north korea, iraq, and israel

well somebody (on this forum) said hey, no big deal we (US) are giving nuclear reactors to north korea, because thats not the same as nulcear weapons proliferation.


then somebody else mentioned that about 15(?) years ago the israelis flew a sortie against iraq to destroy their nuclear reactor which the israelis suspected of producing nuclear bomb material.


just thought it was funny.


brad

What's funny is the difference between the two situations. It is akin to give a man a fish and he will eat today but teach him to fish and he will be fed for a lifetime (forgive my papaphrase). We gave North Korea a fish, China and the USSR taught Iraq how to fish. Therein lies the reason for a response by Israel compared to no uproar by South Korea.


Jimbo

i dont get it. saddam can use a nuclear reactor to build bombs, but north korea cant?


we must destroy iraqs nuclear power plant (in 1987 or whatever), but its ok for us to give north korea 4 or whatever nuclear reactors?


i just dont get it.


brad

Was it Clinton or Bush who allowed this foolish transfer of technology?


North Korea will have to be dealt with too. Better get that missile shield going.

In plain English this time Brad. Saddam was taught and given the technological tools required to advance to a weapons grade production facility. North Korea was given a power source. Try this as a comparison: If someone gave you an automobile to drive does that mean you understand how it works and are able to turn it into a drag racer? How about if someone sends you to automotive school, gives you a manufacturing facility, provides the needed raw materials and trains your technicians after giving you that same automobile?


Jimbo

clinton started it and bush continued it and expanded it.

i find it hard to believe that north korea has 'black box' nuclear reactors that they have no idea how they work.


in any event they could hire former soviet scientists to do the brainwork.


brad

It is the "enriched" uranium Brad, more than anything else. My auto example was a poor choice considering I anticipated this response from you.


Jimbo

well, no offense or anything cause im not a nuclear scientist and everything, but as i understand it the main necessary component of a breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor. once you have that you can manufacture enriched uranium/plutonium.


and even if we dont hand them the skill sets to modify their reactors, former soviet scientists can be had with the necessary expertise, to say nothing of the chinese.


as i see it, youre saying that the US gave saddam nuclear reactors AND nuclear weapons technology, but is giving north korea ONLY nuclear reactors. i really find this hard to believe. but if youre saying that once iraq had a nuclear infrastructure provided by the US then they could get other help to get a weapons program started, then why couldnt north korea do the same?


brad


p.s. im not trying to be stupid or anything here or just try to argue minutia; i really dont see a basic difference. (unless youre saying the US gave iraq nuclear weapons technology which i really dont think can be true without seeing some support).


p.p.s. now if youre saying that the reactors come fully equipped (like 1960's computers that came with an operator team when a company bought one) with technicians, then my point remains what is to stop north korea from just at some future point replacing these technicians with communist chinese or former soviet scientists. also i think the main point is that the US is building them - something north korea doesnt have the resources to do by itself, even with the help of the chinese.