the sooner the world ends the faster we get to Jesus
In my more pessimistic moments I sometimes think they should all just push the button and get it over with. I'm so over worrying about what corrupt, stupid, ugly, sexually repressed men do with my world. Seriously.
And I think that's exactly why I think this won't happen. Everyone knows the first country to use a nuke at this stage will set off a chain reaction, and who wants to be in control over a bunch of dead people?
However, I'm sure some lunatic fringe groups would love to get a nuke and use it on us. It would be the same situation we have now with terrorists. There would be no designated place to retaliate. It's one thing for a country to use a nuclear weapon, but it's a whole other animal if a small group with nothing to lose decided to use it. Therein lies the reason we should be concerned.
The Albright photo illustrates an interesting aspect of this. Kim Jong-il has always been a tyrant and appeared to be a crackpot, but before the U.S. stirred him up by labelling North Korea a member of the "axis of evil" during the run-up to U.S. attacks on Iraq, the country seemed a lot more interested in becoming part of the international community rather than remaining a rogue state. I think the test is emblematic of another huge foreign policy failure by the current U.S. administration.
Of course north korea seemed interested in becoming a part of the international community, they were getting alot of aid from the US government for seeming that way. The clinton approach of giving north korea the means to develop nuclear weapons on the promise from a madman that they wouldnt was ludicrous and unsurprisingly a spectacular failure. That some rue bush's abandonment of such an absurd and demonstrably failed policy is a depressing example of the degenerative effects political tribalism can have on ones mind.
Furthermore the increasingly popular contention that bush has threatened once passive, peaceloving nations into rogue states is preposterous. All nations included in the axis of evil were currently engaged in weapons proliferation, terrorism and other unsavoury practices which they had endeavoured in for years. If you doubt this just look at the axis of evil member who was subject to the most scrutiny and restrictions pre bush: iraq. People are so obsessed by what wasnt found in iraq that they spare little consideration for what was. Saddam from the comfort of his 'box' had managed to siphon off huge quanitites of money to invest in secret weapons programs yet because he hadnt gotten around to investing any of that in WMD's people are nostalgic for the status quo. Is it really so bad that hostile nations such as these feel threatened? Its amazing that so many people are upset that enemy states no longer feel content in their pursuit of nuclear weapons and funding of terrorism.
The Albright photo illustrates an interesting aspect of this. Kim Jong-il has always been a tyrant and appeared to be a crackpot, but before the U.S. stirred him up by labelling North Korea a member of the "axis of evil" during the run-up to U.S. attacks on Iraq, the country seemed a lot more interested in becoming part of the international community rather than remaining a rogue state. I think the test is emblematic of another huge foreign policy failure by the current U.S. administration.
Of course north korea seemed interested in becoming a part of the international community, they were getting alot of aid from the US government for seeming that way. The clinton approach of giving north korea the means to develop nuclear weapons on the promise from a madman that they wouldnt was ludicrous and unsurprisingly a spectacular failure. That some rue bush's abandonment of such an absurd and demonstrably failed policy is a depressing example of the degenerative effects political tribalism can have on ones mind.
Furthermore the increasingly popular contention that bush has threatened once passive, peaceloving nations into rogue states is preposterous. All nations included in the axis of evil were currently engaged in weapons proliferation, terrorism and other unsavoury practices which they had endeavoured in for years. If you doubt this just look at the axis of evil member who was subject to the most scrutiny and restrictions pre bush: iraq. People are so obsessed by what wasnt found in iraq that they spare little consideration for what was. Saddam from the comfort of his 'box' had managed to siphon off huge quanitites of money to invest in secret weapons programs yet because he hadnt gotten around to investing any of that in WMD's people are nostalgic for the status quo. Is it really so bad that hostile nations such as these feel threatened? Its amazing that so many people are upset that enemy states no longer feel content in their pursuit of nuclear weapons and funding of terrorism.
Nice one! You lambast Clinton for his failed policy, and just as we're all waiting to hear how you think Bush's was better, you change the subject to Iraq! Man I have to hand it to you sometimes....
The question you should be answering, however, remains: Given that Lil Kim has acquired a nuclear capability, how was Bush's policy better than Clinton's?
The Albright photo illustrates an interesting aspect of this. Kim Jong-il has always been a tyrant and appeared to be a crackpot, but before the U.S. stirred him up by labelling North Korea a member of the "axis of evil" during the run-up to U.S. attacks on Iraq, the country seemed a lot more interested in becoming part of the international community rather than remaining a rogue state. I think the test is emblematic of another huge foreign policy failure by the current U.S. administration.
Of course north korea seemed interested in becoming a part of the international community, they were getting alot of aid from the US government for seeming that way. The clinton approach of giving north korea the means to develop nuclear weapons on the promise from a madman that they wouldnt was ludicrous and unsurprisingly a spectacular failure. That some rue bush's abandonment of such an absurd and demonstrably failed policy is a depressing example of the degenerative effects political tribalism can have on ones mind.
Furthermore the increasingly popular contention that bush has threatened once passive, peaceloving nations into rogue states is preposterous. All nations included in the axis of evil were currently engaged in weapons proliferation, terrorism and other unsavoury practices which they had endeavoured in for years. If you doubt this just look at the axis of evil member who was subject to the most scrutiny and restrictions pre bush: iraq. People are so obsessed by what wasnt found in iraq that they spare little consideration for what was. Saddam from the comfort of his 'box' had managed to siphon off huge quanitites of money to invest in secret weapons programs yet because he hadnt gotten around to investing any of that in WMD's people are nostalgic for the status quo. Is it really so bad that hostile nations such as these feel threatened? Its amazing that so many people are upset that enemy states no longer feel content in their pursuit of nuclear weapons and funding of terrorism.
Nice one! You lambast Clinton for his failed policy, and just as we're all waiting to hear how you think Bush's was better, you change the subject to Iraq! Man I have to hand it to you sometimes....
The question you should be answering, however, remains: Given that Lil Kim has acquired a nuclear capability, how was Bush's policy better than Clinton's?
policy schmolicy, that little shit was gonna get a nuke no matter what, clinton's policy of giving the dude aid for him to stop work on the nuke was retarded for the fact he took the little shits word, by the time georgie took office nothing, other than war with nk, would stop the little shit, its not clintons fault but his policy didn't do anything to slow him down
the us has been working on laser missle defense with japan for sometime now, and i believe the new pm of japan is all for rewriting their constitution in order to build their own nukes
The Albright photo illustrates an interesting aspect of this. Kim Jong-il has always been a tyrant and appeared to be a crackpot, but before the U.S. stirred him up by labelling North Korea a member of the "axis of evil" during the run-up to U.S. attacks on Iraq, the country seemed a lot more interested in becoming part of the international community rather than remaining a rogue state. I think the test is emblematic of another huge foreign policy failure by the current U.S. administration.
Of course north korea seemed interested in becoming a part of the international community, they were getting alot of aid from the US government for seeming that way. The clinton approach of giving north korea the means to develop nuclear weapons on the promise from a madman that they wouldnt was ludicrous and unsurprisingly a spectacular failure. That some rue bush's abandonment of such an absurd and demonstrably failed policy is a depressing example of the degenerative effects political tribalism can have on ones mind.
Furthermore the increasingly popular contention that bush has threatened once passive, peaceloving nations into rogue states is preposterous. All nations included in the axis of evil were currently engaged in weapons proliferation, terrorism and other unsavoury practices which they had endeavoured in for years. If you doubt this just look at the axis of evil member who was subject to the most scrutiny and restrictions pre bush: iraq. People are so obsessed by what wasnt found in iraq that they spare little consideration for what was. Saddam from the comfort of his 'box' had managed to siphon off huge quanitites of money to invest in secret weapons programs yet because he hadnt gotten around to investing any of that in WMD's people are nostalgic for the status quo. Is it really so bad that hostile nations such as these feel threatened? Its amazing that so many people are upset that enemy states no longer feel content in their pursuit of nuclear weapons and funding of terrorism.
Nice one! You lambast Clinton for his failed policy, and just as we're all waiting to hear how you think Bush's was better, you change the subject to Iraq! Man I have to hand it to you sometimes....
The question you should be answering, however, remains: Given that Lil Kim has acquired a nuclear capability, how was Bush's policy better than Clinton's?
1. Attacking an eroneous criticism is not in itself a defense or endorsement of what is being criticised
2. Since you asked I think the bush policy is better than clintons for the simple reason that it didnt entail handing over the means neccesary to develop nuclear weapons on the promise of a psychopath that they wouldnt be used to that end. Did the clinton administration sincerely believe that all kim jong il wanted was to ste up a few nuclear power stations?
1) BBC Radio said that Western intelligence cannot confirm that North Korea successfully detonated their bomb. North Korea used an explosive device to start the chain reaction for the nuclear explosion, but the instruments that were used couldn't tell whether the seismic activity was just from the conventional explosion or a nuclear explosion.
2) An article in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle said that some nuclear experts believe that the test was actually a dud, but that the Koreans still learned important information from it.
Who created these weapons with help from the nazis? Who, exclusively, used these weapons not once but twice against another nation? Who broke the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by giving warheads to the terrorist state of Israel? Who has currently 10.000 (confirmed) intact warheads?
It is not the american people i say, it is their corrupt government.
What is the point of having so many warheads other than to scare other nations and forcing them to create a nuclear arsenal to protect[/b] themselves?
Who broke the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by giving warheads to the terrorist[/b] state of Israel?
If you experience shortness of breadth, slowly attempt to remove your head from your ass.
co-sign.
If you must know, however, Saliva, the US gave no nuclear know-how to Israel. It was developed largely on their own (with some French help).
So, yeah, you can cross that off your little "why America is evil" list.
Plaese to go read a book.
Meanwhile while we have Sabadabdabdazda in here: Reasonable people can disagree on the wisdom of Clinton's policy. But he hasn't been the President for some time, and no one's been doing ANYTHING about Lil Kim's drive to acquire a nuclear wewapon. Meanwhile, Bush is Preident, and Kim has acquired said capability on Bush' watch.
.............................................. glad to see this is how politicians & interest groups react to threats against mankind nowadays.
point is, i know of no profession other than politics where you can blame current ongoing problems on your predecessor and continue to get a pass. one would think that eventually someone has to take responsibility and move forward.
............................................. you can blame dems or blame republicans. either way NK still is a dangerous threat. yet we continue to do nothing to neutralize this threat. lil kim does not seem like a good person to hope that 'chance' alone will ensure he doesn't do anything drastic.
personally, i think US should swalllow their pride for the moment just to get North Korea to the table. after we get them talking, then we decide if we should go further, but the current policy of sanctions and six-way talks doesn't seem to be leading us in the right direction.
and for you naysayers, ask yourself this. who has more to lose if NK does not balk at the current threats and actually does decide to treat the sanctions as an act of war? my bet is that it is not North Korea.
Who broke the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by giving warheads to the terrorist[/b] state of Israel?
If you experience shortness of breadth, slowly attempt to remove your head from your ass.
co-sign.
If you must know, however, Saliva, the US gave no nuclear know-how to Israel. It was developed largely on their own (with some French help).
So, yeah, you can cross that off your little "why America is evil" list.
Plaese to go read a book.
Meanwhile while we have Sabadabdabdazda in here: Reasonable people can disagree on the wisdom of Clinton's policy. But he hasn't been the President for some time, and no one's been doing ANYTHING about Lil Kim's drive to acquire a nuclear wewapon. Meanwhile, Bush is Preident, and Kim has acquired said capability on Bush' watch.
Plaese, for once admit Bush's failure here.
First, I don't think Kim has the bomb. Second, direct talks failed because Kim lies; the only person who can influence North Korea is China. China is now involved.
Who broke the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by giving warheads to the terrorist[/b] state of Israel?
If you experience shortness of breadth, slowly attempt to remove your head from your ass.
co-sign.
If you must know, however, Saliva, the US gave no nuclear know-how to Israel. It was developed largely on their own (with some French help).
So, yeah, you can cross that off your little "why America is evil" list.
Plaese to go read a book.
Meanwhile while we have Sabadabdabdazda in here: Reasonable people can disagree on the wisdom of Clinton's policy. But he hasn't been the President for some time, and no one's been doing ANYTHING about Lil Kim's drive to acquire a nuclear wewapon. Meanwhile, Bush is Preident, and Kim has acquired said capability on Bush' watch.
Plaese, for once admit Bush's failure here.
First, I don't think Kim has the bomb. Second, direct talks failed because Kim lies; the only person who can influence North Korea is China. China is now involved.
But China was trying to prevent a test of exactly this kind forever. They had extracted countless promises from the N. Koreans that they wouldn't do it. And yet it happens. Looks like the N. Koreans lie to China, also, no?
Actually, i just looked it up and you guys are right. The US has apparently only suplied the missles for the warheads. The UK & France provided the know-how & technology while they were not allowed to. I mixed it up. My bad, i'm sorry. But the fact is that unlike North-Korea & Iran, or any other country that has a nuclear program, Israel hasn't signed the NNPT. So they don't have to deal with inspections and/or sanctions from the UN. Looks like they have some secrets they dont want to share.
And on your point of me trying to make America look evil. That's not my point. I just wanted to point out why other nations think America is evil & not to be trusted. So it's just a logical reaction IMO.
there's been a lot of folls in the media clowning Clinton and Albright for trying to suck up to Kim. So their plan failed. They tried to bribe Kim and got burned.
But that was years ago. It seems there was some time in the interim, when the administration could have, you know, tried something else?
Again I ask: What has Bush done besides mouth platitudes about "evil"? Did he have some grand scheme that just happened to fail like Clinton's? Or, as seems more likely, was he just bumbling along, pre-occupied with the Iraq mess, hoping the N Korean problem would go away?
And if the Bush admin did have a plan in place that happened to fail, should his administration not bear a greater responsiblity for its failures than Clinton's, given that the threat was/is more imminent during his presidency, and given that the oft-stated goal of his own presidency was to prevent the proliferation of WMDs by rogue regimes?
I take your point that the US is the most heavily armed nuclear nation and that unlike every other nuclear nation only the US has used nuclear weapons against another country.
Nazi's: you are no doubt referring to Werner Von Braun. A Nazi rocket scientist who after the war became an American citizen helped the US build long range rockets. If the Manhattan project took anything from the Nazis, it was Heavy water was not the route to fissionable material. That would have come from conjecture based on what they new of the physicist who were stuck in Germany.
Guzzo: Einstein did not work on the Manhattan project. He was considered a security risk. His equation E=Mc2, developed decades before WWII, made the bomb theoretically possible.
Non-proliferation treaty. India and other countries are also non-signatories.
Any way, you are all correct, the world is a dangerous place. Every country that possesses nuclear weapons makes the world that much more dangerous.
As for saba, and dolo, who seem to think Clinton has been president for the last 6 years, I will give Clinton blame for a different reason. Clinton was president when India first tested their nuclear device. He should have forced through total worldwide sanctions immediately. That would have forced India to give up their weapons and it would have stopped Pakistan and NK from acquiring them.
For people who think Muslims are source of the danger in the world; the 2nd and third largest Muslim countries now posses nuclear weapons. The 1 st largest will have a weapon with in the next 2 years (my prediction).
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 ??? President Bush said Wednesday that he would not use force against North Korea because ???diplomacy hasn???t run its course,??? but acknowledged that many Americans wonder why he invaded Iraq but has not taken military action to head off North Korea???s race for a bomb.
???I???m asked questions around the country, ???Just go ahead and use the military,??? ??? Mr. Bush said at a morning news conference in the Rose Garden, his first extended question-and-answer session with reporters in the days since North Korea announced it had detonated a nuclear device. ???And my answer is that I believe the commander in chief must try all diplomatic measures before we commit our military.???
Then, without prompting, the president asked an obvious next question.
???I???ll ask myself a follow-up,??? Mr. Bush said. ??? ???If that???s the case, why did you use military action in Iraq???? And the reason why is because we tried the diplomacy.???
Mr. Bush???s unusual exchange with himself came during an hourlong news conference dominated by questions about North Korea and Iraq. Democrats have criticized him for rushing into a war with Iraq, which turned out not to have unconventional weapons, while not setting limits on North Korea, which declared this week that it had conducted its first nuclear test.
That the president himself raised and rejected this critique appears to reflect concern among Mr. Bush???s advisers that North Korea could be a political liability for Republicans, one that the president needed to confront directly with voters.
Mr. Bush???s stance was to reassert that the United States would not tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea, but that the way to shut down its nuclear programs was through multilateral diplomacy, not one-on-one talks or military action.
Intelligence officials have not yet determined the exact size of the device that North Korea tested, or explained why it appeared to have been fairly small, less than a kiloton. Democrats and Republicans have been arguing over who was responsible for the buildup in the North. Madeleine K. Albright, a secretary of state for former President Bill Clinton, issued a statement on Wednesday defending his administration and striking back at Mr. Bush.
???During the two terms of the Clinton administration, there were no nuclear weapons tests by North Korea, no new plutonium production, and no new nuclear weapons developed in Pyongyang,??? Ms. Albright???s statement said. ???Through our policy of constructive engagement, the world was safer. President Bush chose a different path, and the results are evident for all to see.???
Despite the North???s test, Mr. Bush insisted Wednesday that his diplomatic approach was the best course and that he would continue to seek support for sanctions from other nations. He resisted calls for direct negotiations with North Korea of the sort the Clinton administration had engaged in, saying ???the strategy did not work.???
???North Korea has been trying to acquire bombs and weapons for a long period of time,??? Mr. Bush said, ???long before I came into office.???
On Iraq, Mr. Bush seemed to push back against recent remarks by James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state who is the Republican chairman of a bipartisan panel reassessing Iraq strategy. On Sunday, Mr. Baker suggested that his panel???s report would depart from Mr. Bush???s repeated calls to ???stay the course.???
But Mr. Bush signaled that he would not be pressed into a premature withdrawal.
???Stay the course means keep doing what you???re doing,??? ??? he said. ???My attitude is, don???t do what you???re doing if it???s not working ??? change. Stay the course also means, don???t leave before the job is done. We???re going to get the job done in Iraq.???
On North Korea, Mr. Bush was asked if he regretted his decision not to take action ??? military or otherwise ??? to destroy fuel supplies in 2003, when the North threw out international weapons inspectors, withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and said it would turn its spent nuclear fuel into weapons. At that time, the fuel was all briefly in one known location.
???I used that moment to continue my desire to convince others to become equity partners in the Korean issue,??? Mr. Bush said, referring to the so-called six-party talks aimed at persuading the North to give up its nuclear capacity. He added, ???I obviously look at all options all the time, and I felt like the best way to solve this problem would be through a diplomacy effort.???
Experts believe the nuclear buildup in the North dates back to the early 1990???s, when the first President Bush was in office. Under an agreement Mr. Clinton struck in 1994, North Korea agreed to freeze its production of plutonium in return for energy aid. North Korea abided by the freeze, but starting around 1997, it took steps on a second, secret nuclear program.
In 2002, after South Korean and American intelligence agencies found conclusive evidence of that program, the Bush administration confronted the North with the evidence that it had cheated while Mr. Clinton was still in office. That led to the six-nation talks, involving the United States, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia.
???The Clinton administration was prepared to accept an imperfect agreement in the interest of achieving limits,??? said Gary S. Samore, a North Korea expert who helped negotiate the original 1994 agreement. ???The Bush administration is not prepared to accept an imperfect agreement, and the result is that we have no limits.???
But Mr. Bush on Wednesday reiterated his stance that it was ???unacceptable??? for North Korea to have nuclear weapons. Asked if he was ???ready to live with a nuclear North Korea,??? Mr. Bush gave a one-word answer: ???No.???
Experts say U.S. now must parley with North - James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, October 11, 2006
In the face of U.S. failures to stop North Korea from developing and testing a nuclear weapon, a number of Asia experts say the United States has little choice but to accept the North as a nuclear state, while continuing to pursue both negotiations and pressure on the government through U.N. sanctions.
In other words, the experts said, U.S. policymakers have to focus on containment of the North Korean threat, and they have to be prepared to sit down at the negotiating table with an enemy that has proved unreliable and mercurial, no matter how uncomfortable that might be.
For its part, the Bush administration stood its ground Tuesday, suggesting that it would not change course. President Bush had insisted that the United States would not tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a CNN interview that U.S. policy remains the same: dismantling Pyongyang's nuclear program.
But several experts said that goal now seems obsolete. They said a new approach is called for, including containment of North Korea rather than a halt to the weapons effort, or regime change.
"You can bottle them up, you can prevent proliferation to some degree, but you can't stop them from getting those weapons," said James Lilley, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea and then China during the Reagan and first Bush administrations. "We can threaten to increase their isolation, but they want isolation."
Other experts said that the underlying aims of U.S. policy essentially have to focus on stopping North Korea from influencing other parts of the world by preventing the North from intimidating its neighbors with the weapons, and stopping it from transferring any of its nuclear technology or materials to any other country or to a terrorist group.
"We must not permit a nuclear weapon or bomb-making material to find its way to al Qaeda from North Korea's chain of arms outlet stores," said Steve Andreasen, a nuclear weapons expert in the Reagan, first Bush and Clinton administrations.
At the same time, many experts believe, direct negotiations are the only way to accomplish anything useful, even though such talks have a spotty record.
The Bush administration has refused to engage in any direct face-to-face talks with the North Koreans, something the North has sought for years. The White House has insisted that bilateral talks would amount to rewarding the North for bad behavior. But in the wake of Monday's nuclear test, these experts say, Washington has no choice but to try to engage directly with the North to understand its motives better and to make U.S. policy clear.
"The idea that we won't talk to them is a truly bizarre idea," said Michael Armacost, the former U.S. ambassador to Japan in the first Bush administration and now a fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Armacost added that, while some conservatives have harshly criticized past talks with North Korea for producing no major changes in the North's behavior, the reality is that talks have at the least bought time previously, a valuable commodity in dealing with Pyongyang.
"There was no evidence that engagement failed even if it didn't get us everything we wanted," said Armacost.
Armacost stressed, like the others, the need to work closely with China, applying some economic pressure to contain the North. While Republicans and Democrats are now pointing fingers at each other for the failure of U.S. policy -- Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Tuesday blasted the Clinton administration for its more open policy toward the North -- many experts agree that the North quite likely never had any intention of giving up its nuclear program, no matter how flexible or deft U.S. policy was.
"It now seems quite possible that this test by the North was the culmination of a long-term effort that wasn't going to be deterred by outsiders at all," said Armacost.
Lilley said that in spite of that track record, the United States has no choice but to continue negotiations, both through the six-party formula and one-on-one. China, he said, would have to take the lead, but the United States could never expect complete harmony with Beijing in devising a negotiating strategy -- despite China's clear displeasure at North Korea's actions and its stated willingness to consider sanctions. But partial agreement, he said, is better than none.
"We just have to accept that China will not follow our lead," said Lilley. "They are going to move at their own pace in their own way. The idea that we can get the Chinese to dance to our tune is not going to happen. They are moving on a parallel track."
Andreasen said the United States needs to be even more open about what incentives it would offer Pyongyang in return for less confrontational behavior.
"We need to find a way through diplomacy to reduce North Korea's incentives to maintain its nuclear weapons program or sell its nuclear technology," he said.
U.S. urges sanctions to restrain North Korea EXPERTS SAY: Test might have been a dud, but North's scientists probably learned a lot - James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Analysis of the initial, sketchy information on North Korea's apparent underground nuclear test suggests the blast might have been relatively small by historical standards -- and possibly a partial misfire -- but experts agree that Pyongyang probably learned a great deal and took a significant stride toward establishing itself as a nuclear power.
"They've made plutonium, they've made alloys with it, they've cast it in the right shape; that's nearly all the way," said Michael May, the former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which designs U.S. nuclear warheads.
Some even speculate that North Korea might be preparing for a second underground test, which would confirm that the country's scientists are engaged in a practical, step-by-step weapons development program rather than merely sending signals for political purposes, as some have speculated.
Nuclear experts said Monday's test appears to have involved a fairly basic atomic bomb design, using plutonium, rather than an advanced thermonuclear weapon, or a so-called hydrogen bomb.
Also, they said, the device likely is still too bulky to be launched on a missile.
Questions also have been raised about whether the device worked to its full potential. The suspected low yield of the blast -- estimated at less than 1 kiloton, or 1,000 tons of explosive -- suggests it might not have fired exactly right.
Nevertheless, those like May who understand engineering challenges of nuclear weaponry say the North's capabilities, while comparatively crude, appear to be genuine and probably are improving.
"They're clearly not incompetent," he said.
Monday's blast sent out seismic waves that were picked up by sensors around the world. It is difficult to calculate the precise force, or yield, of the explosion from that data, because such a measurement depends on a good understanding of the geology of the area where the detonation took place, experts said, and not just the seismic impact.
Officials from South Korea and France estimated the yield as low as 550 tons of explosive force. Russian officials, however, said they believe the yield was far larger, somewhere in a range of 5 to 15 kilotons.
By comparison, the first test ever of an atomic bomb, carried out by the United States in the New Mexico desert in July 1945, was approximately 20 kilotons, and no first-time test by any other country since then is believed to have been less than 9 kilotons.
But even if North Korea is still years away from the type of warhead that can be fixed on a missile, U.S. nuclear experts said the test likely provided a wealth of information that will advance the country's weapons program.
"The size of the yield by itself doesn't tell us if this was a success or not," said Jon Wolfsthal, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and a former nuclear monitor for the U.S. government in North Korea. "You always learn something from a test."
And even if the test did not work as planned, that probably will not stop the North.
"Even if the U.S. can prove it was a failure and that North Korea didn't understand their design, then the North Koreans will just choose to test again," said David Albright, director of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington. "In a way, they got us no matter what happened in this test. They have a nuclear arsenal."
Testing has been a central element in the weapons development of every nuclear-armed country. It has been used to refine designs and assess new ideas, usually in an effort to miniaturize the weapons to fit on missiles or to maximize the explosive yield relative to the weight.
There have always been failures -- Livermore's first test, in the early 1950s, was a dud -- but they still produced useful information that helped scientists perfect their designs and produce ever more deadly weapons.
The United States conducted more than 1,000 tests before declaring a unilateral halt in 1992 -- more than any other country. At the height of the Cold War, in 1962, nearly 140 nuclear tests were conducted around the world in what was then an almost frantic effort to build huge stockpiles.
During those years, the United States, Russia and their allies became adept at picking up seismic waves from the blasts or sniffing gases that leaked into the atmosphere to learn about the yield and other aspects of the weapons.
Albright said determining the size of the test requires a good knowledge of the rock and soil surrounding the test shaft, and not much is known about North Korea.
He said countries also can take steps to partially muffle the impact of the blast, possibly by detonating the devices in large caverns, so the North could have deliberately concealed the full force of the test.
"My first thought when I saw the low seismic magnitude of the test was that they're just going to try and do another one," said Philip Coyle, who was previously head of nuclear testing at Livermore.
Added John Browne, the former head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, another U.S. weapons design lab, "You have to watch what their next steps are. But right now, the scary thing is they made it work."
May, the former head of Livermore, thinks the North Koreans might have purposely tested a new or difficult design, rather than a well-understood design, in order to learn the most it could from the blast.
"They learned something, but we don't know what they learned," May said.
"They are most likely looking for a warhead design for their own missiles. This probably answered some of their questions."
Comments
man those mass games get me every time.
However, I'm sure some lunatic fringe groups would love to get a nuke and use it on us. It would be the same situation we have now with terrorists. There would be no designated place to retaliate. It's one thing for a country to use a nuclear weapon, but it's a whole other animal if a small group with nothing to lose decided to use it. Therein lies the reason we should be concerned.
Of course north korea seemed interested in becoming a part of the international community, they were getting alot of aid from the US government for seeming that way. The clinton approach of giving north korea the means to develop nuclear weapons on the promise from a madman that they wouldnt was ludicrous and unsurprisingly a spectacular failure. That some rue bush's abandonment of such an absurd and demonstrably failed policy is a depressing example of the degenerative effects political tribalism can have on ones mind.
Furthermore the increasingly popular contention that bush has threatened once passive, peaceloving nations into rogue states is preposterous. All nations included in the axis of evil were currently engaged in weapons proliferation, terrorism and other unsavoury practices which they had endeavoured in for years. If you doubt this just look at the axis of evil member who was subject to the most scrutiny and restrictions pre bush: iraq. People are so obsessed by what wasnt found in iraq that they spare little consideration for what was. Saddam from the comfort of his 'box' had managed to siphon off huge quanitites of money to invest in secret weapons programs yet because he hadnt gotten around to investing any of that in WMD's people are nostalgic for the status quo. Is it really so bad that hostile nations such as these feel threatened? Its amazing that so many people are upset that enemy states no longer feel content in their pursuit of nuclear weapons and funding of terrorism.
Nice one! You lambast Clinton for his failed policy, and just as we're all waiting to hear how you think Bush's was better, you change the subject to Iraq! Man I have to hand it to you sometimes....
The question you should be answering, however, remains: Given that Lil Kim has acquired a nuclear capability, how was Bush's policy better than Clinton's?
policy schmolicy, that little shit was gonna get a nuke no matter what, clinton's policy of giving the dude aid for him to stop work on the nuke was retarded for the fact he took the little shits word, by the time georgie took office nothing, other than war with nk, would stop the little shit, its not clintons fault but his policy didn't do anything to slow him down
the us has been working on laser missle defense with japan for sometime now, and i believe the new pm of japan is all for rewriting their constitution in order to build their own nukes
Your raison d'etre on this board, one can only presume.
1. Attacking an eroneous criticism is not in itself a defense or endorsement of what is being criticised
2. Since you asked I think the bush policy is better than clintons for the simple reason that it didnt entail handing over the means neccesary to develop nuclear weapons on the promise of a psychopath that they wouldnt be used to that end. Did the clinton administration sincerely believe that all kim jong il wanted was to ste up a few nuclear power stations?
1) BBC Radio said that Western intelligence cannot confirm that North Korea successfully detonated their bomb. North Korea used an explosive device to start the chain reaction for the nuclear explosion, but the instruments that were used couldn't tell whether the seismic activity was just from the conventional explosion or a nuclear explosion.
2) An article in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle said that some nuclear experts believe that the test was actually a dud, but that the Koreans still learned important information from it.
Who, exclusively, used these weapons not once but twice against another nation?
Who broke the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by giving warheads to the terrorist state of Israel?
Who has currently 10.000 (confirmed) intact warheads?
It is not the american people i say, it is their corrupt government.
What is the point of having so many warheads other than to scare other nations and forcing them to create a nuclear arsenal to protect[/b] themselves?
If you experience shortness of breadth, slowly attempt to remove your head from your ass.
co-sign.
If you must know, however, Saliva, the US gave no nuclear know-how to Israel. It was developed largely on their own (with some French help).
So, yeah, you can cross that off your little "why America is evil" list.
Plaese to go read a book.
Meanwhile while we have Sabadabdabdazda in here: Reasonable people can disagree on the wisdom of Clinton's policy. But he hasn't been the President for some time, and no one's been doing ANYTHING about Lil Kim's drive to acquire a nuclear wewapon. Meanwhile, Bush is Preident, and Kim has acquired said capability on Bush' watch.
Plaese, for once admit Bush's failure here.
..............................................
glad to see this is how politicians & interest groups react to threats against mankind nowadays.
point is, i know of no profession other than politics where you can blame current ongoing problems on your predecessor and continue to get a pass. one would think that eventually someone has to take responsibility and move forward.
.............................................
you can blame dems or blame republicans. either way NK still is a dangerous threat. yet we continue to do nothing to neutralize this threat. lil kim does not seem like a good person to hope that 'chance' alone will ensure he doesn't do anything drastic.
personally, i think US should swalllow their pride for the moment just to get North Korea to the table. after we get them talking, then we decide if we should go further, but the current policy of sanctions and six-way talks doesn't seem to be leading us in the right direction.
and for you naysayers, ask yourself this. who has more to lose if NK does not balk at the current threats and actually does decide to treat the sanctions as an act of war? my bet is that it is not North Korea.
First, I don't think Kim has the bomb. Second, direct talks failed because Kim lies; the only person who can influence North Korea is China. China is now involved.
umm proof please that the Nazi's and Oppenheimer/ Einstein and co. were "working together"
mis-information makes your cypher complete
But China was trying to prevent a test of exactly this kind forever. They had extracted countless promises from the N. Koreans that they wouldn't do it. And yet it happens. Looks like the N. Koreans lie to China, also, no?
And on your point of me trying to make America look evil. That's not my point. I just wanted to point out why other nations think America is evil & not to be trusted. So it's just a logical reaction IMO.
Which also means they're not violating it.
No shit.
word. let's get back on track.
there's been a lot of folls in the media clowning Clinton and Albright for trying to suck up to Kim. So their plan failed. They tried to bribe Kim and got burned.
But that was years ago. It seems there was some time in the interim, when the administration could have, you know, tried something else?
Again I ask: What has Bush done besides mouth platitudes about "evil"? Did he have some grand scheme that just happened to fail like Clinton's? Or, as seems more likely, was he just bumbling along, pre-occupied with the Iraq mess, hoping the N Korean problem would go away?
And if the Bush admin did have a plan in place that happened to fail, should his administration not bear a greater responsiblity for its failures than Clinton's, given that the threat was/is more imminent during his presidency, and given that the oft-stated goal of his own presidency was to prevent the proliferation of WMDs by rogue regimes?
I take your point that the US is the most heavily armed nuclear nation and that unlike every other nuclear nation only the US has used nuclear weapons against another country.
Nazi's: you are no doubt referring to Werner Von Braun. A Nazi rocket scientist who after the war became an American citizen helped the US build long range rockets. If the Manhattan project took anything from the Nazis, it was Heavy water was not the route to fissionable material. That would have come from conjecture based on what they new of the physicist who were stuck in Germany.
Guzzo: Einstein did not work on the Manhattan project. He was considered a security risk. His equation E=Mc2, developed decades before WWII, made the bomb theoretically possible.
Non-proliferation treaty. India and other countries are also non-signatories.
Any way, you are all correct, the world is a dangerous place. Every country that possesses nuclear weapons makes the world that much more dangerous.
As for saba, and dolo, who seem to think Clinton has been president for the last 6 years, I will give Clinton blame for a different reason. Clinton was president when India first tested their nuclear device. He should have forced through total worldwide sanctions immediately. That would have forced India to give up their weapons and it would have stopped Pakistan and NK from acquiring them.
For people who think Muslims are source of the danger in the world; the 2nd and third largest Muslim countries now posses nuclear weapons. The 1 st largest will have a weapon with in the next 2 years (my prediction).
October 12, 2006
For Bush, Many Questions on Iraq and North Korea
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 ??? President Bush said Wednesday that he would not use force against North Korea because ???diplomacy hasn???t run its course,??? but acknowledged that many Americans wonder why he invaded Iraq but has not taken military action to head off North Korea???s race for a bomb.
???I???m asked questions around the country, ???Just go ahead and use the military,??? ??? Mr. Bush said at a morning news conference in the Rose Garden, his first extended question-and-answer session with reporters in the days since North Korea announced it had detonated a nuclear device. ???And my answer is that I believe the commander in chief must try all diplomatic measures before we commit our military.???
Then, without prompting, the president asked an obvious next question.
???I???ll ask myself a follow-up,??? Mr. Bush said. ??? ???If that???s the case, why did you use military action in Iraq???? And the reason why is because we tried the diplomacy.???
Mr. Bush???s unusual exchange with himself came during an hourlong news conference dominated by questions about North Korea and Iraq. Democrats have criticized him for rushing into a war with Iraq, which turned out not to have unconventional weapons, while not setting limits on North Korea, which declared this week that it had conducted its first nuclear test.
That the president himself raised and rejected this critique appears to reflect concern among Mr. Bush???s advisers that North Korea could be a political liability for Republicans, one that the president needed to confront directly with voters.
Mr. Bush???s stance was to reassert that the United States would not tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea, but that the way to shut down its nuclear programs was through multilateral diplomacy, not one-on-one talks or military action.
Intelligence officials have not yet determined the exact size of the device that North Korea tested, or explained why it appeared to have been fairly small, less than a kiloton. Democrats and Republicans have been arguing over who was responsible for the buildup in the North. Madeleine K. Albright, a secretary of state for former President Bill Clinton, issued a statement on Wednesday defending his administration and striking back at Mr. Bush.
???During the two terms of the Clinton administration, there were no nuclear weapons tests by North Korea, no new plutonium production, and no new nuclear weapons developed in Pyongyang,??? Ms. Albright???s statement said. ???Through our policy of constructive engagement, the world was safer. President Bush chose a different path, and the results are evident for all to see.???
Despite the North???s test, Mr. Bush insisted Wednesday that his diplomatic approach was the best course and that he would continue to seek support for sanctions from other nations. He resisted calls for direct negotiations with North Korea of the sort the Clinton administration had engaged in, saying ???the strategy did not work.???
???North Korea has been trying to acquire bombs and weapons for a long period of time,??? Mr. Bush said, ???long before I came into office.???
On Iraq, Mr. Bush seemed to push back against recent remarks by James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state who is the Republican chairman of a bipartisan panel reassessing Iraq strategy. On Sunday, Mr. Baker suggested that his panel???s report would depart from Mr. Bush???s repeated calls to ???stay the course.???
But Mr. Bush signaled that he would not be pressed into a premature withdrawal.
???Stay the course means keep doing what you???re doing,??? ??? he said. ???My attitude is, don???t do what you???re doing if it???s not working ??? change. Stay the course also means, don???t leave before the job is done. We???re going to get the job done in Iraq.???
On North Korea, Mr. Bush was asked if he regretted his decision not to take action ??? military or otherwise ??? to destroy fuel supplies in 2003, when the North threw out international weapons inspectors, withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and said it would turn its spent nuclear fuel into weapons. At that time, the fuel was all briefly in one known location.
???I used that moment to continue my desire to convince others to become equity partners in the Korean issue,??? Mr. Bush said, referring to the so-called six-party talks aimed at persuading the North to give up its nuclear capacity. He added, ???I obviously look at all options all the time, and I felt like the best way to solve this problem would be through a diplomacy effort.???
Experts believe the nuclear buildup in the North dates back to the early 1990???s, when the first President Bush was in office. Under an agreement Mr. Clinton struck in 1994, North Korea agreed to freeze its production of plutonium in return for energy aid. North Korea abided by the freeze, but starting around 1997, it took steps on a second, secret nuclear program.
In 2002, after South Korean and American intelligence agencies found conclusive evidence of that program, the Bush administration confronted the North with the evidence that it had cheated while Mr. Clinton was still in office. That led to the six-nation talks, involving the United States, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia.
???The Clinton administration was prepared to accept an imperfect agreement in the interest of achieving limits,??? said Gary S. Samore, a North Korea expert who helped negotiate the original 1994 agreement. ???The Bush administration is not prepared to accept an imperfect agreement, and the result is that we have no limits.???
But Mr. Bush on Wednesday reiterated his stance that it was ???unacceptable??? for North Korea to have nuclear weapons. Asked if he was ???ready to live with a nuclear North Korea,??? Mr. Bush gave a one-word answer: ???No.???
- James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
In the face of U.S. failures to stop North Korea from developing and testing a nuclear weapon, a number of Asia experts say the United States has little choice but to accept the North as a nuclear state, while continuing to pursue both negotiations and pressure on the government through U.N. sanctions.
In other words, the experts said, U.S. policymakers have to focus on containment of the North Korean threat, and they have to be prepared to sit down at the negotiating table with an enemy that has proved unreliable and mercurial, no matter how uncomfortable that might be.
For its part, the Bush administration stood its ground Tuesday, suggesting that it would not change course. President Bush had insisted that the United States would not tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a CNN interview that U.S. policy remains the same: dismantling Pyongyang's nuclear program.
But several experts said that goal now seems obsolete. They said a new approach is called for, including containment of North Korea rather than a halt to the weapons effort, or regime change.
"You can bottle them up, you can prevent proliferation to some degree, but you can't stop them from getting those weapons," said James Lilley, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea and then China during the Reagan and first Bush administrations. "We can threaten to increase their isolation, but they want isolation."
Other experts said that the underlying aims of U.S. policy essentially have to focus on stopping North Korea from influencing other parts of the world by preventing the North from intimidating its neighbors with the weapons, and stopping it from transferring any of its nuclear technology or materials to any other country or to a terrorist group.
"We must not permit a nuclear weapon or bomb-making material to find its way to al Qaeda from North Korea's chain of arms outlet stores," said Steve Andreasen, a nuclear weapons expert in the Reagan, first Bush and Clinton administrations.
At the same time, many experts believe, direct negotiations are the only way to accomplish anything useful, even though such talks have a spotty record.
The Bush administration has refused to engage in any direct face-to-face talks with the North Koreans, something the North has sought for years. The White House has insisted that bilateral talks would amount to rewarding the North for bad behavior. But in the wake of Monday's nuclear test, these experts say, Washington has no choice but to try to engage directly with the North to understand its motives better and to make U.S. policy clear.
"The idea that we won't talk to them is a truly bizarre idea," said Michael Armacost, the former U.S. ambassador to Japan in the first Bush administration and now a fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Armacost added that, while some conservatives have harshly criticized past talks with North Korea for producing no major changes in the North's behavior, the reality is that talks have at the least bought time previously, a valuable commodity in dealing with Pyongyang.
"There was no evidence that engagement failed even if it didn't get us everything we wanted," said Armacost.
Armacost stressed, like the others, the need to work closely with China, applying some economic pressure to contain the North. While Republicans and Democrats are now pointing fingers at each other for the failure of U.S. policy -- Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Tuesday blasted the Clinton administration for its more open policy toward the North -- many experts agree that the North quite likely never had any intention of giving up its nuclear program, no matter how flexible or deft U.S. policy was.
"It now seems quite possible that this test by the North was the culmination of a long-term effort that wasn't going to be deterred by outsiders at all," said Armacost.
Lilley said that in spite of that track record, the United States has no choice but to continue negotiations, both through the six-party formula and one-on-one. China, he said, would have to take the lead, but the United States could never expect complete harmony with Beijing in devising a negotiating strategy -- despite China's clear displeasure at North Korea's actions and its stated willingness to consider sanctions. But partial agreement, he said, is better than none.
"We just have to accept that China will not follow our lead," said Lilley. "They are going to move at their own pace in their own way. The idea that we can get the Chinese to dance to our tune is not going to happen. They are moving on a parallel track."
Andreasen said the United States needs to be even more open about what incentives it would offer Pyongyang in return for less confrontational behavior.
"We need to find a way through diplomacy to reduce North Korea's incentives to maintain its nuclear weapons program or sell its nuclear technology," he said.
EXPERTS SAY: Test might have been a dud, but North's scientists probably learned a lot
- James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Analysis of the initial, sketchy information on North Korea's apparent underground nuclear test suggests the blast might have been relatively small by historical standards -- and possibly a partial misfire -- but experts agree that Pyongyang probably learned a great deal and took a significant stride toward establishing itself as a nuclear power.
"They've made plutonium, they've made alloys with it, they've cast it in the right shape; that's nearly all the way," said Michael May, the former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which designs U.S. nuclear warheads.
Some even speculate that North Korea might be preparing for a second underground test, which would confirm that the country's scientists are engaged in a practical, step-by-step weapons development program rather than merely sending signals for political purposes, as some have speculated.
Nuclear experts said Monday's test appears to have involved a fairly basic atomic bomb design, using plutonium, rather than an advanced thermonuclear weapon, or a so-called hydrogen bomb.
Also, they said, the device likely is still too bulky to be launched on a missile.
Questions also have been raised about whether the device worked to its full potential. The suspected low yield of the blast -- estimated at less than 1 kiloton, or 1,000 tons of explosive -- suggests it might not have fired exactly right.
Nevertheless, those like May who understand engineering challenges of nuclear weaponry say the North's capabilities, while comparatively crude, appear to be genuine and probably are improving.
"They're clearly not incompetent," he said.
Monday's blast sent out seismic waves that were picked up by sensors around the world. It is difficult to calculate the precise force, or yield, of the explosion from that data, because such a measurement depends on a good understanding of the geology of the area where the detonation took place, experts said, and not just the seismic impact.
Officials from South Korea and France estimated the yield as low as 550 tons of explosive force. Russian officials, however, said they believe the yield was far larger, somewhere in a range of 5 to 15 kilotons.
By comparison, the first test ever of an atomic bomb, carried out by the United States in the New Mexico desert in July 1945, was approximately 20 kilotons, and no first-time test by any other country since then is believed to have been less than 9 kilotons.
But even if North Korea is still years away from the type of warhead that can be fixed on a missile, U.S. nuclear experts said the test likely provided a wealth of information that will advance the country's weapons program.
"The size of the yield by itself doesn't tell us if this was a success or not," said Jon Wolfsthal, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and a former nuclear monitor for the U.S. government in North Korea. "You always learn something from a test."
And even if the test did not work as planned, that probably will not stop the North.
"Even if the U.S. can prove it was a failure and that North Korea didn't understand their design, then the North Koreans will just choose to test again," said David Albright, director of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington. "In a way, they got us no matter what happened in this test. They have a nuclear arsenal."
Testing has been a central element in the weapons development of every nuclear-armed country. It has been used to refine designs and assess new ideas, usually in an effort to miniaturize the weapons to fit on missiles or to maximize the explosive yield relative to the weight.
There have always been failures -- Livermore's first test, in the early 1950s, was a dud -- but they still produced useful information that helped scientists perfect their designs and produce ever more deadly weapons.
The United States conducted more than 1,000 tests before declaring a unilateral halt in 1992 -- more than any other country. At the height of the Cold War, in 1962, nearly 140 nuclear tests were conducted around the world in what was then an almost frantic effort to build huge stockpiles.
During those years, the United States, Russia and their allies became adept at picking up seismic waves from the blasts or sniffing gases that leaked into the atmosphere to learn about the yield and other aspects of the weapons.
Albright said determining the size of the test requires a good knowledge of the rock and soil surrounding the test shaft, and not much is known about North Korea.
He said countries also can take steps to partially muffle the impact of the blast, possibly by detonating the devices in large caverns, so the North could have deliberately concealed the full force of the test.
"My first thought when I saw the low seismic magnitude of the test was that they're just going to try and do another one," said Philip Coyle, who was previously head of nuclear testing at Livermore.
Added John Browne, the former head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, another U.S. weapons design lab, "You have to watch what their next steps are. But right now, the scary thing is they made it work."
May, the former head of Livermore, thinks the North Koreans might have purposely tested a new or difficult design, rather than a well-understood design, in order to learn the most it could from the blast.
"They learned something, but we don't know what they learned," May said.
"They are most likely looking for a warhead design for their own missiles. This probably answered some of their questions."