North Korea Nuclear Test

[Galahad]

Do you really believe this?

.Yes.

 

[sodaseller]

Bill Clinton, Madalyn Albright and Jimmy Carter, in exchange for a meaningless piece of paper declaring "peace", gave Kim Jong-Il millions of dollars, oil, food and a nuclear reactor. They then failed to enter into an agreement of verification and continued the financial aid. Now tell me, where did I get it wrong.

To answer the last question would go years back, likely to some Mephisto liek exchange.

So when did we give them a reactor?

And what did we nedd to verify, and how did we?

 

[TheDoctor]

Here is some more evidence that this test may have been a dud. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/w...&en=e294c996e3f77f14&ei=5094&partner=homepage

We have assessed that the explosion in North Korea was a sub-kiloton explosion,” said the intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. He added, “We don’t know, in fact, whether it was a nuclear explosion.” He spoke as intelligence analysts in Washington were in the early stages of assessing the explosion.

A one-kiloton blast would be extremely small for a nuclear weapon. But regardless of the size of the blast, the North Korean announcement reverberated throughout the world of diplomacy, and seemed likely to be felt in American domestic politics as well. There were suggestions, moreover, that the Communist state might be preparing a second test.

 

[disneyfan67]

Come on, Dawn, going to another sourse dedicated to saying bad things about Clinton (without any support mind you) isn't the same as checking your facts. Take this point:

"Although the equipment used by North Korea to affect Monday’s nuclear test was actually delivered to it by then President Clinton, with that administration’s Light Water Nuclear Reactors’ program,"

This statement is absurd on many different levels. The biggest of which - the point I suggested you check out - are those light water reactors.

I have a question. How come Dawn is flammed for posting a link to Newsmax and other consevative sites? I just read above this post to 3 links to Democrat sites that Kyle just supplied in his two posts, yet no comment from you? The're both political websites that push a agenda that fits how the way they think. So how come no outcry of foul play from the Doctor? Are you going to tell me that the Daily Kos or Democrats.org, or the WP is going to show a non biased approach? Wow! If you could pull that off with a straight face, then I recomend a career in selling used cars. You could make a fortune.

BTW, I'm not defending Newsmax and don't consider them a unbiased source.

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

Here are some more facts for dawnie to ignore.

I was actually trying to keep an open mind and learn something on this thread, but this one comment took all of the credibility away from your posts.

 

[sodaseller]

Here are some more facts for dawnie to ignore. http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/the_bush_admini_2.php The facts are clear. Under Presdient Clinton, North Korea had very little weapons grade material and under bush, North Korea has a great deal more. These are facts.

What the right wing talking points fed to the gullible miss are two things. First, while the Agreed Framework called for providing Light Water Reactors, we never did so. Parenthetically, LWRs are almost impossible to use for military purposes. Secnd, the program the NKs disclosed was for uranium enrichment, not plutonium reprocessing. And they were nowhere on it.

The Agreed Framework called for the shutdown of the plutonium Youngbuon plant. That definitely occurred. The plant was sealed, and there is no way to run it without us knowing it. Long before the Agreed Framework, ineed, before the last Adminsitartion, there was some suspicious operation of the plant that led some to believe they might have sneaked out some unaccounted for plutomium. But no way they ran that plant after 1994.

The narrative fed to the true believers is that Clinton gave them a reactor and that they were seceretly running the same program he paid them off to shut dowm so he got snookered. But the program they were trying to work was uranium enrichment, because they couldn't work the plutomium angle. They were about as far along on that my Springer Spaniel. That kind of program is also near impossible to hide, as you need a ton of yellow cake and thousands of centrifuges to produce HEU. They had never reached that step. Plus, HEU warheads are bigger are far harder to put on a missile

And we never gave them a reactor

But in the underdeveloped right wing mind, it's all very simple. Clinton gave them a reactor and they were still running the same program. Plutonium/Uranium, these are semantics to them.

 

[shrubber]

We could always cut and run from Korea. If three years in Iraq is a quagmire, what is 50+ years in Korea called?

Besides, if Bush started bombing North Korea, wouldn't that be an illegal war since we don't have 17 UN resolutions? Oh that's right, even with 17 resolutions it is still illegal. Yep, it looks like under international law we can't do a damn thing about it.

 

[sodaseller]

I was actually trying to keep an open mind and learn something on this thread, but this one comment took all of the credibility away from your posts.

It's too bad - you would have learned something. He knows what he's talking about

 

[sodaseller]

I have a question. How come Dawn is flammed for posting a link to Newsmax and other consevative sites? I just read above this post to 3 links to Democrat sites that Kyle just supplied in his two posts, yet no comment from you? The're both political websites that push a agenda that fits how the way they think. So how come no outcry of foul play from the Doctor? Are you going to tell me that the Daily Kos or Democrats.org, or the WP is going to show a non biased approach? Wow! If you could pull that off with a straight face, then I recomend a career in selling used cars. You could make a fortune.

BTW, I'm not defending Newsmax and don't consider them a unbiased source.

Because she's factually wrong and has no idea what she's talking about. She is missing the most basic facts. She thinks we gave them a reactor. You are not serious on this issue if you do not know that most basic fact

This is a perfect example of a paradigm in argument.

Dawn's RW sources say today's test resulted from a light water reactor given by the Clinton Adminsitartion

Other sources posted by te Left say no.

So some pronouce tha the truth is unknowable on the issue.

But is it?

Could we really not know whether we have ever given them light water reactors (never mind that they cannot really be weaponized)

Here's a 2005 piece from the Boston Globe that should clarify which is accurate

http://www.boston.com/news/world/as...roke_over_light_water_reactors_us_envoy_says/

Negotiations resume Aug. 29
By Edward Cody, Washington Post | August 8, 2005

BEIJING -- North Korea's unexpected insistence that it still has the right to build light-water reactors to generate electricity became the main deal-breaker during 13 days of sometimes acrimonious discussions on eliminating nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula, the chief US negotiator said yesterday.

The resurgent issue of light- water reactors was surprising because Chung Dong Young, South Korea's unification minister, had said after meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in June that the Pyongyang government was willing to drop a $5 billion plan to complete two such reactors in return for a South Korean pledge to transmit electrical power across the border. That step had been considered a breakthrough toward the new round of six-party talks.

Light-water reactors are considered less likely than plutonium reactors to be a potential source of weapons-grade material, but US officials still have nuclear proliferation concerns about such installations.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/09/22/korea.north.un/index.html

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- North Korea wants the United States to provide light-water nuclear reactors "as soon as possible" to demonstrate Pyongyang's right to peaceful nuclear acitivities, North Korea's deputy foreign minister said Thursday.

Speaking in the U.N. General Assembly, Choe Su Hon said, "What is most essential at this stage is for the United States to provide light-water nuclear reactors to the DPRK as soon as possible as evidence proving the former's substantial recognition of the latter's right to peaceful nuclear activities.

"We will watch closely to see how the United States will move in actuality at the phase of 'action for action.'"

They are still asking for them because we never gave them a reactor. Do you still contend that whether this particular assertion is true is an open question?

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

It's too bad - you would have learned something. He knows what he's talking about

Have you seen that old Cosby Show episode where they make the analogy of serving a gourmet dinner on a garbage can lid?

 

[fabshelly]

Mind if someone who knows a little about this steps in?

The US presence in Korea is nothing remotely similar to the invasion of Iraq. There are troops there, on bases. Just like in almost every country in Western Europe and many other places.

 

[shrubber]

after 50 years we'll have bases in Iraq too

 

[shrubber]

North Korea is not a problem.
Jimmy told us that they were not a threat.
Jimmy got a Nobel peace prize.

So I do not know what everyone is all upset about.

 

[Teejay32]

Yep, it looks like under international law we can't do a damn thing about it.

I actually like that plan. Let's not do a damn thing.

 

[disneyfan67]

Because she's factually wrong and has no idea what she's talking about. She is missing the most basic facts. She thinks we gave them a reactor. You are not serious on this issue if you do not know that most basic fact

I'm just questioning the fairness of how she's wrong for posting a picture from Newsmax, yet Kyle had the brass to post a link to Democrat.org for his version of the truth! Come on!! To top it off he added this comment below:

Originally Posted by TheDoctor
Here are some more facts for dawnie to ignore

That's just not right in my book and is in no way of being fair, factual, or bringing anything of substance to this debate. Just to let you know, Democrat websites aren't the caretakers of truth or Holy bible of where you get your info from. The're pushing a agenda that fits their world and political views. Same as if you go to Free Republic or Newsmax.



I'm taking my kids to a park to get them out of the house. I'm sure there will be plenty to read/respond to when I get back.

 

[Geoff_M]

It's not surprising to see this thread devolve into the same-ol'-same-ol' with the same core cast of characters...

Let's be honest with each other here shall we? NK's wanted nukes for some time. NK's nuclear ambitions pre-date the two most recent administrations. Their desire hasn't ever gone away... it's perhaps lessened or increased at times, but Kim Jong Il has always desired the political "left bower" of nukes. NK played the "peaceful use" card, signed deals, while at the same time working to circumvent the agreements. Of late, they want to "talk" to the US one-on-one about all of this (meaning "bring your checkbook.... again").

It's a farce to think that one speech given by one president somehow stoked NK's nuclear ambitions that had grown cold. This is also the same country and no doubt was taking some serious notes when Pakistan and India joined the elite "club" and suddenly had some newfound respect on the international scene. There was little serious doubt that NK was going to get a nuclear device, the only question was the timeline. The only thing the "axis" speech did was give NK a reason to drop the mask.

As for the question of "what now?"... that's a good one. The country with the most egg on its face right now is probably China (one of the last "friends" NK has/had left). Kim did the political equivilent of dropping China's trousers in public with this stunt. China's veto power on the UN Security Council was one of the only things standing in the way of sanctions. But in the area of sanctions, how effective will they be against a country that (except for their military and nuclear program) is living in a modern "stone age"???

 

[dcentity2000]

If I recall correctly, Russia (or rather, the former USSR) cannot account for all of it's atomic weaponry.

This test only confirms that they have nukes; I'd expect that they've had them for a while.



Rich::

 

[eclectics]

North Korea is not a problem.
Jimmy told us that they were not a threat.
Jimmy got a Nobel peace prize.

So I do not know what everyone is all upset about.

What other Democrat can you think of to blame the world's ills on? Heck, why not go back and blame Harry? Never mind the things Reagan and the senior Bush could have done to help draw N. Korea into the real world. They, Russia, and China ignored the signs as much as anyone did. N. Korea has been a time bomb ever since the '50's cease fire.

 

[TheDoctor]

As Sodaseller notes, light water reactors are not suitable for weapons production. The IAEA took issue with a very misleading report issued by GOP controlled House committe that repeats some of the same misinformation being put out by the conservatives. http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=317683&rel_no=1

The House Report alleges that Iranians could use the plutonium contained in the spent fuel of their reactors in construction at Busher to fabricate nukes.

"Extracting plutonium from a light water reactor's (LWR) spent fuel rods would produce weapons-grade fuel in less time than spinning unenriched UF6 in centrifuges. Spent fuel from the LWR Russia is building for Iran in the city of Bushehr could produce enough weapons-grade plutonium for 30 weapons per year if the fuel rods were diverted and reprocessed. Spent fuel from the LWRs that EU-3 states are proposing to give Iran as part of a new diplomatic agreement probably could be used to produce a similar amount of plutonium," states the report on pages 10 and 11.​

The statement is simply false. The capture of a single neutron by an uranium-238 nucleus leads eventually to the formation of a plutonium-239 nucleus, an isotope suitable for the construction of nuclear weapon. However, in a light-water reactor operated for electricity production, a significant percentage of plutonium-239 absorb a neutron and transmute into plutonium-240, the presence of which complicates the fabrication of nukes because of high radiation and more importantly because it may lead to premature fission.

The US and the EU was proposing to give Iran some light water nuclear reactors as part of the incentive package to get Iran to drop its nuclear program. If these reactors were suitable for weapons production then why would the US and the EU want to give light water reactors to Iran?

 

[sodaseller]

I'm just questioning the fairness of how she's wrong for posting a picture from Newsmax, yet Kyle had the brass to post a link to Democrat.org for his version of the truth! Come on!! To top it off he added this comment below:




That's just not right in my book and is in no way of being fair, factual, or bringing anything of substance to this debate. Just to let you know, Democrat websites aren't the caretakers of truth or Holy bible of where you get your info from. The're pushing a agenda that fits their world and political views. Same as if you go to Free Republic or Newsmax.



I'm taking my kids to a park to get them out of the house. I'm sure there will be plenty to read/respond to when I get back.

What facts that were asserted from our side do you think are dubious? You keep acting like we are clingisng to some version of facts that is based solely on coming from a biased source. But what we are saying is objectively true, easily verifiable with the most basic research into wherever you want. Plutonium is not uranum. A reactor was wither delivered or it wasn't. The truth of those statements is not a function of perspective.

For years we have been fighting the fact that RW true belivers in this country are fed lines on matters that are empirically false. And they repeat them unthinkingly.

On another thread about whether Iraq was a supporter of Al Queda, a prominent RW poster was faced with every study from the highest levels of our government that said otherwise, included the President's belated forced admission, and just went on to say they they still elected to believe that.


Today's leaked e-mail from Pete Devlin is a great example, the head of Marine intel in Iraq

http://hqmc.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=284&Itemid=30

Biggest Hassle - High-ranking visitors. More disruptive to work than a rocket attack. VIPs demand briefs and "battlefield" tours (we take them to quiet sections of Fallujah, which is plenty scary for them). Our briefs and commentary seem to have no affect on their preconceived notions of what's going on in Iraq. Their trips allow them to say that they've been to Fallujah, which gives them an unfortunate degree of credibility in perpetuating their fantasies about the insurgency here.

Biggest Outrage - Practically anything said by talking heads on TV about the war in Iraq, not that I get to watch much TV. Their thoughts are consistently both grossly simplistic and politically slanted. Biggest offender - Bill O'Reilly - what a buffoon.
Best Intel Work - Finding Jill Carroll's kidnappers - all of them. I was mighty proud of my guys that day. I figured we'd all get the Christian Science Monitor for free after this, but none have showed up yet. Talk about ingratitude.

O'Reilly is firing up the rubes daily with his brand of falsehood, and it will get repeated here often