posted on April 24, 2003 12:06:25 PM new
WASHINGTON — North Korea has told the United States that it possesses nuclear weapons, Bush administration sources said Thursday, according to published reports.
Both the Associated Press and Reuters reported that Pyongyang made the admission during its talks in Beijing with the U.S. and China.
A U.S. official told the Associated Press that North Korea (search) may conduct a test of its weapons, although there are no indications a test is imminent. He acknowledged that preparations for an underground test could be concealed.
According to the official, a North Korean nuclear detonation would deplete by half their estimated stockpile of two weapons.
"They said what we always knew -- that they do have weapons," another source told Reuters. "That doesn't shock us. We've been saying that. Now they said it."
"They never used the word testing. ... We're still translating but it's being overplayed a bit," he added.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said: "It's not a surprise for them to say something like that."
The talks in Beijing ended with State Department officials saying it was uncertain whether discussions on Pyongyang's nuclear program would continue, although they denied reports that the talks had broken down.
Before the start of the second day's meeting, North Korea accused the United States of leading the region toward war, an apparent attempt by the communist nation to increase pressure on negotiators, according to the U.S. officials.
Earlier, Secretary of State Colin Powell had told a gathering of experts from the Asia-Pacific region that the talks, involving the United States, North Korea and China, had concluded, leaving the impression there would not be a third day of discussions on Friday.
Powell expressed hope that South Korea and Japan would be able to participate "when and if" there is another round of talks.
He added: "North Korea should not leave the meetings having the slightest impression that they might force us to make a concession we would not otherwise make."
In Beijing, the chief U.S. negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, declined to answer questions upon returning to his hotel in the afternoon, saying only that the sides "had talks."
Kelly was to fly to Seoul on Friday to meet with South Korean officials.
North Korea continued to try to ratchet up the pressure and is believed to want economic aid in exchange for concessions.
Its leaders are outraged over U.S. moves to cut off oil shipments because of its suspected nuclear weapons program, and fears it is next on Washington's list for military action.
posted on April 24, 2003 12:16:05 PM new
We found that out last summer bear. If you look up some old threads, you'll see that we were wondering how long it would take the U.S. government to realize it.
government added for clarity
[ edited by kraftdinner on Apr 24, 2003 01:42 PM ]
posted on April 24, 2003 01:02:29 PM new
No, it was here at the RT Near. Lots of articles were posted on the web about the NK threat. Some only went so far as saying it was possible, while others were more direct at accusing NK of having WOMD. When there was talk about the war in Afghanistan, people here (at the RT) wondered why, if the U.S. was after terrorists and WOMD, didn't they take a closer look at NK. I think Helen, reamond and Borillar were the only others concerned at the time.
posted on April 24, 2003 01:13:30 PM new
Sorry Near. I didn't mean you, or others weren't concerned. I should've said that because of the pending war in Afghanistan, people here were talking more about that than concerning themselves with North Korea, at the time.
posted on April 24, 2003 01:30:08 PM newleaving the impression there would not be a third day of discussions on Friday. and
Powell expressed hope that South Korea and Japan would be able to participate "when and if" there is another round of talks.
Wish they'd have mentioned why they didn't participate in this round.
Doesn't sound like it's going too well. If NK is holding to their original demands, I'd don't think this is going to work out. There's always hope, of course, but I'm pretty pessimistic about this one.
Powell's good, but he can't work miracles.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 24, 2003 01:38:52 PM new
A bit off topic... Why is everyone clapping over there? Every time you see Kim Jong Il, he, and everyone else around him, are clapping. Is that a tradition there?
posted on April 24, 2003 01:52:04 PM new
The reason Japan and S Korea aren't participating is because N Korea doesn't want to negotiate with anyone except the US.The US doesn't want to negotiate without Japan, S Korea, China.
China called N Korea on the carpet, and they have admitted that they have nukes. The last thread was speculation about the nukes, now N Korea admits they have them.
However, I don't think N Korea has viable nuclear weapons. I do believe they have been attempting to develop the material for them.
Even if they have the material, it is still quite a tech leap to make a bomb, and another leap to make a bomb that can be delivered and explode.
That is why the proposed "test" by N Korea is so important to N Korea- so they can prove they can explode a nuke.
I think we need to hit N Korea and hit them very hard without warning.
In any event we should never ever enter into a black mail situation like Clinton had us in.
posted on April 24, 2003 02:00:45 PM new
I consider what N Korea is doing nothing more than armed robbery.
If someone came up to you with a gun/knife/club and wanted your money food and gasoline, you could shoot them, or the police could shoot them.
That is what needs to be done with N Korea. A nice head shot right between the eyes and end this armed robbery attempt quickly before someone gets hurt.
posted on April 24, 2003 03:22:34 PM new
They are nuts. They are threatening and nasty with someone that can whip their butt.
The only real threat they have is that it might be cheaper to buy them off than fight.
There must be something about the mind set of their culture I am unable to figure out.
posted on April 24, 2003 08:31:20 PM newThis won't be the turkey shoot Iraq was
REAMOND.you read a lot into that statement that wasnt there.Maybe that makes you feel better.
Since Korea does have some big guns and is talking about their Nukes,they damn well will use a lot of it before they collapse,if they do.
Having China and Russia as neighbors,creates an unknown out come.
Iraq wasnt a major military country like N.Korea.So I will repeat what I said before.
posted on April 24, 2003 08:53:03 PM newIraq wasnt a major military country like N.Korea
Where do you get this stuff. Iraq was in the top 10 as a military power. When Iraq invaded Kuwait it was the 4th largest army in the world.
The bottom line is you don't know what you're talking about.
You can not have a "military country" (whatever that means) when your population is eating grass to try to survive. What state of readiness do you think the army is in if the population is starving ? I'll bet all those artillary tubes surrounding Seoul don't even have ammunition or it is so old that it may not even fire.
If done correctly, N Korea will fall as easy as Iraq.
posted on April 25, 2003 09:13:47 AM new
"What possible objection could any rational human being have to the U.S. signing a non-aggression pact with Pyongyang, pledging no first strike on North Korean soil?"
posted on April 25, 2003 09:52:25 AM new
Easy answer. They made an agreement with us and behind our backs they weren't upholding their end of the agreement. Why would any rational person believe they would not do exactly the same again after we signed a non-agression pack with them? It might very well end up that we will have to resort to force.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 25, 2003 12:43:51 PM new
Given how nations act why would they even see any value in having a non-agression pact? They don't keep their own agreements so why would they expect abyone else to do so?
posted on April 25, 2003 12:52:11 PM new
Im all for "anything" that will avoid us being in any kind of Nuclear war.Hell, we are cranking Nukes out now.
posted on April 25, 2003 02:16:51 PM newIm all for "anything" that will avoid us being in any kind of Nuclear war
Disarming tyrannical nuts like Hussein, Jung, and any Islamic radicals that try to get these weapons is the only way to do it.
You can not depend on treaties with these people. Being polite, diplomatic, paying black mail money, passing empty threats, will not protect us from these tyrants.
This is why the Sage of Omaha (Warren Buffet) , who is also one of the most successful mutaual fund managers in the history of the stock market, has concluded after researching the matter, that the United States WILL be hit by a nuclear attack within the next 50 years.
Allowing these nut cases to develop these weapons is what will bring these weapons to our doorstep.
Not only must the United States start whacking these countries, we also need a missile shield.
posted on April 25, 2003 02:30:38 PM new
Did Warren Buffett also say,why?..Could it be because we pushed a country into a Nuclear attack?..A side from the nuclear hit,is the nuclear accidents.
posted on April 25, 2003 03:55:24 PM newBut what prevents the U.S. from using its nuclear weapons against a country that it believes is bad?
Have you never heard of the principle of measured response ?
Did Warren Buffett also say,why?..Could it be because we pushed a country into a Nuclear attack?..A side from the nuclear hit,is the nuclear accidents.
We have "pushed" no one. It is the height of gall and mendacity to even suggest it when Clinton was paying black mail in fuel, food and money to those dirty communist b*stards in N Korea and they were developing the weapons material anyway.
The United States military needs to cut the head off of N Korea as soon as possible.
posted on April 25, 2003 04:11:06 PM newWe have "pushed" no one. It is the height of gall and mendacity to even suggest it when Clinton was paying black mail in fuel, food and money to those dirty communist b*stards in N Korea and they were developing the weapons material anyway.
So where was the Congress and Senate,when Clinton was being black mailed by those dirty communist.Who wrote the checks?
posted on April 25, 2003 05:13:33 PM new
I believe that we're headed for a showdown with North Korea. NK won't give up their nukes and Bush is not going to allow them to become the world's nuclear Walmart.
Hopefully Kim Jong Il will learn from the mistakes of the late Saddam Hussien.
posted on April 26, 2003 06:11:38 AM new
PINR: Power and Interest News Report - North Korea's gamble witht the United States
Read background report
(PINR) -- Carefully playing its cards, North Korea may have successfully brought the United States to the negotiating table. Angry over being labeled as part of the "axis of evil," along with the failure of the U.S. to live up to its energy commitments agreed to in 1994, Pyongyang took advantage of the looming war in Iraq to complicate U.S. strategic goals and to thrust North Korea's political and economic concerns on to the global stage.
In 1994, in what is known as the Agreed Framework, the United States offered to lower trade and economic barriers along with guaranteeing that two 1,000 megawatt light water reactors (LWR) would be built in North Korea by 2003. In exchange for the promise of the reactors, the D.P.R.K. ended construction of its plutonium graphite-moderated nuclear reactors. Like enriched uranium, plutonium waste can be used to make nuclear weapons (it is much more difficult to convert LWR waste into weapons-grade material).
But contrary to the agreement, construction of the LWRs remained far behind schedule. In fact, before the current crisis, the first LWR was not expected to reach completion until at least 2008, even though the 1994 agreement specified that both reactors would be built by 2003. While North Korea's test fire of a Taepo-Dong-1 missile in 1998 delayed construction of the reactors, it did not violate the agreement; Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in February of 2002 that North Korea has so far "stay[ed] within the agreement."
These delays have long upset North Korea, who worries that Washington may be using it as a threat in order to construct a missile defense shield. These worries turned to fear when the incoming Bush administration labeled North Korea as being part of the "axis of evil." In addition to the label, the Bush administration warned in its National Security Strategy of the United States of America, released in September of 2002, that it would "act preemptively" against "rogue states" such as North Korea who the Bush administration accused of "developing its own WMD arsenal."
Incidentally, after angering Pyongyang, the Bush administration -- with its antagonistic rhetoric directed towards the North -- helped to enflame anti-American attitudes in South Korea, where much of the populace showed their distaste for Washington's threats by voting Roh Moo-hyun in as president, a candidate known for his tepid views of the United States. In fact, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center provides more evidence for this trend: only 24 percent of South Koreans support President Bush's "war on terrorism." Out of all the Asian countries polled, South Korea had the largest number of people, standing at 73 percent, who do not believe that the United States considers the interests of other countries when engaging in foreign policy. Also, considering that North Korea's military is in position to level Seoul in case of any serious military conflict, the South has tried to choose diplomacy over confrontation, setting it apart from its strategic American ally.
This new political rift in South Korea has helped to tie the United States' hands when dealing with North Korea. Eager to keep the focus on Iraq, and unable to gain the support of its vital ally South Korea, the Bush administration was coaxed to lessen their negative rhetoric toward Pyongyang.
This was most dramatically seen in U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly's meeting with South Korean officials on January 13, 2003. Kelly, in response to a reporter's question at a news conference in Seoul, stated, "We know there are energy problems in North Korea. Once we get beyond the nuclear problems, there may be an opportunity with the United States, with private investors, or with other countries to help North Korea in the energy area." Kelly's statements mark a change in policy as previously, the Bush administration said they would not negotiate with North Korea, who they accused of blackmailing the United States.
Kelly's remarks should please Pyongyang, which now has the public assurance that if they shut down their recently started reactors, the United States will help North Korea with its energy needs. It also props up the image of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, who will look even more heroic to his people by standing up to the United States. But Pyongyang cannot expect to achieve much more from their unconventional negotiating methods.
China, arguably North Korea's largest aid donor, does not stand to gain from North Korea's tough attempts to bring the United States back to the negotiating table. Beijing, eager to join the world community and increase financial investment, does not want to become a fait accomplice in Pyongyang's orchestrated nuclear threats. This could ally both South Korea and Japan even more closely with the United States, isolating China.
More importantly, North Korea's tactics give justification for the Bush administration's plans to build a missile defense shield. While the Bush administration claims the missile defense shield will be used to counter the North Korean threat, Beijing fears that the United States is attempting to cage the growing Asian dragon. Along with establishing new military bases on China's western borders, the United States already has bases to the south and east of China, forming a half-circle around the country. With a successful missile defense shield, much of China's military in the Pacific would be rendered technologically useless.
Beijing's fear is fast becoming a reality, as Japan's military establishment seems to have gained more clout in Tokyo after Pyongyang's recent moves. The Koizumi government has already dispatched the controversial state-of-the-art Japanese Aegis destroyer to set sail to the Indian Ocean to assist the U.S.-led "war on terrorism." The U.S. is discussing the implementation of the Navy Theater Wide Defense (NTWD) system that could be installed on Aegis warships; these mobile missile defense systems could severely weaken China's military threat and reduce Beijing's political clout. Many of China's ballistic missiles could become ineffective by a NTWD system.
Even more worrisome to China is the emergence of a small group in Japan calling for the creation of nuclear weapons to protect the island nation. Despite Japan's strong anti-war stance, embedded into the constitution after World War II, the nuclear debate has finally entered the political arena. In April of 2002, Japan's Liberal Party president Ichiro Ozawa boasted that Japan could create "thousands of nuclear warheads" very quickly should it become necessary. A nuclear Japan would greatly minimize China's political and military power in all of Asia.
For these reasons, Beijing will be informing Pyongyang that they should accept the recent U.S. offer for negotiations. North Korea will most likely accept Kelly's overture. So far, Pyongyang has been careful to reassure the world that they have "no intentions of building nuclear weapons." But Pyongyang may become overly zealous and create a situation from which it will have difficulty backing down. Such a situation could redirect South Korean negative sentiment away from the United States and toward Pyongyang. That result will not be in the best interests of Kim Jong-il's North Korea.
Erich Marquardt drafted this report; Matthew Riemer contributed.
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. PINR seeks to inform rather than persuade. This report may be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.pinr.com. All comments should be directed to [email protected].
