News: North Korea claims "not" to have nukes?

[Cochese]

Just saw this update, where NK claims it never admitted to having nuclear weapons, and that the US made the whole thing up: http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World...0112_1067.html


Now, I did a search on the GD forum, and sure enough, found an article from early November where NK ADMITTED to having nukes.

Here is that article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/2485829.stm


Am I confusing the relationship between these two articles, or did North Korea just make a fool of themselves by denying it's nuclear program?

[Cyp]

Probably just a confusion over whether Korea was an oil filled state or not, due to a map being read upsidedown.

the smarter man admits nukes

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Cochese
Now, I did a search on the GD forum, and sure enough, found an article from early November where NK ADMITTED to having nukes.

The article you posted was a BBC article which said that North Korea had said that they had nukes. Admittedly I can't read/understand Korean, but it's a bit dodgy relying on UK/US (both enemies of North Korea) to tell us what state newspapers, etc have said. I'm really not trying to be paranoid here, I'm sure the BBC are infinitely more reliable and impartial than any media North Korea, but just be aware...

Also, if you read the ABC article, it doesn't seem to mention North Korea's more recent admission of having nukes (the one mentioned by the beeb). More specifically, the article says :
"In October, the United States said North Korea had admitted having a weapons program. That announcement touched off the latest standoff, which has led to North Korea's decision last week to withdraw from the landmark Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty."

Now, if they had a direct quote of the North Korean's having nukes why wouldn't they simply use that to make them look foolish? As it is, all they say is "The United States said North Korea had admitted having a weapons program". Which is an odd way of putting it.

From all accounts the North Korean government are a little on the mad side anyway, so I'd probably put it down to that. On top of that, different branches of government say different things. The diplomatic corp are probably going to be pushing the "We no make trouble" angle, while the military/state propaganda agencies broadcasting inside Korea are probably more prone to "We're invincible" style stories.

But dodgy journalistic standards and a history of "manufacturing consent" from "our side" doesn't help.

[Cochese]

Figured as much.

It just struck me as being odd that they would deny having nukes after supposedly admitting they had them...and the fact no one seemed to notice that discrepancy made me all the more uncertain of just what was going on.

[sayonara]

I understood that this whole thing started because N Korea were reactivating their nuclear program, which was to involve recommissioning nuclear reactors with a view to future weapons development.

But when people post threads irresponsibly entitled "NK have nukes Oh noes!!!!!!1111112" just so they can "tell it first", it's difficult to not presume things. Maybe the same thing happens in the press.

[Cochese]

This kinda puts things into perspective:

http://europe.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asi...ne.nuclear.ap/

[MOS]

I never thought I would say something like this

but here goes

I dont think the NKorean thing would have been a beat up by the americans, most likely it was a misscomunication or bad translation or the NKorean playing some strange tactic. Main reason I think this is that the americans wouldnt have wanted anyone around the world to divert their attention from what america wants and thats to attack Iraq. NK is just confussing american oppinion, not what GWBush wants at this time.

[treelo]

north korea trying to tell the world they dont have any nukes is like me trying to tell the world that i dont take drugs....

they should just admit it, get on bush's nerves and wait their turn for a kicking.....

oh and bush licks lizard.

[CjC]

Errr, I never thought that N.Korea were admitting to having nukes. They admitted that they were working on their nuclear research programme, doesnt mean they got nukes.

Also Im under the impression that their "Nuclear" capabilities are aiming towards energy and not weaponry - Energy required because of our good old u s of a cutting back on delivery of oil supplies needed for conventional energy methods.

Theres a lot of Propaganda in the air at the mo, also the BBC are really quite ****e at journalism.

[MrBrick]

And as for the James Bond thing....

heh.

[Ste]

I thought it was well known that they had at least 2 missiles.
Can't remember the source but I remember reading it not too long ago.
Also they have enough Uranium to make an estimated 10 more...
On top of the threat to destroy the world if anyone looks at them funny...

Quite worrying really...

[sayonara]

thought it was well known... Can't remember the source...

A winning formula.

[Vermillion]

OK, a couple things:

Firstly the issue is not wheither NK has nuclear weapons, the issue is wheither they have an active nuclear weapons program. They admitted having one, and now deny it. They NEVER admitted to having nukes. Please read more carefully.

Secondly, NK does not at the moment have any functioning nuclear weapons. Why? Two reasons:
a- they have not conducted a nuclear test, a critical component to figuring out if your detonation system works before beginning mass-production.
b- as soon as NK has a functioning atomic weapon, you can bet large sums of money on the fact that they will announce it publicly. Secret weapons give them no benefit, while public weapons allow them the trump card of self defence, and allow for brinksmanship.

Nations like Iraq, NK and others do not develop nuclear wepoans in order to use them, they develop them in order to have them, as it represents an instant shift in balance of power, and gives them enormous political/economic clout.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Vermillion
OK, a couple things:

Firstly the issue is not wheither NK has nuclear weapons, the issue is wheither they have an active nuclear weapons program. They admitted having one, and now deny it. They NEVER admitted to having nukes. Please read more carefully.

Secondly, NK does not at the moment have any functioning nuclear weapons. Why? Two reasons:
a- they have not conducted a nuclear test, a critical component to figuring out if your detonation system works before beginning mass-production.
b- as soon as NK has a functioning atomic weapon, you can bet large sums of money on the fact that they will announce it publicly. Secret weapons give them no benefit, while public weapons allow them the trump card of self defence, and allow for brinksmanship.

Nations like Iraq, NK and others do not develop nuclear wepoans in order to use them, they develop them in order to have them, as it represents an instant shift in balance of power, and gives them enormous political/economic clout.

What I have read is that North Korea has two to five untested nuclear weapons. Probably only two. The fact that they are untested means they have no real tactical value. We won't know until they are tested, which could be soon now that they are no longer members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

[Scoot951]

The newspaper blamed the United States for the current crisis and warned: "If the United States evades its responsibility and challenges us, we'll turn the citadel of imperialists into a sea of fire."



I absolutely love their writers.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Scoot951
The newspaper blamed the United States for the current crisis and warned: "If the United States evades its responsibility and challenges us, we'll turn the citadel of imperialists into a sea of fire."

I absolutely love their writers.

North Korea might be able to hit Hawai'i, but they cannot hit the continental United States with their missiles. That makes their "sea of fire" claim a bit preposterous. They can, however, hit Tokyo and Seoul. Of course, the nuclear bombs may not actually explode.

If they do nuke Tokyo or Seoul, they are dead meat. Millions of innocent North Korean women and children will die regardless of whether conventional or nuclear weapons are used.

Originally posted by Texan
North Korea might be able to hit Hawai'i, but they cannot hit the continental United States with their missiles. That makes their "sea of fire" claim a bit preposterous. They can, however, hit Tokyo and Seoul. Of course, the nuclear bombs may not actually explode.

If they do nuke Tokyo or Seoul, they are dead meat. Millions of innocent North Korean women and children will die regardless of whether conventional or nuclear weapons are used.

Appearantly, they can cause a million or so deaths in Seoul whenever they want
Pretty nifty, huh?

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Texan
What I have read is that North Korea has two to five untested nuclear weapons. Probably only two. The fact that they are untested means they have no real tactical value. We won't know until they are tested, which could be soon now that they are no longer members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

There's a lot of testing that can be done with sub-critical masses, which became an issue during discussions of the comprehensive test ban treaty. Sub-critical tests can go a long way towards taking your bomb from the "ought to work" stage to "will work" stage. An actual test, though, is the "proof of the pudding."

Originally posted by Vermillion
b- as soon as NK has a functioning atomic weapon, you can bet large sums of money on the fact that they will announce it publicly. Secret weapons give them no benefit, while public weapons allow them the trump card of self defence, and allow for brinksmanship.

That logic seems to have eluded Israel--which is widely recognized as having nuclear weapons, but has never publicly admitted it.

[W]

Originally posted by Vermillion

Wow, you're making sense for once!

[W]

Originally posted by Texan
What I have read is that North Korea has two to five untested nuclear weapons. Probably only two. The fact that they are untested means they have no real tactical value. We won't know until they are tested, which could be soon now that they are no longer members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

And what I've read is that the americans have superior technology from aliens, that can stop any nuclear bomb, anywhere.

Of course, I can't remember where I've read it, but I'm sure it was a reliable firsthand report.

[Vermillion]

For once?!?

1) Israel does have atomic weapons, and everyone knows it because they have been relatively public with it. Their official stance is that they do not have any, but official and public is two different things. Once they developped nuclear weapons, they made very sure everyone who mattered knew about it. The main reason the official stance was non-nuclear was because they stole most of their nuclear secrets from the US.

2) North Korea does not have 2 to 5 nuclear weapons. They have 0 to 0. They have the fissile material to make 5 to 10, but that is a long way from having them.

[Ste]

North Korea's Nuclear weapons.

Washington fears that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons. The defence secretary, William Perry, said on Sunday he thought that North Korea already had two nuclear weapons and was preparing to produce a dozen a year.

That was 1994.

Didn't N. Korea show it had missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead not long ago when they fired one over Japan?

oh and in October North Korea's Nuclear weapons.

US officials reportedly believe North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons.

and finally they have missiles already tested.

Over the years there have been repeated reports that Pakistan supplied North Korea with its know-how on enriching uranium in return for its No-Dung missile, which was essentially duplicated, and tested, by Pakistan as the indigenously produced Ghauri missile in April 1998.

still worrying.