more on north korea nukes

[brad]

A spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said: "There is not any legitimate purpose for the facility other than separating plutonium from spent fuel."

--------------------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,865094,00.html

so where do u think they get this spent fuel? answer: the nuclear reactors that the US gave them.

bottom line: clinton gave them nuclear capability and bush continued it (and increased it).

gee, why does US arm its enemies? maybe it was a mistake.

[MMMMMM]

Yes it was a mistake as it was a mistake to trust them to honor their end of the agreement to not use it for military purposes.

Now we've got a real problem. Their country is run almost like a cult, with even 6-year-olds attending mass rallies chanting pro-DPRK and anti-USA slogans. The country proclaims a burning hatred for the USA (jeez, 50 years isn't enough to have cooled down somewhat?) and is now threatening to destroy the world if it is attacked. It is poised far more threateningly on the border with South Korea, in military terms, than are the South Koreans. And it's becoming a larger and larger supplier of arms to the most unstable elements in the world. Nuke sales by the DPRK to the likes of Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda may not be too far off now.

Maybe an economic boycott would add great pressure to the DPRK, if we could get China, which has professed an interest in regional stability, to go along with it. However, the DPRK let two million of its own people starve to death while it was gathering and storing two-years' worth of food and fuel for its military and government officials, so we really can't count on a major embargo having the desired effect.

North Korea is estimated to have 3-5 nuclear warheads and has deployed 500 missiles, 100 of which have a 780-mile range. It is developing Taepo-dong 2 ICBM's which will be able to reach the USA. It has over 5,000 tons of advanced chemical and biological weapons and its warheads are capable of delivering these. It also has a million-man army including 100,000 crack commandos. It could literally overwhelm Seoul in a flash. Its nuclear weapons could pre-emptively take out U.S. regional bases in the area.

The USA could of course beat North Korea--but it would be a much harder, dangerous war than the relative walkover Iraq will probably be.

North Korea may have voiced its nost recent threats due in part to its perception that it is perhaps going to be attacked in the fairly near future--maybe it is posturing to avert attack. On the other hand, it has always been a most iron-handed, secretive, paranoid country, much given to anti-US hatred, and with the military/communist officials given the highest priority in everything while many of its own people live in poverty. Given North Korea's recent threat: "the army and people of the DPRK are fully ready to mercilessly strike the bulwark of U.S. imperialist aggressors", and to "destroy the Earth (if attacked with nukes), we need to take this developing situation very seriously. If we do nothing it will continue to arm aggressively with nukes and will surely sell them to our enemies, to terrorists, and to the most unstable regimes in the world. Something has to be done. The baffling question is what.

[brad]

well i totally agree with you there.

but it wasnt so long ago that pretty much everyone here said US didnt give them nuclear reactors and even if US did they couldnt be used for weapons.

i guess its time we start preparing for the mineshaft gap.

[The-Baron]

This is one of those areas where semantics and technical terminology are critical. The nuclear power technology supplied to the DPRK by the US is essentially non-proliferative. We've provided heavy fuel oils to support their power production while they make transitions in the design of their nuclear plants. We've also provided basic designs for their initial nuclear power program's reactors. Those reactors however, are even less capable of producing fissionable byproducts than the Canadian CANDO reactor program. While it's possible to take any reactor spoil and eventually convert it to fissionable special weapon material, doing so with the waste from the systems offered the DPRK is markedly more technologically intense.
The reactors offered by treaty are called the, "System 80", by their design and prime contracting firm, "Asea Brown Bovery-Combustion Engineering." These reactors are light water moderated and essentially similar in design to the United States' Palo Verde plant. With modifications to the design to facilitate production within the DPRK industrial base, this system became known as the Korean Standard Nuclear Plant. The DPRK's intent was to create what amounts to a latchkey system for construction, energization and installation to the power grid.
With the offer of the light water moderated reactor designs was a critical factor. In order to be able to obtain these systems, DPRK had to dismantle their existing graphite moderated reactors and remove them from power production. In addition, the ABB-CE systems were redesigned to reduce their production from 1300MW to the 1000MW appropriate to the DPRK power distribution system.
Well, surprise of all surprises. The DPRK agreed to pull the graphite reactors and destroy their waste under international supervision. Unfortunately, they got the US to agree to allow the graphite plants to stay online while the initial design and infrastructure construction of the light-water plants was taking place. Then the US provided the bunker oil reserves necessary for the DPRK to pull the graphite systems offline yet not lose the essential power production. Uhoh, who'd have ever imagined that the DPRK would not only not dismantle their graphite plants but would just happily take the US supplied heavy oil and the designs and construction assistance for the light-water plants.
The critical factor here is that the light-water moderated plant is essentially unsuited for the production of weapon grade precursor material. It has to do with the basic physics of core moderation. Basically in the light water plant, the necessary excess neutrons required to convert the Uranium to Plutonium are wasted in the water cooling system. There's simply no place in the coolant system to fix the breeder targets and the water has properties that reduce the efficiency of any breeding program by several orders of magnitude. A graphite system, on the other hand, gives you a fixed, rigid structure that allows you to put your breeder targets in a stable and controlled neutron path from the reactor core. It gives you a giant carbon matrix to put your proto-Plutonium into and let it sit there and cook.
Did the US give the DPRK reactors? Nope, not a single one. Did the US give the DPRK the technology to build light-water moderated nuclear power plants? Absolutely. Did the DPRK meet their responsibilities under the agreements? Not a chance in hell.
If the US is guilty of anything, it's guilty of being gullible. The Clinton administration blithely accepted the DPRK at their word and agreed to allow them to import the necessary technology. Then to add insult to it, the Office of the President provided the necessary official Finding so that the US could provide essential oil reserves to DPRK so they could take up the slack while they dismantled the graphite reactors they, apparently anyway, never had any intention of dismantling. The US was taken hook, line and sinker. But to alledge that the US provided the reactors is a tiny bit disengenuous. The US tried to be a global good neighbor and help the Asian neighborhood bully out with it's power problems. Unfortunately like so many other bullies, the DPRK just smiled, took our oil and reactor designs and then went merrily on their way.
As for being able to be used for weapon production. Any nuclear reactor can be used to generate weapon material. If the weapon making entity is serious enough about it, they can make low yield, incredibly dirty fission weapons with "yellow cake" Uranium-oxide. It just takes larger high explosive primary systems and heavier containment. You don't get a particularly good bomb but you do get a bomb.
Personally, I think the US should have told DPRK to piss off and not offered them anything. Remind them that their country will be covered in a layer of radioactive glass if they dick around with South Korea or any of the other world players but generally leave them the hell alone.

[MMMMMM]

Interesting detailed information you provided; thanks.

Here's something else of interest:

(excerpt) North Korea could build as many as 55 nuclear weapons a year if Pyongyang decided to power up and operate all three of its frozen nuclear reactors, U.S. officials say.

Reuters reported today that one U.S. official, who requested anonymity, said restarting the Yongbyon facility, as North Korea has begun to do, would yield around six kilograms of plutonium per year. That amount would suffice for one weapon, which generally requires around five kilograms of plutonium.

But output from two unfinished reactors – a 50-megawatt unit at Yongbyon and a 200-megawatt plant at nearby Taechon – could add as much as 275 kilograms of plutonium annually, or enough for about 50 to 55 weapons, the official said. (end excerpt)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30195

Well--what the hell? The DPRK fairly soon might be able to build one A-bomb per week? And they will have the ICBM's to target parts of the USA in the not-too-distant future. This is an unacceptable scenario, and apparently North Korea has no intention of responding favorably to diplomatic pressure at this point (nor is it likely, in my estimation, that they will be inclined to do so in the future). So...what next?

[brad]

'As for being able to be used for weapon production. Any nuclear reactor can be used to generate weapon material.'

of course. im sure they got fuel from US too.

btw when mad. albright visited n. korea she had very high praise 4 them.

[The_Baron]

Why would the US provide the fuel for their reactors? The US didn't provide any of the rest of the hardware, it was all assembled from locally produced or procured products. The DPRK already has enough Uranium to power the plants they'd shut down, what exactly would prevent them from using the existing fuel?
Madeline Albright had high praise for them? Oh joy. Pol Pot had high praise for Gaugin and liked okra. Madeline Albright's opinion is now one of the least significant issues I can imagine and during her unfortunate tenure as SecState, her opinion carried weight solely because she was holding that office. She's not one of the people I'd seek out to use as a testimonial to international non-proliferation.

[brad]

she praised them during an official visit when she was sec. state.

[The_Baron]

I'm not sure where they're getting their figures for Plutonium usage in a warhead but the minimum critical mass for PU-238 is aroung 5.25kg. This is based on a mathematical model that disallows the functions of inelastic scattering in the material. What this means in essence is that the actual minimum critical mass is somewhere in the area of 12kg to 15kg given metalurgically pure PU-238. In terms of realistic weapon design, the actual numbers are probably closer to 20kg to account for material loss in production and during the initial stages of detonation. Still, that accounts for 13 or 14 new warheads a year. I'm fairly disturbed by the idea that the DPRK has the potential to not only build a dozen low yield nukes but is actively developing the missile technology to deliver them.
The realistic targets for a native soil launched ICBM from North Korea lie primarily on the West Coast of the US. Given that I literally live across the street from one of the largest ports used for import of South Korean merchandise, I'd just as soon that the Taep'o-dong was kept in a closet somewhere. I personally don't have any interest in being less than 2500 meters from ground zero of a 25kt nuke. While the building in which I live is probably extremely survivable, I'm going to be really upset if the rest of the port area gets leveled. All in all, I'm going to have to agree with anyone who wants to stop the DPRK from building a weapon system that not only can deliver a weapon this far, but is LIKELY to specifically target my neighborhood. A single nuke would just ruin the scenery. My vote, No Nukes for the DPRK.

[The_Baron]

Madeline Albright was a nitwit when she was Ambassador to the UN, she continued to be a nitwit when she was SecState and likely continues to be a nitwit. Her ongoing near obsession with what's come to be called, "one worldism", made her a truly miserable choice for a position with as much potential for mischief as the US Seceretary of State. Unfortunately, the President and Senate didn't think her views were quite as abhorrent as I.

[brad]

great post i cant disagree with anything.

if i should just stick to penis stories let me know.