North Korea's Nuclear Weapons

.

September 19, 2005


drsteph: Southamerica, your suggestion that Japan would get its own nuclear weapons is really doubtful. The only rationale would be fear of invasion in an aging population unable to defend themselves. But with the USA a defacto fixture in the country, why would they need their own bombs? They would rather just hide behind Uncle Sam and use his bombs instead. The proposition is pretty flaky, and if Japan were going to do it, they would do so openly, and the public outcry would be considerable. And Japan just participated in the nuclear proliferation security initiative.

You need to do some more reading. That's not the first time I have told you that.


*********


SouthAmerica: On May 30, 2003 Brazzil magazine published my article about North Korea and Nuclear Weapons, and someone immediately wrote comments about the article in the forum section of Brazzil magazine: from May 2003 to December 2003 that particular subject generated a lot of replies from readers of that magazine and the discussion included people in the United States, Brazil, and also people from Asian countries. That tread became very popular during that time.

You can find the original article that started the discussion regarding North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons program at the following website:

June 2003 – article: “Brazil, North Korea and Food for Nukes”
http://www.brazzil.com/p104jun03.htm


The article was also published on other web locations including:

http://northkorea-nuclearweapons.blogspot.com


I also wrote two other articles on the subject of Nuclear Weapons that generated a lot of letters to the editor and emails. Some US army general from the Pentagon even wrote an article published on Brazzil magazine in June 2002 because of my original article about the consequences of Brazil developing nuclear weapons. You can read the other two articles as follows:


February 2003 – article: “We Need the Bomb - Part ll “

http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/2186/27/



May 2002 – article: “Why Brazil Must Have the A-Bomb”

http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/2575/38/


*********


SouthAmerica: In October of 2003 I posted the following in the Brazzil magazine message board as part of the discussions that we had on that board.


On October 22, 2003, The New York Times reported: “The official North Korea news agency published a commentary on Tuesday calling “laughable” an American offer to provide guarantees of multilateral security in exchange for the North’s ending its nuclear weapons program.

President Bush said this week that he was willing to consider giving North Korea regional security guarantees, but not the bilateral non-aggression pact that it has sought.”

The US can’t sign a bilateral treaty with North Korea for two reasons:

1) The US doesn’t honor international treaties anymore, and has a policy of pre-emptive strikes.
2) As soon as it is confirmed that North Korea had given up its nuclear weapons, the US would invade that country to change the regime.

To answer the question of guarantees from China to defend North Korea in case of a United States invasion - you can ask the Serbs if Russia came to defend them against a similar United States invasion? – The Serbs still waiting for the Russians to show up.

Why the US has not invaded North Korea as yet?

Maybe, it is because the North Koreans have various nuclear weapons at their disposal. But, the US government, with the help of the US media still is in the process of demonizing North Korea’s government leader.

With the new policy of pre-emptive strike anything is possible today, even a war against a country armed with nukes. (There is very little common sense in Washington these days. Seems to me that common sense left Washington when Bill Clinton and his administration left town in January of 2001.)

From the remaining two “axis of evil” countries, North Korea has a major advantage over Iran, since North Korea doesn’t have oil, but Iran is another story.

North Korea will be very stupid to give up its nukes. If they are foolish enough to negotiate away its nukes, then that is the end of their sovereignty.

“Good bye Nukes, Good bye Sovereignty.”


*********


Now, going back to Japan and its current nuclear weapons program:

Japan is the only country in the world that was the recipient of not only one, but two atomic bombs - Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If there is any country in the world that realizes that they need nuclear weapons to be able to defend themselves that country is Japan.

Japan has the technology, the know how and lots of money.

The Japanese knows that China will be the next world power – and the Chinese people have not forgotten how nasty Japan was to China in the past.

The US will not use nuclear weapons against China to defend Japan in the future – in the same way that the Russians did not came to help the Serbs when the United States destroyed their country in the 1990’s.

When it comes to nuclear weapons you can count only with yourself (your country, your people) and nobody else – the rest it is only “Fairy Tales”.


PS: I guess the skyrocketing price of oil pushed North Korea’s economy over the edge – and “The Boogieman” that was going to get the American people turned out to be just a country in severe poverty and starvation.

Ricardo C. Amaral


.

 

southamerica, you say the US will invade N. Korea as soon as it is confirmed that it does not have nukes, and that the US would not come to Japan's aid in the event of Chinese aggression.

First of all, I find it amazing that you believe the US will attack N. Korea. There would be no public support for it and there is always the concern that China would intervene as it did in the Korean War. And haven't you been among the many saying the US military is stretched too thin to be fighting in Iraq and on another front? A war against N. Korea would not be the piece of cake Iraq was - far more difficult terrain, well-trained and fanatical troops, and a populace that would be extremely hostile.

As for Japan, I think you are extremely ignorant as to the relationship it has with the US. Besides being an extremely close ally, it is the 2nd largest economy in the world. An attack by China would be disastrous for not only Japan, but the world's economy in general. The US isn't about to stand aside and let that happen.

 

.

Hapaboy: southamerica, you say the US will invade N. Korea as soon as it is confirmed that it does not have nukes, and that the US would not come to Japan's aid in the event of Chinese aggression.

First of all, I find it amazing that you believe the US will attack N. Korea. There would be no public support for it and there is always the concern that China would intervene as it did in the Korean War. And haven't you been among the many saying the US military is stretched too thin to be fighting in Iraq and on another front? A war against N. Korea would not be the piece of cake Iraq was - far more difficult terrain, well-trained and fanatical troops, and a populace that would be extremely hostile.

As for Japan, I think you are extremely ignorant as to the relationship it has with the US. Besides being an extremely close ally, it is the 2nd largest economy in the world. An attack by China would be disastrous for not only Japan, but the world's economy in general. The US isn't about to stand aside and let that happen.


*******


SouthAmerica: Today I don’t believe that the United States would attack North Korea in a pre-emptive attack as I did in October of 2003 when I wrote that piece.

Today, we know for a fact and all you have to do it is watch the news on a daily basis to know that the US can’t handle even a bunch of insurgents in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the US army it is stretched to the limit around the world - never mind start another war against any country including starving North Korea – today the US doesn’t have the necessary army resources to fight anyone.

Based on your posting I get the idea that you believe that Iraq was a cake walk for the US and you don’t consider the Iraqis to be hostile towards the US occupying forces.

Regarding Japan - you are assuming that the US will be a world power tomorrow – and that the US will be able to go and fight on behalf of other countries around the world in the future.

You are making your assumptions based on a very short period of time. Who knows what the United States will be able to afford in 10 or 20 years from now. Remember the United States it is basically a bankrupt country with $ 10 trillion dollars in current debt and on top of that the US has another $ 60 to $ 70 trillion dollars in liabilities coming due in the near future.

Today, we already started talking about reducing expenses related to the Iraq War to be able to afford the reconstruction related to Hurricane Katrina.

The Bush administration has been showcasing to the world on prime time not only the weakness and incompetence of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, but today they are also showing the crumbling structure of the US infrastructure and its desperate internal social problems.

.

 

Are you crazy ?

You drool thinking the US is as weak as you wish it would be.

We kicked the evil Taliban and Huseein from power with ease and you know it.

What has your country done exactly ?

Nothing as far as world affairs is concerned. (desperate internal social problems. ) seem more your issue than ours.

 

You have the wrong idea. The toppling of the Saddam regime was a cake walk, the insurgency is another matter.

You are assuming the US will not be a world power tomorrow, i.e. 10 or 20 years down the road. I disagree very heartily with that assumption.

 

I think in 10 years time, the US will no longer be the economic super power it is today. China is packing on the weight

 

+

Problem is China has no banking system to speak of.

 

That's actually easy to "spin" - Bush caved on N. Korea:

U.S. POLICY SHIFT

But Washington eased its staunch opposition to any nuclear reactor for North Korea, and indicated it was willing to consider a light water reactor to produce electricity under certain stringent circumstances.
...
Under the agreement, North Korea would have the right to a civilian nuclear program -- which had been the main sticking point between Pyongyang and Washington -- if it regains international trust.
...
The United States, backed by Japan, had argued that North Korea could not be trusted with atomic energy, but China, South Korea and Russia said if Pyongyang scrapped its nuclear weapons and agreed to strict safeguards, it should have such an energy program in future.
..
Analysts were unimpressed with the pact.
...
"The devil will be in the detail of who's allowed to go in when to inspect the status of North Korea's program. And you can bet there'll be some controversy around that," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050919/ts_nm/korea_north_dc

 

cnbc world & bloom saying deal in trouble

NK waffling -- assuming our news had it right in the first case

I'd like to see Bush get a break on this issue

 

Ha ha

They want the reactor now. We have to buy them one.

I'll tell you what made them deal (if they even did) - they're worried we're going broke!