NORTH KOREA CONDUCTS NUCLEAR TEST

Tico, Lowry is typical of the neocons who brought us the fiasco in Iraq. No one was under any misapprehensions about N. Korea remaining a criminal state, or that the country acted perfectly after the agreements. However, it is always better to maintain contacts and have a means to get information and negotiate. Is it better to go to war as Bush did in Iraq? Hardly!

With Bush at the helm, the chances are much better that N. Korea will sell weapons or the like to terrorists, and otherwise do harm.

The only chance of preventing the DPRK from acquiring and testing a nuclear device passed when the Clinton administration opted for bribery rather than military action to destroy the capability. No amount of talk or sanctions ever really had a chance of resolving the problem. You can't have effective diplomacy with people who never intend to abide by their agreements.

The fact is that there are some serious questions regarding this DPRK test. The expected yield for the apparent design should have been between 10Kt and 15Kt, but it was less than .1Kt. Why? The North Koreans are more noted for their grand gestures than subtly, nor do they probably have the sophistication to create designer detonations, especially not for their first test. There is a possibility that .5-1Kt of conventional explosives were used as a sort of Potemkin Village. Only the Russians claim to have irrefutable evidence that this was a legitimate nuclear detonation, and other observers are saying that so far there are none of the expected nuclear markers one would expect. Personally, I think this was a legitimate nuclear test that went failed to meet design parameters. That isn't unusual, especially for folks who are new to the nuclear game.

I expect that DPRK nuclear scientists and engineers will work to correct the failings of this test, and that another test will be conducted once they believe they've found and corrected the problem(s). North Korea isn't a good testing ground for underground nuclear tests, and every test conducted increases the risk of polluting the aquifer.

If the PRC, Russia, the U.S., Japan and ROK work in close concert and harmony, I believe that the DPRK can be influenced to drop its nuclear ambitions and provide inspections to verify their compliance. Nothing should go in or out of the DPRK without a careful inspection by ROK, PRC, Russian, Japanese or American experts capable of detecting and seizing any munitions, or equipment, documents, or materials that can be used in producing a nuclear device. That might provoke a conventional attack upon the ROK, and that would be regrettable. To do less only increases the risks of greater destruction and suffering eventually.

It is unconfirmed, is it not? Has the seismic signature been published? The US is in the early stages of analyzing the blast and it will take several days to have confident findings. Maybe the difference is the Russians are quick to conclude on quick analysis, and the Americans prefer to take their time and be more deliberate ... in any case, we ought to know soon enough, and as indicated in the article, it is an APPARENT nuclear test. Had the intent been to cast doubt on the test, Lowry might have referred to it as a "questionable" or "doubtful" nuclear test. It seems clear his intent was to be accurate and refer to it as "unconfirmed."

And the Russian scientist quoted below does not seem to be 100% certain:



LINK



And what "American embarrassment" are you talking about?

Asherman, so the answer to everything is always a military strike. Had Clinton attacked, all of our troops in S. Korea would have been killed and at least a million S. Koreans would have been slaughtered. But this is the Republican way.

Intelligence and Defense Department officials confirmed to FOX News that the test could have been a dud.

FOX news


Washinton Times

These sources are friends that I know personally. One in particular was a (Western) translator who translated government speeches for dissemination to other nations. His position within the regiem was one of privelege. Others (2) are a north and a south korean who while having not been in personal contact seem to agree that these leaders are intellegent and deserve more respect than they get. I agree that these opinions are personal opinions of a very few and only represent the views of those people in particular.
These leaders appear to be held in a kind of god like reverence by many North Koreans but it is hard to tell how much of this is from respect. Others I know feel that there is a brainwashing effect but agreee these leaders care a great deal about their country and welfare of their people.

But for political leaders, results are everything not their personal figures.

No the military option isn't ALWAYs the best option, but in retrospect it was the best option for handling the DPRK nuclear weapons program almost a decade ago. You are absolutely right in suggesting that there might have been a renewal of armed conflict on the Peninsula as a result. It is also probable that a million Koreans, North and South might have died in the conflict. It would have been a very serious undertaking.

You are wrong in supposing that all of our troops would have been killed. It is certainly possible that my son, his wife and children might have been killed along with other relatives of ours living in Seoul. That would have been personally devastating to us. However, the DPRK would almost certainly have been finished and there would be no DPRK nuclear threat in 2006 and beyond. The greatest risk way back then would have been if the PRC had become involved again. I don't think the PRC would have entered the conflict only because of a preemptive strike on DPRK nuclear facilities, because the PRC also has a large stake in regional stability. If the DPRK attacked south, we would have beaten them badly on the ground.

To be real, no one knows what might have happened. Perhaps Clinton made the right choice, but that choice without question led to the dangers we face today. If the threat posed by a nuclear DPRK degenerates into even a limited nuclear exchange, the destruction and loss of life will be many, many times the worst case scenario of a conventional land war a decade ago on the Korean Peninsula.

Time to stop playing what might have been, and attend to the problems we face right now and in the immediate future.
*****

Kim Jong-Il has indeed the "love" of his people. These are the same people whose perception of the world have been strictly controlled for over 50 years. Over two generations of mind control with nothing to contradict the regime's propaganda. Many North Koreans still believe that as bad as things are inside the DPRK, things are far worse outside the Hermit Kingdom. Some kidnapped Japanese only learned that the moon had been visited after they regained their freedom. To most North Korean's the Kim's have miraculously kept the United States from reducing them to the slavery that exists through out the world. The United States to them is a nightmare country of roving gangs terrorizing drug addicted slaves. The U.S. according to the DPRK is every bit as evil as it is depicted by Solve Coagula, Pachebell, and the other crazies whos diatribes we shockingly laugh at here at A2K.

Asherman, an extension of your logic would be for us to immediately nuke Iran, Syria, N. Korea, and Pakistan. I add the latter because it appears that the fundamentalists will eventually take over this nuclear nation.

Maybe we will destroy the earth while we are about this.

THE DEAR LEADER'S BIG BANG CHALLENGE'S AMERICA'S `WAR PRESIDENT'
October 9, 2006


Vancouver - North Korea's apparent test of a nuclear device has provoked the anticipated 10-megaton explosion of international anger and threats against the isolated Stalinist regime.

A senior US State Department official warned, `we are not going to accept a nuclear North Korea.' But that, of course, is just what Washington has been doing ever since CIA disclosed in 2003 that North Korea had up to five operational nuclear weapons, and more in development. North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, has just thrown down the gauntlet to the United States saying, in effect, `come and get me.'

2003 was also the same year President George Bush launched an invasion of Iraq, ostensibly to protect America from nuclear weapons that it, in fact, did not possess. Three hundred sixty billion dollars later, this unnecessary war goes on while axis of evil North Korea flexes its nuclear muscle.

North Korea has repeatedly stated it is developing uranium and plutonium-based nuclear weapons, and medium and intercontinental-range missiles to carry them. In 2005, CIA's director confirmed North Korea's Taepo-dong ICBM was theoretically able to deliver a nuclear warhead to North America.

As this column has long noted, North Korea's eccentric `Dear Leader,' Kim Jong-il, has cleverly used nuclear blackmail to squeeze money out of South Korea, Japan and the west.

Nuclear threats are North Korea's only remaining exports. A US-led coalition has shut down its exports of missiles to the Mideast, counterfeiting US currency, and black market amphetamine sales to Japan.

So, what is the tough-talking Bush Administration going to do about North Korea? Probably not much.

The US and Japan have already imposed a de facto naval blockade on North Korea, and conducted military exercise in its region. US military strikes against North Korea would be unlikely to destroy its deeply-buried nuclear weapons - if they could even be located.

Any attacks on North Korea would quickly make South Korea and Japan targets of North Korea's medium-ranged missiles. Seoul lies within range of North Korean long-ranged artillery and missiles batteries behind the DMZ. The Pentagopn estimates that a US ground invasion of North Korea would cost up to 500,000 American casualties.

Amid all the international hysteria over North Korea, it's important to understand the `Dear Leader's' nuclear programs are primarily defensive. Their goal is to protect North Korea from a long-feared US attack, not to attack the US or Japan, a suicidal act sure to produce devastating US nuclear retaliation. North Korea may still be many years away from deploying a deliverable nulcear warhead for its long-ranged missiles.

North Korea has repeatedly agreed to junk its nuclear weapons provided The US does three things: 1. deal directly with Pyongyang, which Washington refuses to do; 2. provide security guarantees the US will not attack North Korea; 3. provide economic aid.

The Bush Administration's hard-line neoconservatives refuse to `validate' North Korea's ugly, totalitarian regime through direct talks. Neocons are determined to overthrow Kim Jong-il.

But Washington has no qualms about dealing with other despotic regimes in the Mideast and Central Asia. It both foolish and childish not to negotiate directly with North Korea - and, for that matter, Iran.

South Korea's biggest fears are a US-North Korean war that would devastate it; and an economic implosion of North Korea sending millions of starving refugees south. So Seoul keeps North Korea on life support, while trying to calm American militancy.

Japan wants to deter a united Korea as long as possible, rightly fearing it would one day constitute a major economic and military threat. Shinzo Abe, Japan's new conservative prime minister, has taken a tough line towards North Korea but has also just apparently buried the hatchet with China over his predecessor's inflammatory visits to the Tokyo's Yasukuni national war shrine. His visit this week to Beijing appeared to set Sino-Japanese relations on a new, positive footing.

This week, China notably dropped its former indulgent attitude to North Korea's nuclear programs and issued a very stern warning to Pyongyang not to conduct nuclear tests.

The Dear Leader likes to do zany things, but offending his patron, closest ally and, most important, sole source of oil, would seem too much even for him. But Kim went ahead with his big bang, openly insulting China's leader, Hu Jintao, and causing him serious loss of face. It will be very interesting to see how China reacts to this serious affront.

One thing is clear: money, lots of it, not war, is the most effective way of keeping North Korea on somewhat good behavior. Bribery is always far, far cheaper than war.

This point has become even more apparent after North Korea's nuclear test. In the past, North Korea dared the US to attack it, vowing its tough, million-man army would fight to the death and possibly take South Korea and Japan with it. Adding nuclear arms into this equation will obviously strengthen Kim's resolve. Many South Koreans now regard Kim as the authentic Korean leader, and South Korea's government as overly influenced by the Americans.

The ball is now in President Bush's court. He has got to do something, or else look like a paper tiger - and just before elections. After all, Bush has hung his political hat on national defense. Pugnacious Dear Leader Kim has just challenged him in front of the whole world.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2006.

On the wires a couple hours now, a single-sourced to Japan's oggicial NHK radio; first links are showing up just in the last few minutes -


No other details, no independent confrmation. Apparently no anomalous siesemic activity has been reported as of yet.


Curiouser and curiouser.

Advocate,

I am not advocating a first nuclear strike on anyone, much less an ally whose government is decidedly useful in fighting Radical Islamic terrorist groups. Syria, as a candidate for direct military action? I doubt it very much much, though at some future time it that may make some sense.

I do not currently favor taking direct, unilateral military action against the DPRK. The window of opportunity for that closed before 9/11. I do favor tightening the cordon sanitare around DPRK to insure that nothing nuclear goes in or out, and that missile technology isn't given any sort of boost by outside nations. I believe to really be effective the United States, Japan,
ROK, PRC and Russia have to be in accord and jointly active.

The question of what to do in response to Iran's nuclear weapons program isn't mine to make. Thank goodness for small favors. I think the current administration would like to delay decision-making time until after the coming Presidential elections, but that may not be possible. The NCA may choose to leave the whole mess to the UN to screw up, or it might choose to use covert operations to damage and delay the Iranian nuclear facilities, or it may conventionally bomb the known sites and the infrastructure needed to continue working on nuclear weapons, or it might opt for boots on the ground from Iraq, Afghanistan and from the sea, or it could even make strike the nuclear facilities with specialized, clean, low-yield nuclear warheads. There are a whole range of options, and frankly none of them are great, or guaranteed to resolve the problem satisfactorily.

If I were to advise the President, and a direct response had to be made in the short-term without the support of allies, I would advise (in priority order):

*Covert Operations.

*Conventional bombing of nuclear facilities and essential infrastructures.

*Special Operations ground forces with the limited mission of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. This would be a short term and operation, but would be "covered" by whatever naval, air and ground forces necessary to protect our troops.

The priority was determined by degree of risk balanced against probability of success. None of these options are "good" and the risks are in my opinion too great at this time.

***************
I've just become aware of a report that the DPRK may have conducted another test shot today. Hopefully there will be more data from this, if it pans out to be correct, and our understanding of what the DPRK is capable of will also increase.

A respectable person would decide on a course of action by considering and ruling out the least violent options, first.

Those who support an immediate U.S. military solution for N.Korea (and who, perhaps, have more knowledge than I), on what basic points do you base your opinion?

A fast look around, makes me doubtful that a second test was made today. The whole region is very seismically active, and a 6 point Richter scale event in Northern Japan reveals just how nervous folks are just now in N.E. Asia.

I do expect an other test shot, but I believe it won't be anytime in the next few weeks. It'll take time for the DPRK nuclear community to identify and correct the failures of their Alpha Shot.

I can find no sign of a tremor in North Korea on 10/10, while that of the former day is obvious.

USGS2
USGS0

There are a whole lot of very anxious and nervous people today through out the region. The DPRK test was not a surprise, but it was a wakeup call for those who thought Jong-Il's nuclear claims were without substance.

Seems This Quake, off the Northeastern coast of Japan a couple hours ago, got imaginations working overtime. NHK Radio now says no indication of anything related to DPRK, "looking into how rumors got started".

Obviously, the Kook with the Nuke has captured Japan's attention.

Baker has just said, "...it's not appeasement to talk to your enemies," something George Bush has stubbornly refused to do during his performance as occupier of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_missy_co_061010_george_butcher_and_j.htm Bushie the Kook with the Nuke "The First 100 Days
Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr.
From an arms control perspective, the first 100 days of George W. Bush's presidency have been a disaster. President Bush has demonstrated that he believes, and intends to implement, his campaign rhetoric condemning past arms control accomplishments and even the concept of arms control itself. Unless he changes direction, Bush will have effectively demolished the arms control regime that has been painstakingly built over the past 30 years. link No wonder nations seek a deterrent to the madness of BUSHitler.

May 2001
N-TESTING TO RESUME?

Is the Bush Administration preparing to break out of the nuclear weapons testing moratorium?

Recent statements and actions by top players within the Administration and its shadow cabinet of unreconstructed Cold Warriors may just be trial balloons to test the waters to see if anyone will object to a resumption of testing and abbrogation of treaties subscribed to by the U.S. If these are only trial balloons, they must be pierced now before they take flight, and the Utah congressional delegation has a moral responsibility to wield the pins.

In the last week of June, the Bush team ordered nuclear weapons scientists to study a range of options to "reduce lead times" to resume nuclear bomb explosions at the Nevada Test Site. The weapons laboratories argue that testing is needed to assure that the stockpile is reliable, and some fear that the long lead times to prepare tests give political opponents opportunities to prevent renewed testing. A February 1 report commissioned by Congress bemoaned the deteriorating state of nuclear weapons testing and production facilities, leading the Administration to consider a six-year, $2 billion initiative to up-grade the weapons programs.

Frank Gaffney, a former defense official and prominent conservative analyst and advisor, stated in May that "we're going to have to resume on a limited basis underground testing of our nuclear arms". In a March 12 letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms called on the Administration to repudiate the signed but unratified Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The New York Times reported May 9th that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seems more inclined to deploy missile defenses and develop nuclear forces than negotiating with Russia or China. "Before taking office Mr. Rumsfeld argued that the U.S. should not ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because it might need to develop new nuclear weapons," the Times reported. So far, President Bush has refused to place the treaty before the Senate. "'This is a paradigm shift,' said a senior Pentagon official. `We are probably not going to be hampered by arms control agreements.'" (NYT, 5/9/01)

In April and May, the U.S. accused the Chinese of preparing for a nuclear weapons test (Washington Times 4/9/01, 5/11/01), and similar accusations have been leveled at the Russians (NYT, 3/4/01). In the meantime, the Bush Administration is putting on the diplomatic pressure to dismantle the ABM Treaty to pave the way for ballistic missile defense. Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that there may be a dozen different components to BMD, including the stationing of weapons in space. Not only would this constitute a unilateral abbrogation of the Outer Space Treaty, it would likely involve a resumption of nuclear testing to complete development of Nuclear Directed Energy Weapons (NDEW) projects the national weapons labs have experimented with for two decades. Other darlings of the weapons labs, new "low yield" warheads and the earth penetrating "bunker busting" nuclear warhead, are in favor with the hawks in ascendance within this Administration. These too will require nuclear tests to perfect.

Taken together, these developments lead to an inescapable suspicion -- that the U.S. is preparing to unilaterally jettison a less-than-perfect arms control regime fostered by every President since Eisenhower that has kept Armaggedon at bay. These policy maneuverings threaten a costly and dangerous new arms race and are alarming to our allies as well as our adversaries. Most alarming to the constituents of Utah's congressional delegation is the prospect of more nuclear tests upwind, especially those who have suffered painful losses and grievous wrongs from being unwitting "active participants in the nation's nuclear weapons program".
link