Time to prepare


PDA






mbt2001
January 23, 2006, 02:07 PM
I honestly think that we can expect Al Qeida, or the like, to make a concerted attack in the U.S. in the coming months. I would think that they would do their best to disrupt, to the greatest degree possible, life in this country and in doing so swing the "terror" tide in their favor.

Every hospital in the world produces radioactive material that can be used in a dirty bomb and I wouldn't think that explosives are supremely difficult to produce, however I don't know. I would expect that "they" (the bad guys) would detonate as many dirty bombs as possible and cause as much mayhem as possible at around the same time. I would think that the ensuing mess would take around 1 - 3 months to straighten out.... This is within the realm of the bad guy's capability, so it is logical to think that they will or could do something like this.

I dunno... just got a strange feeling. Am I the only one?

If you enjoyed reading about "Time to prepare" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fourays2
January 23, 2006, 02:13 PM
AQ would not be offering a "cease fire" if they were in the position to do anything.

Lobotomy Boy
January 23, 2006, 02:14 PM
Given Osama's latest press release, I'd say almost everyone shares your concerns.

Third_Rail
January 23, 2006, 02:15 PM
The kind of radioactive materials hospitals have isn't a huge concern to me - the kind that you can buy on the black market for cheap is, not to mention the huge amount of Russian materials out there.

rick_reno
January 23, 2006, 02:19 PM
No - not with President Bush and his loyal sidekick - Dick Cheney - who are both doing all they can to protect us. It's almost their full time job. The only thing that I see on the horizon that could open a window for an attack is if those spinless fellow-travelers of Bin Laden in Congress don't reauthorize the Patriot Act. If all the sections President Bush wants authorized - like allowing the police to do conduct warrantless Internet surveillance with the permission of a network operator - are allowed to expire it could open the window wide for Bin Laden and his terrorists to sneak in. Another critical section makes it easier for prosecutors to seek search warrants for electronic evidence. Yet another is Section 215, which became well known after some librarians alerted visitors that it permits the FBI to learn what books a patron has read and what Web sites a patron visited--and prohibits the recipient of such an order from disclosing that it exists. I know for a fact I'd want to know if Bin Laden were at my library and checking out books.
The Patriot Act is the thin line between us and the terrorists wanting to attack us. We should all write/call/telegram our elected representatives and let them know of the growing fear in our hearts that is sure to occur is this important piece of legislation isn't passed - and passed with everything President Bush wants.

Biker
January 23, 2006, 02:22 PM
AQ would not be offering a "cease fire" if they were in the position to do anything.
Sure they would. In the joint they call it 'Rockin' you to sleep'. Ali called it 'rope-a-dope'.

;)

Biker

boofus
January 23, 2006, 02:43 PM
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

CentralTexas
January 23, 2006, 02:55 PM
AQ would not be offering a "cease fire" if they were in the position to do anything.

Actually that's a Moslem thing, BL trying to look like Saladin to his followers I think-

Saladin (1163? - ll93) was the great Moslem leader of the Third Crusade. The 1170's and 1180's witnessed the rise of a new, unified Islamic state centered in Egypt and galvanized by the skilled leadership of Saladin. Saladin was also a chivalrous knight, whose humanity often prevailed over his natural enmity for the Christians. Saladin was chivalrous as well as able, a vigorous and successful general, often moved by impulse. Saladin at first engaged in a truce with the Crusader states but the truce was broken by a Christian robber baron who persisted in attacking Muslim caravans. Being the most cultivated man and the noblest character, Moslem or Christian, of the whole crusading period, he set himself the objective of ending Christian rule in Syria. Saladin reunited the efforts of Egypt and Baghdad, and preached to the Moslem world to rise in a Jihad, a Holy War, a counter crusade, of all the Moslems against the Christians. This Jihad excited almost as much feeling in Islam as the First Crusade had done in Christendom. The response was formidable. Saladin brought the Moslem cities of Syria and Mesopotamia under his control and distributed them to faithful members of his own family. Saladin was neither a Turk nor an Arab, but a Kurd, and therefore, like the crusaders themselves, of the Aryan stock. In 1187 Jerusalem fell, and soon there was nothing left of the kingdom left to the Christians except the port of Tyre. It was now a case of crusader against crusader; and in 1187 Jerusalem was retaken. This provoked the Third Crusade in 1189.
Richard and Saladin came to terms, which left Jerusalem in the hands of the courteous Moslem, but allowed the Christians possession of the Holy Sepulcher and the right of pilgrimage there. Saladin's taking of Jerusalem: there was no pillaging, no slaughter of non-combatants. The great Arab leader kept the upper hand with some ease, He answered Richard's cruelty to his Moslem captives with truly "Christian" mercy to his own captives. Christians were allowed to depart freely and to take with them all their property, with a grace period of 40 days. "Let them alone, otherwise they will accuse us of bad faith.. Give them occasion to praise the goodness of our faith." The mediaeval Christian reaction to this "modern" proposition can easily be imagined. After the truce, which was to run for three years, Christian's secured a strip of coast with the right of access for pilgrims to the Holy city. Saladin's temper is revealed in his proposal that his brother marry Richard's sister, with Palestine as a betrothal gift. Richard now (1193) turned homeward; and in the same year Saladin died. The kingdom was divided among his relatives and respite for Christians.
[03, 05, 14, 23, 37, 41, 76]

MS .45
January 23, 2006, 03:01 PM
I think that Bin Laden's "truce" offerring was meant to give the terrorist appeasers another talking point after AQ's next attack. I can hear it now, "See it is the USA's fault. Osama offered a truce but it was ignored." This will be used as another blame America rant, mark my words.

HankB
January 23, 2006, 03:56 PM
I honestly think that we can expect Al Qeida, or the like, to make a concerted attack in the U.S. in the coming months. I'm pleasantly surprised that they haven't since 9/11 . . . it tells me that someone, somewhere in our bureacracy is actually doing their job for a change.

If I were an AQ terror master and had a couple of dozen jihadis willing to die at my command, there are all kinds of ways I could use them to spread panic . . . but it hasn't happened yet. (BTW, ever notice that the terrorist bosses aren't willing to strap on an explosive belt themselves, but always seem to recruit some other dolts?)

Biker
January 23, 2006, 05:03 PM
[QUOTE=HankB]I'm pleasantly surprised that they haven't since 9/11 . . . it tells me that someone, somewhere in our bureacracy is actually doing their job for a change.

The fact that we haven't been hit again since 9/11 is likely because they have not decided to hit us yet. There is nothing to stop them. They have the funding, the 'troops', and access to our country. They're very patient. On the other hand, they might just be content to sit back and watch as we self-destruct out of fear. We seem to be doing that real well, both finacially and through the loss of civil liberties.
Biker

TallPine
January 23, 2006, 05:41 PM
The fact that we haven't been hit again since 9/11 is likely because they have not decided to hit us yet. There is nothing to stop them.
My personal - an unproveable - opinion is that AQ suffers a very high "desertion" rate once its operatives reach the freedom and luxury of the USA. There is a theory that only a select few of the 9-11 hijackers even knew beforehand that it was to be a suicide mission.

It's probably not very hard to recruit a suicide bomber in the hopeless crap-hole of the Middle East, but once in the USA likely their ambitions to die become a little less attractive. ;)

Ezekiel
January 23, 2006, 05:44 PM
The Patriot Act is the thin line between us and the terrorists wanting to attack us.

I'm going to be ill. :barf:

It's your opinion, and I've read some good ones from you, but revulsion is a moderate form of my response to such a statement.

itgoesboom
January 23, 2006, 05:59 PM
The fact that we haven't been hit again since 9/11 is likely because they have not decided to hit us yet. There is nothing to stop them. They have the funding, the 'troops', and access to our country. They're very patient.

They have been very busy elsewhere in the world. They are fighting us on their soil right now, not ours.

You are right though, they are very patient. I fully expect that they have been prepping an attack, and I fully expect that the latest 3 tapes from al-Zawahri and the tape from OBL to be signals for multiple attacks in the coming days.

I.G.B.

CAS700850
January 23, 2006, 06:01 PM
I'm going to be ill. :barf:

It's your opinion, and I've read some good ones from you, but revulsion is a moderate form of my response to such a statement.


Uhhh, I think his entire post was just a bit sarcastic. Read it again and see what I mean.

As for "the next attack," it is true that AQ could hit the U.S. at any time, just as they do in the Middle East. But, it may be a matter of scale. Think of it this way. The scale of the 9/11 attack was impressive, as was its coordination and execution. Now, AQ puts a guy in NYC or somewhere with an IED in his backpack, and blows it during the morning commute. Effective? IN terms of damage and casualties, yes. But, Bush then gets on T.V. and says "look at what we've accomplished with our efforts. AQ and Bin Laden went from a massive coordinated attack to a single guy with a grenade in his pack. We're winning." And many in the public will say "He11 yeah!"

The real concern is whether this down time has allowed for the planning, preparation, and deployment of something comperable, in terms of scale, to the 9/11 attacks. Dirty bomb, bio or chemical weapon, mass shootings like described by Clancy in "Tail of the Tiger," or whatever. The where and when of one of these attacks, especially if coordinated and executed like 9/11, makes me cringe. Big city as the plump target, or small town to strike fear into the heart of America. Or a few cities at once. Frankly, the scenario set out by Clancy is the frightening one for me, as mass shooting sprees at malls in mid-sized cities will spark real fear in teh hearts and minds.

Of course, a couple of CCW holders at the right place at the right time...;)

LJWebster1
January 23, 2006, 06:10 PM
If there is nothing to stop them, then why do they need to be patient? Those statements seem to be inconsistent. Either there is something that is stopping them, so they have to be patient and wait for us to drop our guard so they can attack, or there is nothing stopping them and they can attack at will, and just don't feel like it. I'm going to guess the first one. I also agree that the war in Iraq has sapped them of resources and focus. They keep trying to defeat us there, and don't have the resources or focus to do anything here. Hence, pretty good strategy on our part to keep them in their part of the world, right?

Ezekiel
January 23, 2006, 06:18 PM
I should have looked closer, you're correct. That comment just didn't sound like RR to me.

What we need is a sarcasm key, like this:

el Presidente Jorge Shub is a mega-genius!

Uhhh, I think his entire post was just a bit sarcastic. Read it again and see what I mean.

1911 guy
January 23, 2006, 06:22 PM
The offered "cease fire" is a gimmick in real terms, a master stroke in ideology and politics.

Politically, he/they can later say we were given the chance to negotiate and refused, shifting blame for damage to us.

To appease the jihadists, he is offering the obligatory chance to see the light to us. Two ways to get rid of infidels, convert or kill. This is the perfunctory attempt at beginning America's conversion to Islam.

Tactically, he's acheived something already. Sun Tzu wrote to appear strong when you are weak, weak when you are strong. UBL has got us guessing, so he's just acheived the figurative high ground and we're waiting to see what he'll do.

KriegHund
January 23, 2006, 06:35 PM
The offered "cease fire" is a gimmick in real terms, a master stroke in ideology and politics.

Politically, he/they can later say we were given the chance to negotiate and refused, shifting blame for damage to us.

To appease the jihadists, he is offering the obligatory chance to see the light to us. Two ways to get rid of infidels, convert or kill. This is the perfunctory attempt at beginning America's conversion to Islam.

Tactically, he's acheived something already. Sun Tzu wrote to appear strong when you are weak, weak when you are strong. UBL has got us guessing, so he's just acheived the figurative high ground and we're waiting to see what he'll do.

Agreed, for the most part.
Exploiting the enemies division (pro and anti-war).

"America, i am forced to attack after my efforts for peace have failed, bladi bladi bladi..."

CNN headlines-
"Thousands dead after Bush refuses peace talks"

Or maybe we're just whistling in the wind.

Manedwolf
January 23, 2006, 06:37 PM
I honestly think that we can expect Al Qeida, or the like, to make a concerted attack in the U.S. in the coming months. I would think that they would do their best to disrupt, to the greatest degree possible, life in this country and in doing so swing the "terror" tide in their favor.

Every hospital in the world produces radioactive material that can be used in a dirty bomb and I wouldn't think that explosives are supremely difficult to produce, however I don't know. I would expect that "they" (the bad guys) would detonate as many dirty bombs as possible and cause as much mayhem as possible at around the same time. I would think that the ensuing mess would take around 1 - 3 months to straighten out.... This is within the realm of the bad guy's capability, so it is logical to think that they will or could do something like this.

I dunno... just got a strange feeling. Am I the only one?

Here's an idea. Find bin Laden. Blow him to a grease spot. Find the pieces and show them on TV.

...or shouldn't that have been done in, oh...2001? What's it now, 2006? WHY is this guy still a threat?

Manedwolf
January 23, 2006, 06:39 PM
I'm pleasantly surprised that they haven't since 9/11 . . . it tells me that someone, somewhere in our bureacracy is actually doing their job for a change.

If I were an AQ terror master and had a couple of dozen jihadis willing to die at my command, there are all kinds of ways I could use them to spread panic . . . but it hasn't happened yet. (BTW, ever notice that the terrorist bosses aren't willing to strap on an explosive belt themselves, but always seem to recruit some other dolts?)

Actually, I just think it means that a culture that most Americans are not familiar with is being PATIENT. 9/11 took ten years to plan.

This is a culture in countries that think in terms of decades and centuries. Their history books go back six thousand years. Ours go back a little over 200. We really can't fathom that.

Manedwolf
January 23, 2006, 06:40 PM
They have been very busy elsewhere in the world. They are fighting us on their soil right now, not ours.
I.G.B.

I'm sure the people of Madrid and London, or the pieces of them left all over train station platforms, would be happy to hear that their countries are "their soil".

rick_reno
January 23, 2006, 08:30 PM
Here's an idea. Find bin Laden. Blow him to a grease spot. Find the pieces and show them on TV.

...or shouldn't that have been done in, oh...2001? What's it now, 2006? WHY is this guy still a threat?

They can't blow up Bin Laden. He's the most useful tool they've got for the continual assault on the Constitution. America needs it's boogie men - and we have a real winner with him. A dead Bin Laden and they've removed what many see as the driving force for the "War on Terror" - strike that "The Global Struggle Against Extremism". How would they "sell" the locking people up without charges, wiretaps without warrants, etc, etc. without a bad guy?

solareclipse
January 23, 2006, 08:38 PM
I'll be sure to stock on many orange and red DHS alert stickers.

CAnnoneer
January 23, 2006, 08:51 PM
Security is an illusion. Bush & co. buy power by selling protection they do not provide. "False advertisement"?

Paradoxically, some people support the Patriot Act because they want to believe at all costs that they are protected, even if on the rational level they discern they are not.

ctdonath
January 23, 2006, 09:06 PM
Prepare? Absolutely.

Not because of any specific prediction, but because we don't know what the next S is nor when it will HTF.

Security & survival is a state of mind, a way of life. If you're thinking "AQ is about due for a dirty bomb, so I'd better start preparing" you're already way behind the curve (though kudos for going from "white" to "yellow"). Darkly funny how many people started preparing for SHTF after 9/11, Katrina, etc. Y2K got people preparing only because it had an actual deadline.

I'm often reminded of my father's reaction when I first laid out the whole Y2K Bug threat to him in stark OMG detail: "so I'll toss another log on the fire and go back to my book" - not because he didn't understand, but because he's ready for anything.

Prepare? what, you're not prepared already?

BTW: "Deep Survival" is a must-read for anyone taking survivalism seriously, delving into how & why people react in survival situations. Recent book, gripping read.

Kodiaz
January 23, 2006, 09:15 PM
Prepare.


Our next big problem is going to be our economy. We are going to war with Iran one way or another that's why Iran is in the paper every day the spin machine is on. If we don't attack Iran, when they start taking euros instead of dollars for oil the dollar is going to lose value extremely fast(Think the Weimar German mark). If we don't attack Iran there won't be a scapegoat for the failure of the dollar. If we do attack Iran they are going to shut off their oil plain and simple.


By the way all of the navy's landing ships are out of port.

BedPimp
January 23, 2006, 09:16 PM
BTW, ever notice that the terrorist bosses aren't willing to strap on an explosive belt themselves, but always seem to recruit some other dolts?


Yeah, well, you won't see any of our nation's leaders picking up guns and heading to the Middle East, either. How many senators have children in the military?

Hmmm, maybe compulsory military service would be a good thing. Along with provisions that force could only be used for defense on American soil. At that point most/all gun laws could be repealed thanks to the government mandated training.

Todd
Still riding a motorcycle, and still more scared of soccer moms than suicide bombers. ;)

redneck2
January 23, 2006, 09:45 PM
Our next big problem is going to be our economy. We are going to war with Iran one way or another that's why Iran is in the paper every day the spin machine is on. If we don't attack Iran, when they start taking euros instead of dollars for oil the dollar is going to lose value extremely fast(Think the Weimar German mark). If we don't attack Iran there won't be a scapegoat for the failure of the dollar. If we do attack Iran they are going to shut off their oil plain and simple.

+1

I just read an article today. The M3 money supply went up at something like a 27% annual rate last quarter. Biggest jump in history...like forever. That means your dollars are worth 27% less than they were last year, the market just hasn't caught up with it yet

Remember three little words...gold, silver, oil. They will all go up 25-50% in the next year.

Wllm. Legrand
January 23, 2006, 10:00 PM
Seriously.

Oh, it "exists" as much as any social fad exists. But it troubles me that it exists essentially as a result of perception, not as what the media and the administration purport it to be.

For example. A war involves an exchange of hostilities between defined aggressors, and/or an aggressor and a defender. Prior to the 9/11 incident, a happening that has more to do with a criminal act (if you believe the government explanation en toto, which I do not), that an act of war, governmental authorities were content to describe such as actions factually, as they were, as incidents. The greatest proponent of a "War of Terror" has actually been the U.S. government, strictly speaking. By that I mean the generation of an attitude of fear, out of proportion to the event(s) itself, as a means of controlling or elicting change in the population and government. In addition, the aggressive nature of U.S. foreign policy (and this is coming to you folks from a once dyed-in-the-wool Republican) through the use of the dull-edge of military might to induce change, seems to generate a opinion in those outside the U.S. (those who might be a little more objective than we, who are used to thinking of the U.S. perennially as the "good guys") as a war monger. There simply hasn't BEEN enough terrorism to call it a "war on terror", despite proclamations to the contrary. We all have more to fear from many other things (including losing the country we once had, and a financial system we once had, and a culture we once had) than terrorists from the other side of this phony "War of Terror".

I've reconsidered virtually all of my previously held opinions and the taken-for-granted faith I once had in the American institutions of my youth (The ostensible goodwill of the government, the educational system, Big American Business as being good for Americans, American mixed capitalism being the real thing, police as "your friend",etc., etc., etc.,). I think the American people have been sold out BIG TIME by their political leaders, financial leaders, and business leaders.

I've been saying it for some time now, but I had hoped by now most folks would look under enough rocks and come to the same conclusions. Maybe some, but surely not enough...

KriegHund
January 23, 2006, 10:03 PM
"1984" ^^^
Fake v2 type bombing on the poor sections of town...

Anywho, reading this topic title has brought to mind a little qoute from Kill Bill

"And if anybody had anything else to say, nows the f****** time!"

Lobotomy Boy
January 23, 2006, 10:11 PM
Our next big problem is going to be our economy. We are going to war with Iran one way or another that's why Iran is in the paper every day the spin machine is on. If we don't attack Iran, when they start taking euros instead of dollars for oil the dollar is going to lose value extremely fast(Think the Weimar German mark). If we don't attack Iran there won't be a scapegoat for the failure of the dollar. If we do attack Iran they are going to shut off their oil plain and simple.

Right on the money. You will hear people say that we are going to war with Iran to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, which seems logical until you ask yourself one question: why aren't we going to war with North Korea? Check out the Center for Defense Information (CD) fact sheet on North Korea's nuclear program (http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm):

Fact Sheet: North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program

Updated Jan. 23, 2003

On Oct. 16, 2002, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush disclosed that North Korea had admitted to having a program to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. With its admission, North Korea, also known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK, abrogated the Agreed Framework signed in 1994 with United States, under which the North Koreans agreed to freeze their nuclear weapons program.

On Dec. 10, 2002, North Korea announced it would restart plutonium production and eject the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors who monitored North Korea's compliance with the Agreed Framework. On Jan. 10, North Korea withdrew from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), an international accord prohibiting the acquisition and proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The fuel used in nuclear warheads can come from either uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing. North Korea has pursued both tracks. North Korea's uranium enrichment program, were it to continue, could produce highly-enriched uranium sufficient for nuclear weapons in roughly five years, depending on available technology.1 Prior to acceding to the Agreed Framework, North Korea probably produced enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons, although some estimates range to five or six. 2 It is unclear whether North Korea actually produced nuclear weapons with this plutonium. Today intelligence analysts generally agree that North Korea is capable of producing nuclear warheads.3 The Bush administration holds that North Korea has produced a few weapons, but many experts argue that difficulties in building detonation devices may thus far have prevented the North from finishing their weapons. 4 Resumed nuclear production could give North Korea enough plutonium for a nuclear weapon within a few months and five to seven nuclear weapons by mid-2003.5

North Korea's historical animus with the United States drives its nuclear weapons program. Across the 38th parallel, which has divided the Korean peninsula since the Korean War ended in 1953, 37,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea. The United States threatened nuclear attack against both North Korea and China during the Korean War and stored nuclear weapons in South Korean until 1991. 6 The ability to deter a U.S. led invasion and blunt U.S. coercive power is the primary objective of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. North Korea also likely sees its nuclear weapons program as a means to get leverage to extract economic concessions in negotiations with the United States and even its nuclear-armed neighbors, Russia and China. Additionally, North Korea may view nuclear weapons, and particularly the missile systems that complement them, as a valuable export technology.

North Korea began nuclear research in 1964, when Kim Il Sung, the father of the current leader, Kim Jong Il, ordered construction of an atomic energy research complex in Yongbyon, 60 miles north of Pyongyang. In the 1970s, North Korea modernized the facility and began work on a second reactor nearby. 7

In the 1980s, North Korea accelerated its efforts to produce plutonium fuel for nuclear weapons from these facilities. International concern began to focus on North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and in 1985 North Korea, under pressure, signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). North Korea completed the second reactor around 1987. It has a capacity of about five electrical megawatts, allowing annual production of seven kilograms of plutonium enough for one or two nuclear weapons. 8 In the mid-1990s, North Korea began building two larger reactors with respective power of 50 and 200 electrical megawatts. When the Agreed Framework shut down these plants, they stood about two years from completion. Satellite photographs taken in 1990 indicate North Korea has constructed a structure at Yongbyon used to separate plutonium from nuclear fuel a critical stage in weaponizing plutonium. 9

In 1989, North Korea shut down its working reactor for two months probably to remove the nuclear fuel rods, from which plutonium is reprocessed. 10 U.S. intelligence reports generally estimate that North Korea extracted 12-14 kilograms of plutonium from the rods, enough for one or two nuclear weapons. Japanese and South Korean intelligence estimates claim North Korea may have extracted more plutonium during reactor slowdowns in 1990 and 1991, giving the country up to 24 kilograms of plutonium. 11 North Korea may have acquired additional plutonium by smuggling it out of Russia. A 1993 report in the German magazine Stern cited a Russian counterintelligence report claiming that North Korea had bought 56 kilograms of Russian plutonium on the black market. 12

In the early 1990s, North Korea's progress in missile and plutonium development led to an international diplomatic push to control their weapons technology. In 1991, following the removal of U.S. nuclear weapons from the South, North and South Korea signed a Non-Aggression Pact and the Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The Declaration banned nuclear weapons in both nations and called for inspections to verify denuclearization. In January 1992, North Korea, fulfilling an obligation under the NPT, signed a nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, allowing inspections.

Diplomacy soon faltered. After a few inspections, North Korea refused to allow the inspectors access to certain facilities. In early 1993, North Korea threatened to withdraw from the NPT. 13 That year, the CIA first reported that the North might have enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons. 14

In 1994, the administration of President Bill Clinton had begun preparations for military action against North Korea when former President Jimmy Carter traveled to North Korea in June and extracted a promise from Kim Jong Il to freeze nuclear production. 1 The Agreed Framework was signed on Oct. 21, 1994.

Under the Agreed Framework, North Korea agreed to halt activities at its plutonium producing nuclear reactors in Pyongyang in exchange for a relaxation of economic sanctions, a gradual move toward normalization of diplomatic relations, fuel oil deliveries, and construction of a light-water reactor to replace the graphite-moderated reactor shut down at Pyongyang. Plutonium from light water reactors is harder to use for nuclear weapons than the plutonium procured by graphite-moderated reactors. 16 IAEA inspectors monitored North Korea's compliance. Upon completion of the light-water reactors, originally scheduled for 2003 but subsequently indefinitely delayed, North Korea was to dismantle its graphite reactors and ship its 8,000 remaining fuel rods out of the country. 17

Shortly after signing the agreement, North Korea began seeking nuclear weapons fuel through uranium enrichment. In the late 1990s, the United States began to receive scattered intelligence reports revealing a North Korean uranium enrichment program. Some evidence points to the existence of this program as early as 1987. 18 This program apparently received new life in 1997 when Pakistan, strapped for cash by U.S. sanctions, began paying for its North Korean missile imports with uranium enrichment technology.

An unclassified CIA report from early 2002 reported that "[North Korea] has been seeking centrifuge-related materials in large quantities to support a uranium enrichment program. It also obtained equipment suitable for use in uranium feed and withdrawal systems." 19 Last January, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton accused North Korea of continuing its nuclear weapons program, and in February members of Congress expressed concern to the president about North Korea's uranium enrichment program. 20 According to the New Yorker Magazine, the CIA delivered a secret report to top Bush administration officials in June, which found that Pakistan had provided centrifuge technology to North Korea. 21 Centrifuges are essential in enriching uranium. A.Q. Khan, known as the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, has reportedly visited North Korea frequently in the last decade. 22 U.S. intelligence apparently found definitive evidence of North Korea's uranium program by tracing an attempt to purchase a large amount of high-strength uranium, a substance essential to equipment used to enrich uranium, to North Korea. Some North uranium enrichment facilities are likely located in the Hagap region, near the Chinese border. 23

The Yongbyon facility today houses 3,000 scientists and researchers, many of whom studied nuclear technology in the Soviet Union, China and Pakistan. The military runs the nuclear weapons program along with the intelligence service under the direct supervision of President Kim Jong-Il. 24

If North Korea restarts its five-megawatt facility, which would likely take about two months, it could produce at least one nuclear weapon per year beginning in mid 2003. 25 When completed, the two larger facilities could produce around 55 nuclear weapons annually. Additionally, by using its spent fuel and restarting its reprocessing plant, North Korea could likely begin producing nuclear weapons by spring 2003. With the entire Yongbyon facility up and running, North Korea could make more than 200 nuclear weapons by decade's end. 26

North Korea could deliver its nuclear weapons with missiles, although it is unclear what North Korean missiles are outfitted to carry nuclear warheads. All North Korean missiles are liquid-fueled. North Korea has an arsenal of hundreds of Scud missiles, which due to their extremely short range, could be used exclusively against targets in neighboring states. Additionally, North Korea may have as many as 100 short-range (about 800 miles or 1,300 km) No-Dong missiles, although estimates range far lower. 27 These missiles, likely developed with Soviet assistance, could reach all of South Korea and most of Japan. North Korea launched one such missile into the Sea of Japan in 1993. 28 North Korea is also developing longer-range Taepo Dong missiles. The Taepo Dong 1, one of which was test fired over Japan in 1998, has a range of 1,500-2,200 kilometers. The North Koreans also have an even longer-range missile, the Taepo Dong II, under development, which could have a range of up to 6,000 kilometers. These two-stage missiles might be able to hit Alaska or Hawaii. North Korea has exported missiles and missile technology to Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and probably other nations. 29

End Notes

1 Dipali Mukhopadhyay and Jon Wolfsthal, :Ten Questions on North Korea's Uranium Enrichment Program,"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Jan. 7, 2003, http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/article.asp?NewsID=3871

2 Larry A. Niksch, "North Nuclear Weapons Program," Congressional Research Service, Nov. 27, 2002, p.6, http://fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/IB91141.pdf

3 David Albright, "North Korea's Current and Future Plutonium and Nuclear Weapon Stocks," Institute for Science and International Security, Jan. 15, 2003, http://www.isis-online.org/publications/dprk/fastfacts.html

4 Federation of American Scientists, "Nuclear Weapons Program - North Korea," http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

5 Albright, http://www.isis-online.org/publications/dprk/fastfacts.html

6 "North Korea's Motivations for Developing Nuclear Weapons," Daniel A. Pinkston

7 Federation of American Scientists, "Nuclear Weapons Program - North Korea," http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

8 The general rule of thumb is that countries with North Korea's technical capacity require 8 kg of plutonium to produce a nuclear weapon, but many have challenged this standard as two high. The amount could be lowered by building smaller weapons. Some experts have argued that 3 kg of plutonium will suffice for small atomic weapons. Niksch, 7.

9 Federation of American Scientists, "Nuclear Weapons Program - North Korea," http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

10 Niksch, 7.

11 "DPRK Nuclear Program," Global Security.org, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm

12 Niksch, p.8.

13 Federation of American Scientists, "Nuclear Weapons Program - North Korea," http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

14 Glenn Kessler, "No Support for Strikes Against N. Korea," Washington Post, Jan. 2, 2003

15 Ibid

16 Gary Milhollin, Testimony to the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Dec. 1, 1994, http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/testimonies/1994/12-1.html

17 Niksch, 14

18 Pinkston, 2

19 Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 July Through 31 December 2001, Central Intelligence Agency, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/bian/bian_jan_2003.htm#5

20 Seymour Hersh, "The Cold Test: What the Administration knew about Pakistan and the North Korean Nuclear Program," The New Yorker, January 27, 2002, http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030127fa_fact

21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 "US Followed the Aluminum,"Washington Post, October 18, 2002

24 Niksch, 12

25 Albright, http://www.isis-online.org/publications/dprk/fastfacts.html

26 Ibid

27 "North Korea Special Weapons Guide," Global Security.org, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/index.html

28 "North Korea's Nuclear Programme," July 27, 1999, BBC Online Network, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/405150.stm

29 "Chronology of North Korea's Missile Trade and Development," Nuclear Threat Initiative, http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/dprk/msl/chron/NKMCH00Go_bg.html,

By Benjamin Friedman
Independent Analyst

Look at the date of this report: January 23, 2003. If you don't think the upcoming war in Iran is about oil and propping up the dollar, think about the fact that on Oct. 16, 2002, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush disclosed that North Korea had admitted to having a program to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. In other words, North Korea has already done what we are accusing Iran of trying to do. Did we go to war with North Korea? No. We went to war with Iraq, a country that threatened the hegemony of the U.S. dollar as the currency for buying oil. North Korea is still pushing ahead with its nuclear weapons program. What are we planning to do? Go to war with Iran for doing the same thing.

You may say Iran is run by a madman. Is North Korea run by a paragon of sanity? So why did we go to war with Iraq instead of North Korea and why are we planning to go to war with Iran instead of North Korea? You can spout all the BS you want about the Iranian president being insane, but until we take out the regime in North Korea, any such comment is pure B.S. We went to war with Iraq and we are planning to go war with Iran because of the oil and the value of the dollar, plain and simple.

mordechaianiliewicz
January 23, 2006, 10:18 PM
:D hear hear rick reno, I too would hate to see what would happen if our loyal protectors were to lose the power of the fantastic patriot act! (snicker, snicker)

Wllm. Legrand
January 23, 2006, 10:21 PM
There was a link to an article in another thread on this very subject, i.e., the Iran/oil market and the beginning of Iran's attempt to divert control away from the main market-makers (London and New York).

But let's make sure and not confuse these motives and such rationale with other separate and discrete issues. Israel and the Philistines, Saddam, attempting to foment "democracy in Iraq", Afghanistan and the Caspian Sea connection, and other issues lumped together do no become a reason to create a "War of Terror".

Edited to add: Thought the government would like us all to believe that they ARE all one and the same.

rick_reno
January 23, 2006, 10:25 PM
You will hear people say that we are going to war with Iran to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, which seems logical until you ask yourself one question: why aren't we going to war with North Korea?

That's easy - North Korea isn't a direct threat to Israel.

Standing Wolf
January 23, 2006, 11:03 PM
Land wars in Asia have an uncanny way of coming home.

The so-called "War on Terror" should have been an Air Force assignment.

tater_salad
January 24, 2006, 08:49 AM
IMHO, I think that Bin Laden was trying to play to the liberals and pacifists. It was nothing more than a propaganda effort on his part to gain support for his cause in our own country, and to try to persuade the fence sitters over to the dove side. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book, to defeat us he is trying to break up the morale and support back home. Nothing new. His statements just give all the pacifists more ammunition to keep up their rants that the whole ordeal is America's fault, that we should mind our own business, and not dabble in other countries affairs. Almost everything that he said is a reiteration of their core arguments, and the fact that he offers a ceace to the violence is just the icing on the cake for these hippies. I'm willing to bet they actually beileve what he says and thinks that would be a great idea.

Just my .02

TallPine
January 24, 2006, 12:51 PM
we should mind our own business, and not dabble in other countries affairs
such novel ideas .... ;)

I think George Washington was one of the first of those pacifists :p

Sinsaba
January 24, 2006, 01:12 PM
Land wars in Asia have an uncanny way of coming home.

The so-called "War on Terror" should have been an Air Force assignment.

The only problem with that Standing Wolf is a) contray to what some would have us believe we do actually try NOT to kill innocents, and b) only kill Saddam and what would have happened? Kill only OBL what would happen? The ony way to actually defeat terrorism is do destroy the breeding ground. Not physicaly, but change the culture.

We all know that we could Nuke em till they glowed if physical distruction was what we were after but that wouldn't solve anything.


IMHO, I think that Bin Laden was trying to play to the liberals and pacifists. It was nothing more than a propaganda effort on his part to gain support for his cause in our own country, and to try to persuade the fence sitters over to the dove side. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book, to defeat us he is trying to break up the morale and support back home. Nothing new. His statements just give all the pacifists more ammunition to keep up their rants that the whole ordeal is America's fault, that we should mind our own business, and not dabble in other countries affairs. Almost everything that he said is a reiteration of their core arguments, and the fact that he offers a ceace to the violence is just the icing on the cake for these hippies. I'm willing to bet they actually beileve what he says and thinks that would be a great idea.

Hand the man a cigar!! ... uh... sorry Give the little lady a drink!! ... got it wrong again <sigh> I guess I'll just say +100

Sindawe
January 24, 2006, 02:02 PM
I think George Washington was one of the first of those pacifistsWhat an unpatriotic cur this "George Washington" must have been. Were he alive today, he and all his band of terrorists would be locked up in Gitmo.I just read an article today. The M3 money supply went up at something like a 27% annual rate last quarter. Biggest jump in history...like forever. That means your dollars are worth 27% less than they were last year, the market just hasn't caught up with it yetDo you have a link to the article redneck2? I've a long running semi-debate with a friend who has no problem with the cessation of the M3 being published this coming March.

benEzra
January 24, 2006, 03:08 PM
Did you say that the cessation of the M3 is in MARCH? Didn't realize that.

Let's see. Iran is opening its new oil exchange in March.

The M3 reports cease in March.

IIRC, the IAEA report on Iran (with recommendation to refer to UN Security Council, or not) is due in March.

IIRC, the Iranian new year is in March, and rumors say that Iran may consider testing a nuke (if they have one) by the new year.



Geez, beware the Ides of March... :uhoh:

Manedwolf
January 24, 2006, 03:41 PM
Land wars in Asia have an uncanny way of coming home.

The so-called "War on Terror" should have been an Air Force assignment.

For over two thousand years, "land war in Asia" has been pretty much like a tasty-looking piece of fruit on the table...but the fruit happens to be made of stone.

And general after general, empire after empire, plan after plan, people keep picking it up, try to take a bite, and stagger off with broken teeth.

Can'thavenuthingood
January 24, 2006, 05:05 PM
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/discm3.htm

Discontinuance of M3
On March 23, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System will cease publication of the M3 monetary aggregate. The Board will also cease publishing the following components: large-denomination time deposits, repurchase agreements (RPs), and Eurodollars. The Board will continue to publish institutional money market mutual funds as a memorandum item in this release.

Measures of large-denomination time deposits will continue to be published by the Board in the Flow of Funds Accounts (Z.1 release) on a quarterly basis and in the H.8 release on a weekly basis (for commercial banks).

Here's a thread from another (gasp) forum discussing M3.
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic14770.html

Vick

ctdonath
January 24, 2006, 09:10 PM
You may say Iran is run by a madman. Is North Korea run by a paragon of sanity?Some madmen are full of bluster and, with a little nudging, leave others alone despite being dangerous. Other madmen think relatively clearly, state their intentions clearly, obtain their weapons clearly, and are indeed a clear threat to others.

North Korea makes a lot of noise. Any attack on South Korea (or anyone else) will result in the NK gov't being wiped off the map in minutes - and that gov't likes the perks of being alive. Keep treating 'em like they mean something, and they're satisfied & contained. If South Korea doesn't care (which, broadly speaking, they don't), why should we?

Iran's leaders are laying it out clearly for the world: they're going to build nukes, and they're going to obliterate Israel, and they don't care if they die in the process (all the better in their eyes, actually). Israel is understandably concerned, Israel has nukes, and Israel has no qualms about striking first and dealing with the consequences of Armageddon. This, understandably, should concern us.

rhubarb
January 25, 2006, 12:41 AM
I salute you, Mr. Reno.

You should have left that first post hanging with no followup post. Fine piece of work.

If you enjoyed reading about "Time to prepare" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!