N.Korea Has Bought Complete Nuclear Bomb

[Siji]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=7452415

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea appears to have bought a complete nuclear weapon from either Pakistan or a former Soviet Union state, a South Korean newspaper said on Thursday quoting a source in Washington.
Seoul Shinmun quoted the source as saying the United States was checking the intelligence.

The purchase was apparently intended to avoid nuclear weapons testing that could be detected from the outside, the source was quoted as saying.

North Korea is believed to have one or two nuclear weapons and possibly more than eight.

U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon said after a visit to the North this month that its second-ranked leader had told his delegation that it possessed nuclear weapons.

Pyongyang has declared that a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, sealed under a 1994 agreement with the United States, had been restarted. Spent nuclear fuel from that reactor could be converted to weapons-grade material.

North Korea has never officially declared that it possessed atomic weapons, speaking instead of its "nuclear deterrent."

U.S. experts who visited the Yongbyon facility said spent plutonium previously stored there had been removed.

North Korea is suspected of running a separate program based on uranium enrichment technology, assisted by a former top Pakistani nuclear scientist.

[Niffoni]

been nice knowing you.

[Fash]

will we see a bush speech about wmd and imminent threat soon?

[noel]

It was kind of nice for the few years where the world lived without the threat of a USSR/USA nuclear holocaust.

Hopefully some people will come along again who are committed to eradicating the nuclear threat instead of spreading it or tossing gasoline on the fire.

I'd like to hope that the current administration is a group like that, but I have serious doubts.

[Hesten]

will we see a bush speech about wmd and imminent threat soon?

¨

No, because North Korea dont have oil, and might actually HAVE a way to defend themselves, so i doubt hell go for them.

[Aruman]

Hesten, the threat of a country using a nuclear weapon has nothing to do with oil. If North Korea actually uses a nuke, I sure hate it for them. I'm pretty sure that every major power in the world would commence with kicking North Korea's ass, China included.

[Hesten]

Hesten, the threat of a country using a nuclear weapon has nothing to do with oil. If North Korea actually uses a nuke, I sure hate it for them. I'm pretty sure that every major power in the world would commence with kicking North Korea's ass, China included.

Yes, and thats the keyword you use there, IF.
I dont see North Korea randomly firing off nukes to see where the limits are. IF they do that, i think the whole would would try to take them down.
Dont get me wrong, i dont like North Korea, and imo Kim Il-Jong II should be overthrown.

BUT North Korea said they had nukes before 9/11, and still you guys went after a nation that you suspected had WMDs, and didnt find any. Just conincidentially that country had loads of oil.
I dont see the US trying to pull a Iraq on North Korea, because:
A, no big gain, no oil.
B, they DO have nukes, unlike your last conquest.
C, they do have an army and invested loads of money on military equipment (while letting the population suffer, but as you guys have seen in Iraq, even though people are repressed by a dictator, theyre still fighting agains invaders), and are able to defend themselves, properly better than Iraq.

Instead you guys will most likely try to invade Iran, after the claims that theyre trying to make nuclear weapons, because Iran GOT oil.


Of course other things could be done agains nuclear weapons, like removing them from your own allies in the middle east, or try to destroy some of you OWN nuclear devices.
Or how about not making more nukes? After all, if the US can dictate to the rest of the world that nukes are bad, how come they still make their own, and still have them as strategic weapons?
And before you call that bullshit, read the following:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclear- ... e-04c.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... _id=317882


Aruman, can you please explain that to me, how the US can seriously dictate that the rest of the world shouldnt use nukes, and attack countries on the SUSPICION that they got WMDs, but can still allow their allies to keep their nukes, and even keep developing more nukes on their own? Could it be that other countries might be developing nukes to try and make sure the US does NOT attack them, and that way causing a new cold war?

Hell, personally im NOT very secure in the knowledge that you got a president with control of the worlds largest military power, who A, think his actions are doing gods work, B, try to develop MORE nukes, C, whos international knowledge are smaller than the average 8 year old kids.

I dont feel comfortable with having a person that dont know Africa is a continent, who think that Sweden are neutral and dont have an army (although Sweden had troops in Iraq to support your war), who cant even pronounce nuclear, in charge of nuclear weapons, and actively getting his country to make more.

[vn_Tanc]

It was kind of nice for the few years where the world lived without the threat of a USSR/USA nuclear holocaust

While any kind of nuking is unpleasant, NK acquiring 8 warheads is nothing like the threat of the MAD years with 20k+ missiles on each side ready to go at 1 minute's notice.

[Aruman]

BUT North Korea said they had nukes before 9/11, and still you guys went after a nation that you suspected had WMDs, and didnt find any. Just conincidentially that country had loads of oil.

The difference being... Hussein used these weapons on his own people... what makes you think he wouldn't have used them on other countries if he had still had them?

The threat was very real.

North Korea hasn't shown any such inclination (yet).

[miir]

The difference being... Hussein used these weapons on his own people...

Saddam used American made (and supplied) chemical weapons on the Kurds who were not his own people. They were his enemies, actively involved in a US 'encouranged' violent uprising in an attempt to overthrow him.

[Akaran_D]

US vs NK won't happen unless they trigger something.

Now, if Seoul disapears...

[Voronwë]

but Sean Hannity said they were "his own people"....


meanwhile back on planet earth....Yeah the fact that our military is obligated to occupy Iraq for the unforseeable future, and that we would take tens of thousands of casualties invading North Korea, not to mention the potential hundreds of thousands of civilian casualities that South Korea would suffer, I dont expect to see that happening anytime soon.

[Marbus]

I'm your Huckleberry... Nice pic Noel.

In regards to the actual thread did anyone expect anything different? Oh I guess all you guys that voted for Bush did, I'm sorry.

Marb

[Moonwynd]

and imo Kim Il-Jong II should be overthrown.

The actual "President" of North Korea is Kim Jong Il

Just an FYI

[Akaran_D]

No Marb, I didn't expect our coutnry to touch off the start of a nuke war by invading NK for any reason. =p

[Animalor]

You sound surprised.

I mean who seriously expects other countries to stop developping these weapons when the US themselves are developping bigger and better weapons all the time.

[Lohrno]

You sound surprised.

I mean who seriously expects other countries to stop developping these weapons when the US themselves are developping bigger and better weapons all the time.

I think even if they weren't they would. The genie has been awakened so to speak.

[noel]

It was kind of nice for the few years where the world lived without the threat of a USSR/USA nuclear holocaust

While any kind of nuking is unpleasant, NK acquiring 8 warheads is nothing like the threat of the MAD years with 20k+ missiles on each side ready to go at 1 minute's notice.

For sure, and I didn't mean to over-sensationalize the events, but it's kind of sad that there are people in the world (insert the 'like your president joke' here) who really haven't learned anything...

[Hesten]

and imo Kim Il-Jong II should be overthrown.

The actual "President" of North Korea is Kim Jong Il

Just an FYI

Blah, sorry, was replying fast at work, and messed him up with his dad Kimn Il Sung

[Aruman]

and imo Kim Il-Jong II should be overthrown.

The actual "President" of North Korea is Kim Jong Il

Just an FYI

That wasn't my statement...

[Aruman]

The difference being... Hussein used these weapons on his own people...

Saddam used American made (and supplied) chemical weapons on the Kurds who were not his own people. They were his enemies, actively involved in a US 'encouranged' violent uprising in an attempt to overthrow him.

OK, color me corrected as to who he used them on.

The point is he had them, and he had no problem with using them.

He also had no problem with invading other countries.

I'd say that was a very real threat.

[Lohrno]

OK, color me corrected as to who he used them on.

The point is he had them, and he had no problem with using them.

He also had no problem with invading other countries.

I'd say that was a very real threat.

So if he had them and no problem using them why not use them on our troops when we invaded?

[Dregor Thule]

I'd say that was a very real threat.

There are much greater threats out there than Saddam was, as fucked up an idividual that he is. I'd like to think you'd stop spewing the company line eventually but you've got dumbshit tattooed on your ass. So reply with some contrived crap about how it was for the greater good of humanity or some other catch phrase, then we can have more people call you an idiot, then some other idiots will put in their 2cents, which is still dropping in value btw, and it will continue this useless cycle of complete and utter uselessness.

[miir]

OK, color me corrected as to who he used them on.

The point is he had them, and he had no problem with using them.

He also had no problem with invading other countries.

I'd say that was a very real threat.

The US wanted Saddam out of power but he still had the weapons they had given him. So they encouraged the Kurds to rebel and implied that they would to 'help'.... which they never did.


Of course he had them, your government gave them to him to help him fight Iran.


Yeah he used them. Used them against his enemies. The US gave him those weapons to use against his enemies. His military was so pitiful that he couldn't defend against a ragtag bunch of Kurdish rebels so he had to resort to using them on civilians. He was a fucking brutal dictator. The US knew that when they were supporting him in the 80s. Saddam was their best weapon against Iran because he wasn't afraid to use drastic measuers against his enemies.


Yeah, he invaded another country... which resulted in an asskicking which hasn't been seen since biblical times. After which Iraq was stifled with economic and military sanctions for 10+ years. I think it's pretty safe to say no further weapons of mass (of minimal) destruction entered Iraq. Hell, the Iraqi military was more pathetic than the Canadian military when Bush invaded.


Saddam and Iraq was a threat to nobody.
No WMDs.
No military.
No allies.


Stop fooling yourself.

[Kylere]

The difference being... Hussein used these weapons on his own people...

Saddam used American made (and supplied) chemical weapons on the Kurds who were not his own people. They were his enemies, actively involved in a US 'encouranged' violent uprising in an attempt to overthrow him.

Umm the Kurds were there BEFORE the Sunni and Shiites. So basically he used them against the natives.

Makes sense you think they are not his people since you are white and european.

[Lynks]

Wow, did you just pull out the race card? Fucking pathetic.

[Aruman]

OK, color me corrected as to who he used them on.

The point is he had them, and he had no problem with using them.

He also had no problem with invading other countries.

I'd say that was a very real threat.

The US wanted Saddam out of power but he still had the weapons they had given him. So they encouraged the Kurds to rebel and implied that they would to 'help'.... which they never did.


Of course he had them, your government gave them to him to help him fight Iran.


Yeah he used them. Used them against his enemies. The US gave him those weapons to use against his enemies. His military was so pitiful that he couldn't defend against a ragtag bunch of Kurdish rebels so he had to resort to using them on civilians. He was a fucking brutal dictator. The US knew that when they were supporting him in the 80s. Saddam was their best weapon against Iran because he wasn't afraid to use drastic measuers against his enemies.


Yeah, he invaded another country... which resulted in an asskicking which hasn't been seen since biblical times. After which Iraq was stifled with economic and military sanctions for 10+ years. I think it's pretty safe to say no further weapons of mass (of minimal) destruction entered Iraq. Hell, the Iraqi military was more pathetic than the Canadian military when Bush invaded.


Saddam and Iraq was a threat to nobody.
No WMDs.
No military.
No allies.


Stop fooling yourself.

I didn't know it was still the 80's. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

[Nick]

Dregor's right.

Did Kylere just talk that much shit? Or was it a nightmare?

[Hesten]

The difference being... Hussein used these weapons on his own people...

Saddam used American made (and supplied) chemical weapons on the Kurds who were not his own people. They were his enemies, actively involved in a US 'encouranged' violent uprising in an attempt to overthrow him.

OK, color me corrected as to who he used them on.

The point is he had them, and he had no problem with using them.

He also had no problem with invading other countries.

I'd say that was a very real threat.

So by that logic, the rest of the world should invade the US, right? You guys got WMDs, are actively working to make more and more advanced nukes, and have certainly shown that you have no problem with invading other countries when it suits you.

[Hesten]

Oh btw Aruman, when are you gonna answer the questions to you in my first post? Im still looking forward to them.

[Cracc]

The majority of the kurds _are_ sunni Kylere.

[Aruman]

Oh btw Aruman, when are you gonna answer the questions to you in my first post? Im still looking forward to them.

As far as Iraq goes, when you can get off the 'WMD is the only reason you invaded Iraq' bandwagon, you would understand that WMD isn't the only reason Iraq was invaded.

Just because we aren't massing troops to go invade North Korea doesn't mean we aren't doing anything.

I am quite sure diplomatic efforts are being made concerning this issue. You know, those same efforts with Iraq over a 10-11 year period that failed. There are those who think we should have waited even longer on the diplomatic efforts in Iraq, so why should it be a different process with North Korea?

Or do you really want Bush to live up to your expectations and just be a 'cowboy'?

Oh, and yeah, North Korea could defend themselves, properly better than Iraq. (I know, it should be probably, but it's funnier your way. )

Different terrain and all you know. It's a little hard to hide defensive positions and equipment in the kind of terrain Iraq is in.

[Nick]

You gotta be aware, most of us in Europe are more worried for US citizens safety than you give us credit for.

Saying that WMD was not the only reason is NOT A FUCKING VALID EXCUSE.

Do you understand this? Evidently not.

Spin spin spin

[Aruman]

So by that logic, the rest of the world should invade the US, right? You guys got WMDs, are actively working to make more and more advanced nukes, and have certainly shown that you have no problem with invading other countries when it suits you.

Sure, if President Bush had the same kind of mentality as Hussein did... sure thing... go ahead... invade us. I don't think it would be necessary though because our political system allows for the elimination of such an individual from office.

However, You should have been saying the same thing under Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan.... though. Nuclear weapons didn't just magically appear when the current president took office for the first time.

The US doesn't use WMD... period. They are what is called a deterrent... look that word up. Our system of control of such weapons isn't relegated to one single person being able to 'push the button'. One person being able to command the use of such weapons at will is plainly an idiotic way of handling the use of them.

In blunt terms: If you use them on us, we use them on you.

[Truant]

Aruman has just destroyed what little hope I had built up for the human race in the last couple months.

Congratulations.

[Aruman]

Aruman has just destroyed what little hope I had built up for the human race in the last couple months.

Congratulations.

How illuminating... I don't know if I can stand the humiliation.

[Zaelath]

So by that logic, the rest of the world should invade the US, right? You guys got WMDs, are actively working to make more and more advanced nukes, and have certainly shown that you have no problem with invading other countries when it suits you.

Sure, if President Bush had the same kind of mentality as Hussein did... sure thing... go ahead... invade us. I don't think it would be necessary though because our political system allows for the elimination of such an individual from office.

However, You should have been saying the same thing under Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan.... though. Nuclear weapons didn't just magically appear when the current president took office for the first time.

The US doesn't use WMD... period. They are what is called a deterrent... look that word up. Our system of control of such weapons isn't relegated to one single person being able to 'push the button'. One person being able to command the use of such weapons at will is plainly an idiotic way of handling the use of them.

In blunt terms: If you use them on us, we use them on you.

You really are fucking delusional aren't you. You were the first to use WMD and no one has used them on you. Next?

[Akaran_D]

....because if they do, then we end the world... same reason we haven't used them on NK, China, whatever... they'll use them on us just as fast.

History time. If we hadn't used them on Japan, WW2 may well have lasted another 2-5 years. It was a world war, winner take all... odds were good they were going to lose, but odds were sick in regards to the number of casualties.

[Dregor Thule]

The difference being... Hussein used these weapons on his own people...

Saddam used American made (and supplied) chemical weapons on the Kurds who were not his own people. They were his enemies, actively involved in a US 'encouranged' violent uprising in an attempt to overthrow him.

Umm the Kurds were there BEFORE the Sunni and Shiites. So basically he used them against the natives.

Makes sense you think they are not his people since you are white and european.

Translation:

"Chief Spews Shit ask how white man know of what it is like to lose ones lands. My mother's mother's mother's sister's second cousin once do the Great Rabbit Spirit dance with Native American, so Chief Spews Shit know much of what it means. The memories be in his blood, along with memory of taking lands from my ancestors. Chief Spews Shit very confused."

[Aruman]

You really are fucking delusional aren't you. You were the first to use WMD and no one has used them on you. Next?

Hrmmm... Someone tell good ol' Zaelath here about Mustard gas?

Existed long before Nuclear weapons did...

Next?

[Coatlicue [KoE]]

FYI, I'm from South Korea, not North!

I'm the good one!

not that any of you care, but that was my 2cp

[Nick]

Aruman you moron you are the only country that actually has used nukes.

"Don't use WMD ....period."

That's just not factually accurate mate. And splitting hairs saying you only mean mustard gas is not going to fly either ^^

[Hesten]

Oh btw Aruman, when are you gonna answer the questions to you in my first post? Im still looking forward to them.

As far as Iraq goes, when you can get off the 'WMD is the only reason you invaded Iraq' bandwagon, you would understand that WMD isn't the only reason Iraq was invaded.

Just because we aren't massing troops to go invade North Korea doesn't mean we aren't doing anything.

I am quite sure diplomatic efforts are being made concerning this issue. You know, those same efforts with Iraq over a 10-11 year period that failed. There are those who think we should have waited even longer on the diplomatic efforts in Iraq, so why should it be a different process with North Korea?

Or do you really want Bush to live up to your expectations and just be a 'cowboy'?

Oh, and yeah, North Korea could defend themselves, properly better than Iraq. (I know, it should be probably, but it's funnier your way. )

Different terrain and all you know. It's a little hard to hide defensive positions and equipment in the kind of terrain Iraq is in.

Wasnt those questions i meant, try to read my original answer. But hell, i even agree with you, i dont think that WMDs were the only reason you invaded, im pretty sure that Oil played a big part too.

[Aruman]

Aruman you moron you are the only country that actually has used nukes.

"Don't use WMD ....period."

That's just not factually accurate mate. And splitting hairs saying you only mean mustard gas is not going to fly either ^^

I was merely pointing out that the US was not the first country to use WMD as Zaelath claimed. That is factually accurate.

As far as the first country to use a nuke... yeah, and?

You like to call me a moron, but you are saying or implying that US policy in 2005 is the same as it was in 1945? Can I laugh at you now?

[Aruman]

Wasnt those questions i meant, try to read my original answer. But hell, i even agree with you, i dont think that WMDs were the only reason you invaded, im pretty sure that Oil played a big part too.

That is the only post in this thread with questions in it that I saw... your first post in this thread didn't have any questions in it... so kindly post a link to where you mean.

[Nick]

Clearly that was what I was implying, as opposed to pointing out your assumption you had never used WMD as false.

Evidence?

Aruman wrote:

The US doesn't use WMD... period.

I will however retract the moron comment out of common decency.

[Aruman]

Clearly that was what I was implying, as opposed to pointing out your assumption you had never used WMD as false.

Evidence?

Aruman wrote:

The US doesn't use WMD... period.

I will however retract the moron comment out of common decency.

Where did I say the US has never used WMD... I said we do not use them now.

I'm no history buff, but come on, everyone with any kind of memory should know about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If you couldn't infer that I was talking about the present day United States, well, then I am not the one with the problem.

[Zaelath]

Aruman you moron you are the only country that actually has used nukes.

"Don't use WMD ....period."

That's just not factually accurate mate. And splitting hairs saying you only mean mustard gas is not going to fly either ^^

I was merely pointing out that the US was not the first country to use WMD as Zaelath claimed. That is factually accurate.

As far as the first country to use a nuke... yeah, and?

You like to call me a moron, but you are saying or implying that US policy in 2005 is the same as it was in 1945? Can I laugh at you now?

Mustard gas? WMD? You're a joke.

[Aruman]

Aruman you moron you are the only country that actually has used nukes.

"Don't use WMD ....period."

That's just not factually accurate mate. And splitting hairs saying you only mean mustard gas is not going to fly either ^^

I was merely pointing out that the US was not the first country to use WMD as Zaelath claimed. That is factually accurate.

As far as the first country to use a nuke... yeah, and?

You like to call me a moron, but you are saying or implying that US policy in 2005 is the same as it was in 1945? Can I laugh at you now?

Mustard gas? WMD? You're a joke.

Yeah, Mustard Gas is really funny...

Do some research.

[Zaelath]

I know what it is, but it only killed 4000 Brits between 1914 and 1918 from a total score of about 900,000 deaths.

It's a weapon, it's destructive, but I hardly think it qualifies in any sense as "mass".