaking in Luxembourg, Rice said the United States had no intention of attacking or invading North Korea and said she hoped the talks, which also involve South Korea, China, Japan and Russia, would resume soon.

"The fact of the matter is that the world has given them a way out and they should take that way out," she said.

Nuclear proliferation experts said North Korea has likely produced enough plutonium for a small number of weapons but no one can say for certain if the North has the ability to assemble and deliver a nuclear bomb.

"Most people in the field assume that North Korea can deliver a simple, implosion weapon by missile with a range that could hit Tokyo," said Gary Samore, the Director of Studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Britain.

Earlier this week, U.S. officials said an envoy sent by Bush to China had delivered a message to China's leaders about information suggesting that Libya had obtained uranium hexafluoride from North Korea and made the case that this underscored the need to restart six-party talks.

This processed uranium can be fed into nuclear centrifuges and enriched into bomb fuel.

Three rounds of six-way talks have been held since August 2003 aimed at trying to coax Pyongyang back to the table.

BRINKMANSHIP

However, the Pyongyang Foreign Ministry tirade, announcing the indefinite suspension of talks, referred directly to what it called Washington's hostile policy as the North's reason for boosting its defenses.

"The Bush administration termed the DPRK, its dialogue partner, an outpost of tyranny," the ministry said, adding that the U.S. aim was to stifle the North and achieve regime change.

"This deprived the DPRK of any justification to participate in the six-party talks," it said.

The latest crisis over the North's nuclear ambitions erupted in October 2002 when the United States said North Korea had acknowledged it had a secret program based on highly enriched uranium as well as a plutonium scheme that it had put on hold.

Pyongyang later denied having a uranium project.

North Korea may be trying to raise the stakes while U.S. attention is focused on Iran's nuclear programs to obtain better terms in its own negotiations, analysts said.

"I believe North Korea hardened its stance because the Bush administration has eased its stance," said Noriyuki Suzuki, chief analyst at the Tokyo-based Radiopress news agency, which specializes in monitoring events in North Korea.

"North Korea is trying to win more concessions from the United States by hardening its stance," he said.

"But I think this approach will have the opposite effect to what was intended," Suzuki said.

A senior South Korean security official hinted that the North may be using brinkmanship to try to gain the upper hand.

"North Korea is using its typical harsh rhetoric, but it still makes it clear that this is not the end of the talks," the official said.

TokyoNiGHTS · 02-10-2005, 10:02 PM

It should also be noted that Rice said we have no interest in going to war with them. And really, why would we go to war with a country that actually has nukes?

mh67511 · 02-10-2005, 10:17 PM

This kind of creeps me out because in that other thread it said our (the US) nukes are old. So if N. Korea for some reason did fire a weapon at us and if we fired back at them if our weapons would make it. But I'm afraid if we did have a nuclear attack it would not come from a country, but a terrorist, like in The Sum of All Fears so we wouldn't even know who to attack in retaliation.

**Crystaline** · 02-11-2005, 12:19 AM

This is a bit frightening. I mean, it's nuclear weaponery for god's sake! Though this is a matter of security, I think it would be wise for the U.S. to not try and dictate these people's decisions in this matter. The outcome can be catastrophic.

Elizajoey · 02-11-2005, 04:31 AM

Nth Korea has 'nukes'?

So, why the press release?

America has 'nukes' too. It irritates me to no end when countries that are supposed 'democratic' complain about countries having nukes and how they can't have nuclear arsenal when they have their own nukes. Hypocrites to the ninth degree.

Eddy · 02-11-2005, 06:29 AM

Elizajoey, the problem with NK having nukes is that they may sell them to terrorist groups. They've done it before.

Milt Palacio · 02-11-2005, 07:53 AM

We need to monitor them. Do we a relationship with their government?

the_mystic_dude · 02-11-2005, 08:08 AM

Man, I gotta tell you, that was the worst news in a long time in my eyes. They just say it like that, "we have nukes," so cool, like who the hell do they think they are??? We should blow 'em to kingdom come. Back to the f**ing medieval times asap before they bomb us.

Lexis · 02-11-2005, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_mystic_dude

Man, I gotta tell you, that was the worst news in a long time in my eyes. They just say it like that, "we have nukes," so cool, like who the hell do they think they are??? We should blow 'em to kingdom come. Back to the f**ing medieval times asap before they bomb us.

They are a country - with a cruel, corrupt government. Using logic in this situation is pretty fruitless - Kim Jong II thinks he's a freakin' God and wants his people to worship him accordingly.

And what about the millions of innocent North Koreans who live under the already oppressive regime in N. Korea? Should we blow them all to hell without trying to find another way?

13 million N. Koreans (almost half of the population) are malnourished, most of the population rely on international aid to live. A North Korean child is on average, shorter and lighter than a South Korean child due to the severe food shortages (and the rations have just been cut again). Electricity is in short supply, there are constant blackouts.

Public executions, severe punishments for speaking out against the leadership and religious oppression - just some of the horrors these people are living under.

If there was a military intervention, how the hell would we get in there? The DMZ is littered with mines - they keep the North from invading the South but would make invasion difficult - we'd have get to get troops in via air and sea.

If you really are in support of a pre-emptive war, I would hope you are also in support of helping reconstruct the country. That would be a huge, huge job. And although there wouldn't be the same insurgency as we've seen in Iraq, there would be an enormous job to help them build a better future.

mh67511 · 02-11-2005, 11:21 AM

Lexis - very informative. I had no idea those things occurred! Is North Korea a communist government?

I have a question. Is China communist? The reason I ask is that I was shocked they got the Olympics (I'm pretty sure they did, but not sure which one), because I have read about their religious persecution and other things.

Milt Palacio · 02-11-2005, 11:26 AM

North Korea sounds like a mess, Lexis. Has the country always been like this?

Lexis · 02-11-2005, 02:01 PM

North Korea was formed after WW2 - the current leaders father had support from the Soviets and was intially popular.

Quote:

Supported by the Soviet Union, the charismatic Kim Il-sung embarked on a series of popular social and economic reforms, including the redistribution of land and nationalisation of Japanese property.

This gave the communists considerable support, while simultaneously driving many of the skilled and richer parts of the population to the South.

The subsequent Korean War was the result of irreconcilable political differences between Communist North Korea and the US-controlled South.

Neither the Soviet Union, which had occupied North Korea in 1945, nor the USA could bear the peninsula falling into the other's hands, and the formal division of the Korea in 1948 set the stage for military conflict.

The war lasted between 1950 and 1953, causing devastating human losses and eventually more distant relations with the Soviet Union, especially after Stalin's death in 1953.

Because he knew he couldn't rely on support from Stalin any more, he decided that N. Korea should become more reliant on itself.

Quote:

While other communist countries, including China, opted for reform, North Korea maintained the ideological purity of its economic policy but this rigid state controlled system led to increasing problems exacerbated by high levels of military spending.

For the future....

Quote:

The collapse of the North could lead to a serious escalation of tension between China and the United States. US Defence Secretary, William Cohen, has said that it would be necessary for the 37,000 American troops to stay on after unification.

Such a prospect would cause deep unease in Beijing as would the emergence of a stronger unified Korea.

North Korea remains the world's last outpost of Stalinism. Communist ideology remains strong after years of indoctrination.

The support of China may prevent the country's immediate collapse but there is little sign that the leadership in Pyongyang is ready to embark on any fundamental reforms that could save their people from further misery and turmoil.

The article was written in 1998 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_r..._50/166409.stm

Its a problem, I agree. But I'm really not sure military action is the best course of action. If these is anyway to sort things out diplomatically, we should do it that way. The trigger happy method would be disastrous.

And besides, could the military handle another war? If US forces are stretched thin now, it'd get even worse.

*Ledi* · 02-11-2005, 02:21 PM

This just keeps getting better!

Quote:

UNITED NATIONS - North Korea (news - web sites)'s deputy U.N. ambassador indicated Friday that six-nation talks on the country's nuclear program were over and said the real issue is whether the United States intends to attack the reclusive communist nation.

Han Song Ryol made clear that his country's announcement Thursday that it is a nuclear power and would indefinitely suspend its participation in six-party negotiations was the result of Pyongyang's belief that the United States is bent on invading North Korea to topple Kim Jong II's authoritarian regime.

But Han went further in a brief interview Friday with Associated Press Television News when asked what it would take to get North Korea to come back to the six-party talks.

"Six party talks is old story. No more," the North Korean envoy replied in English.

Han was quoted in a South Korean newspaper on Friday as demanding bilateral talks with the United States to defuse the tension created by Thursday's announcement.

"If the United States moves to have direct dialogue with us, we can take that as a signal that the United States is changing its hostile policy toward us," he was quoted as telling South Korea (news - web sites)'s Hankyoreh newspaper in an interview Thursday.

But Han appeared to backtrack on the demand in Friday's APTN interview when he was asked whether the United States needs to have bilateral talks with North Korea.

"No, we do not ask for bilateral talks," Han replied. "The formality of the dialogue is not essential one. The essential one is the U.S. policy — whether it try to attack us or not. That is the problem, but not the bilateral or multilateral one. We do not care about the formality."

The North Korean diplomat was also very pessimistic when asked whether his government would engage in talks if the United States showed a more positive attitude.

"We do not expect any further positive measures from the U.S. side," Han told APTN. "We have seen already, fully, and we made already decision."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._north_korea_1

**TheAngel** · 02-11-2005, 04:22 PM

I don't understand how these nuclear talks are all the responsibility of the United States, although I shouldn't expect anything otherwise. But there are five other countries involved as well. I haven't noticed much agression towards North Korea militarily very recently, except expressing concern over their nuclear program. Obviously it is a problem. When the Soviet Union fell we lost track of numerous warheads and nuclear technology that was sold to the highest bidder on the black market, whether terrorist or rogue government or what not. This is obviously a concern since Communism has not been seen to be the most stable form of government. Even China has relaxed some of its more strict regulations in recent years. I think North Korea is using the US as a scapegoat in its own personal game of chess.

Here's some more info.

Quote:

U.S. Refuses One-On-One North Korea Talks

Friday February 11, 2005 10:46 PM

AP Photo SEL112

By DEB RIECHMANN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Arguing it had been burned before in one-on-one talks with North Korea, the Bush administration on Friday rejected an appeal for direct discussions on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program.

The White House urged resumption of six-nation talks designed to negotiate the elimination of the communist country's nuclear armaments.

But with that process stalled, administration officials were beginning to discuss the possibility of referring the issue to the U.N. Security Council as an alternate approach.

Han Sung Ryol, a senior North Korean diplomat at the United Nations, urged a direct dialogue with the United States in an interview with a South Korean newspaper.

But in a subsequent interview, he appeared to backtrack, telling Associated Press Television News, ``No, we do not ask for bilateral talks.'' He said the key issue for North Korea was whether the United States planned to attack North Korea.

The United States has said repeatedly in recent years that it has no such plans and is intent on seeking a diplomatic solution.

On Thursday, the North Korean Foreign Ministry declared that the country had produced nuclear weapons and said it was calling off participation in the six-nation talks.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday the United States has no interest in direct talks.

``It's not an issue between North Korea and the United States. It's a regional issue,'' McClellan said, noting the six-party format includes China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, in addition to the United States and North Korea itself.

At the State Department spokesman Richard Boucher called attention to the unhappy outcome of a 1994 bilateral agreement with North Korea.

``When the U.S. and North Korea had direct negotiations to eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program, we got a deal and then North Korea started cheating on the deal very quickly, within a couple years,'' he said.

The agreement fell apart in 2002 when the Bush administration alleged that North Korea had secretly begun a uranium enrichment program in violation of the spirit of the 1994 agreement.

That in turn led to the six-party disarmament negotiations that began in August 2003. Two subsequent rounds were held with little visible progress.

North Korea had been widely expected to resume the process early this year, but Thursday's statement appeared to rule out that option for the time being.

An administration official, asking not to be identified, raised the possibility of reviving an attempt begun in 2003 to place the issue before the U.N. Security Council.

North Korea was put on the council agenda after it evicted U.N. nuclear inspectors and withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The council withheld action after the six-party process got under way. If the council takes up the issue, that could lead to sanctions against North Korea.

The United States has been in touch with China, South Korea, Russia and Japan about North Korea's opposition to renewing the multilateral talks. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet on Monday with South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon. Japan's foreign and defense ministers will visit Washington Feb. 19.

Boucher said the United States and the four U.S. partners in the talks with North Korea all agree the discussions should resume because they would give North Korea ``a chance to have a more normal relationship with the world.''

If North Korea agrees to disarm in a verifiable way, it would receive economic benefits from the United States and other countries.

Jack Pritchard, a Korea expert who left the State Department in 2003 because of disagreement with U.S. policies, said North Korea may have decided against resuming the six-party process because of the absence of positive U.S. signals recently.

In the second Bush administration, ``the lineup is looking pretty bleak'' for North Korea, Pritchard said. Rice included North Korea as one of six ``outposts of tyranny,'' during her confirmation hearing three weeks ago, Pritchard noted.

He also said North Korea may have concluded that keeping its nuclear weapons may be the safest course. He pointed out that India and Pakistan have good relations with the United States and other countries despite the nuclear testing both carried out in 1998.

On the other hand, Pritchard said, the United States attacked non-nuclear Iraq in 2003. The sequence of events, he said, may fall into the category of ``lessons learned'' for North Korea.

Lexis · 02-11-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel

I don't understand how these nuclear talks are all the responsibility of the United States, although I shouldn't expect anything otherwise. But there are five other countries involved as well. I haven't noticed much agression towards North Korea militarily very recently, except expressing concern over their nuclear program. Obviously it is a problem. When the Soviet Union fell we lost track of numerous warheads and nuclear technology that was sold to the highest bidder on the black market, whether terrorist or rogue government or what not. This is obviously a concern since Communism has not been seen to be the most stable form of government. Even China has relaxed some of its more strict regulations in recent years. I think North Korea is using the US as a scapegoat in its own personal game of chess.

Of course they are not the sole responsibility of the US - there are 5 other countries involved. However, if N. Korea feels threatened by the US (the axis of evil speech, the show of pre-emptive force in Iraq) they are going to place blame for the failure on them.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > North Korea has nukes