[CZ-75]

http://www.foxnewschannel.com/story/0,2933,85033,00.html

North Korea Admits It Has Nukes
Thursday, April 24, 2003


WASHINGTON ? North Korea has nuclear weapons and is prepared to prove it, the Communist nation told the United States Thursday during talks in Beijing, a senior Defense official told Fox News.

The official said Pyongyang admitted to having nukes during its second meeting with U.S. and Chinese officials in Beijing.

The official described the talks as "extremely bad."

A U.S. official told the Associated Press that North Korea (search ) may conduct a test of its weapons, although there are no indications a test is imminent. He acknowledged that preparations for an underground test could be concealed.

According to the official, a North Korean nuclear detonation would deplete by half their estimated stockpile of two weapons.

"They said what we always knew -- that they do have weapons," another source told Reuters. "That doesn't shock us. We've been saying that. Now they said it."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said: "It's not a surprise for them to say something like that."

The talks in Beijing ended with State Department officials saying it was uncertain whether discussions on Pyongyang's nuclear program would continue, although they denied reports that the talks had broken down.

Before the start of the second day's meeting, North Korea accused the United States of leading the region toward war, an apparent attempt by the communist nation to increase pressure on negotiators, according to the U.S. officials.

Earlier, Secretary of State Colin Powell had told a gathering of experts from the Asia-Pacific region that the talks, involving the United States, North Korea and China, had concluded, leaving the impression there would not be a third day of discussions on Friday.

Powell expressed hope that South Korea and Japan would be able to participate "when and if" there is another round of talks.

He added: "North Korea should not leave the meetings having the slightest impression that they might force us to make a concession we would not otherwise make."

In Beijing, the chief U.S. negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, declined to answer questions upon returning to his hotel in the afternoon, saying only that the sides "had talks."

Kelly was to fly to Seoul on Friday to meet with South Korean officials.

North Korea continued to try to ratchet up the pressure and is believed to want economic aid in exchange for concessions.

Its leaders are outraged over U.S. moves to cut off oil shipments because of its suspected nuclear weapons program, and fears it is next on Washington's list for military action.

"The situation on the Korean Peninsula is so tense that a war may break out any moment due to the U.S. moves," the North's KCNA news agency.

It said relations with the United States had hit "rock bottom" because President Bush named North Korea as part of an "axis of evil," along with Iran and Iraq.

KCNA said the war in Iraq had shown the only way for a country to protect itself was to have a strong military deterrent. Officials from Seoul and Washington say the swift U.S.-led victory in Iraq prompted North Korea to agree to the nuclear talks.

The North's Korea People's Army vowed to "put all people under arms and turn the whole country into a fortress" and urged its soldiers to become "human bombs and fighters ready to blow up themselves" to protect leader Kim Jong Il (search).

"If the U.S. imperialists and their followers intrude into even an inch of the inviolable sky, land and sea of the (North) ... the (army) will deal merciless deadly blows at the aggressors," North Korean Defense Minister Kim Il Chol was quoted as saying by KCNA.

Still, North Korea said it was ready to settle the dispute over its suspected nuclear weapons programs and that the "master key" for successful talks was for the United States to drop its hostile policy toward Pyongyang.

Late Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Secretary of State Colin Powell talked by phone and agreed that the Beijing talks were beneficial, China's official Xinhua News Agency reported.

The U.S. Embassy and Chinese Foreign Ministry said they had no details of Thursday's discussions. But ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said the talks were "conducive to mutual understanding and finding ways to resolve the North Korean nuclear question peacefully."

North Korea and China fought against the United States in the 1950-53 Korean War, which ended without a peace treaty. North Korea and Washington have no formal relations and are still technically at war.

In a likely reference to North Korea's demand for a nonaggression treaty with Washington, KCNA said: "The U.S. should settle the talks from a sincere stand and strive to settle the essential issue."

Washington has refused to offer a formal treaty but says it would consider some sort of written assurance.

China, the North's ally and major aid donor, nevertheless says it doesn't want Pyongyang to acquire nuclear weapons and has appealed for a negotiated settlement to the crisis.

The talks are being led by Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly and Ri Gun, deputy director of American affairs for North Korea's Foreign Ministry. China's delegation is led by Fu Ying, director general of the Asian Affairs Department of its Foreign Ministry.

The United States hopes eventually to include Japan and South Korea in the talks. Kelly briefed South Korean and Japanese diplomats in Beijing following Wednesday's discussions, the U.S. Embassy said. He is scheduled to visit Seoul for meetings immediately after the Beijing talks.

Washington says the North revealed during a visit by Kelly to Pyongyang in October that it was trying to develop nuclear weapons in violation of a 1994 pledge. The North has disputed the U.S. claim.

The North likely wants aid for its economy, which has been crippled by the loss of Soviet subsidies and years of drought and mismanagement.

Since the latest nuclear tensions erupted, Pyongyang has become the first country to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (search) and restarted a plutonium-producing reactor.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

____________________________

Duh!

[Waitone]

I'll believe the NK's possess nukes when one is tested.

A pile of components does not constitute a nuke.

[mercedesrules]

Are only certain countries allowed to have nuclear weapons? Isn't that just gun control on a larger scale? :confused:

I'm against all gun control.

MR

[Bruce H]

Any country that can't feed it's people doesn't have any business developing weapons of this type. What do these paranoid idiots have to fear? Why do they want to keep the people they are supposedly governing or in North Korea's instance ruling hungry, broke, and destitute. Kim Jong II singalong dingdong should feel real proud of himself. He and his closest followers fit the profile of the old saying about they needed-------.

[Sir Galahad]

Mercedes, who probably doesn't live within range of North Korean ballistic missiles, tries to apply the U.S. Constitution to a communist country. :rolleyes:

In case you were not aware, Mercedes, nuclear weapons are not personal arms. Sure, let's let have North Korea have nukes! Why not? And, while we're at it, let's have a give-away and let Hamas and Hezbollah have a couple. We can give some to Syria in case Saddam really didn't bring enough for the whole class. That's only fair, right? How about Egypt? Don't forget Egypt!

And when everyone is puking their guts up, losing the hair and teeth and crapping blood from radiation poisoning, they will feel much better knwing that they can make that sacrifice for the rights of despots, tyrants, and terrorists everywhere! :banghead:

[Standing Wolf]

In two words: regime change!

[Rawlings]

What's the difference between Kim Jong Il building nuclear weapons and demanding "economic aid" and Dr. Evil building a moon laser and demanding ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS! ?

[HBK]

Screw North Korea. They have little room from which to negotiate. If they fired a nuke at us we would turn their country into a parking lot. As far as their right to have nukes, any country that has death camps to kill their own people forfeits most of their rights.

[OF]

any country that has death camps to kill their own people forfeits most of their rights.Abso-freaking-lutely. If this were a society, and we were discussing the rights of the people in that society, the little commie midget and his henchmen would be in prison and there would be no further discussion of their rights.

That's what gets me about the whole 'sovereign nation' hand-wringing. If a nation has a duly representative gov't that allows it's people the right and means to overthrow it if they don't like it, they get to claim the rights associated with sovereignty. If they keep people locked in iron maidens for not making that last lap round the soccer field fast enough, I think we can forgo the sovereignty BS and deal with them appropriately.

- Gabe

[jmbg29]

If I need any :cuss: out of the evil dwarf, I'll squeeze his microcephalic head.

Time to pull a #6 on the evil dwarf et al. :fire: :fire: :fire:

[mercedesrules]

Sir G said: :banghead:
http://www.ismp.org/Images/Excedrin.gif

MR

[Sir Galahad]

Mercedes, did you have something constructive to add to this discussion?:rolleyes:

[ahadams]

First a little history:
Since the PRC came into existance it and the USSR were vying for the most influence in NK, so they could use it as a surrogate against the US - that's what the Korean "police action" was in large part about, and at that time the PRC came out somewhat ahead. Following that time, NK did their best to play the PRC and the USSR off against each other, for weapons, technology, and so forth. Starving their people to pay for technology is nothing new - they've done it for the last half century. Following the fall of the USSR, the NKs became in large part reliant on the PRC - which is in part reflected in the fact that the meeting in question was taking place in Beijing. That's grossly over-generalized but it gives you a little bit of a frame of reference.

The issue here is not so much that NK has nukes - we knew that, the PRC knew that, and everybody knew that we and the PRC knew that. The issue here is that not only is NK demanding direct bilateral talks with the US (meaning we treat them as equals) it told both the US *AND* the PRC that whatever happens next is up to how the NKs decide to react to the US and PRC reactions. The PRC responded by suggesting that the US should consider holding bilateral talks with the NKs "just to move things forward". In other words, the PRC just blinked! No kidding - there are only two reasons this could have happend, either the PRC has somehow figured on trumping whatever the NKs do (highly unlikely, since it would probably involve nuking a couple of spots in NK, which even given the technology they bought from the clinton administration would make real problems for them and a lot of the pacific rim (can you say "down wind hazard area"?) )OR the NKs caught them off guard too.

This is rather an interesting situation, since neither we nor the PRC are really thrilled with facing down 'chia dictator' and his merry band of wackos. We can do it as far as *we* are concerned, but the PRC must now deal with the fact that it's paid for floozy has grown fangs, and BITES! What are their options?

And while we're at it, let's talk about some other folks close up who are getting more nervous by the minute, especially as long as they're being left out of any direct negotiations: the ROK and the Japanese. Remember too that Japanese and Koreans HATE each other - though this might just be enough to force them to work together, especially if they get even an inkling that big brother Uncle Sam might be considering selling them short to save his own hide - not a problem right now with Dubya in office, but remember this situation is bound to continue more or less from now on...and the more nukes the NKs produce, the more the tension grows...oh yes and then there's Vladivostok, and the big Russian naval base there - remember them? I bet THEY aren't sleeping real soundly right now either.

Iraq? Iraq, and Iran, and the rest are small change, compared to what is happening here - and most of the American press doesn't even notice it.

All I can say is that I'm really glad I'm not doing my old job anymore, and that Missouri puts me well outside the reach of those oversized North Korean bottle rockets!

[SteelyDan]

At least with Saddam, I had the feeling we were dealing with someone who was fundamentally "rational," in a twisted kind of way. I'm just not getting those same vibes from Pyongyang, and it's frightening.

[Vladimir Berkov]

So any country which does not fit our definition of an ethical country, has no right to national sovereignty?

[CZ-75]

So any country which does not fit our definition of an ethical country, has no right to national sovereignty?

Why not? More to the point, though, is "does any country with without popular suffrage or sovereignty of the people really have national sovereignty?"

I'd say "no." The will of a ruler or clique of elites is hardly representative of anything I'd call "national sovereignty." Sometimes, people may actually desire to be ruled, rather than rule, but that doesn't seem to often be the case. Certainly not the case where the government runs labor/death camps.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Why not?

Because other nations could easily consider us to be an unethical nation.


More to the point, though, is "does any country with without popular suffrage or sovereignty of the people really have national sovereignty?"

Yes, by definition.


I'd say "no." The will of a ruler or clique of elites is hardly representative of anything I'd call "national sovereignty." Sometimes, people may actually desire to be ruled, rather than rule, but that doesn't seem to often be the case. Certainly not the case where the government runs labor/death camps.

By that logic, there is simply a sliding scale of "national sovereignty." A direct democracy, would then, apparently be the most sovereign. Of course, no nation has people which all "desire to be ruled" by either a democratic or dictatorial government. In that case, are nations which have a large amount of support for the government more sovereign than others?

[Bruce H]

Austin Powers inept Dr. Evil is good for a giggle. A real life psychopath like Kim jong II is a whole nother matter. National sovereignty has absolutely nothing to do with it. What is there to be defended about a human who uses a nations limited resources to develope weapons they have absolutely no use for? Why didn't they use these resources to develope medical procedures or manufacturing systems that would better mankind? This sniveling little nit wanted the ultimate weapon so he could have a bigger H on. Go ahead and try to justify him. Keep doing it right up until miliseconds before combustion.

[Vladimir Berkov]

What is there to be defended about a human who uses a nations limited resources to develope weapons they have absolutely no use for? Why didn't they use these resources to develope medical procedures or manufacturing systems that would better mankind?

Why not indeed! I suppose you feel the same way about the US's nuclear, chemical and biological programs.

Of course, you are also neglecting the fact that they obviously see a use for such weapons, as do I and most rational people. A county with nukes is a more powerful country. And since when does any country want less power?

[Bruce H]

Yep Vladimir that is exactly the way I feel. The US has the resources to persue several different fronts. NK would be hard pressed to feed, clothe and educate it's slaves. Anyone who claims to be a leader had better understand whats inportant. We are wasting far too many recources in this country paying off worthless people. It becomes easy to tell when a nation looses its edge. We haven't deverloped any technology that has been really earth shattering in thirty years. With the same environment we had ninety years ago with todays equipment the mind boggles at what could be accomplished. We can't invent anything without a 700 comittee review and 6,000,000 regulations. Which brings us back to the fact that Kim Jong II is still a psychopath who is far more worried about his own position than the livelyhood of his slaves.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Yep Vladimir that is exactly the way I feel. The US has the resources to persue several different fronts.

Every country has the resources to do this. The only decision is how much of different types of goods you want to give up, the classic "guns vs. butter" debate.

We are wasting far too many recources in this country paying off worthless people.

What does this mean?


It becomes easy to tell when a nation looses its edge. We haven't deverloped any technology that has been really earth shattering in thirty years.

This is a joke, right?

With the same environment we had ninety years ago with todays equipment the mind boggles at what could be accomplished. We can't invent anything without a 700 comittee review and 6,000,000 regulations.

I don't even understand what you are saying here. No offense, but is English your primary language? Because some of this stuff you are saying makes little sense grammatically.

[CZ-75]

By that logic, there is simply a sliding scale of "national sovereignty." A direct democracy, would then, apparently be the most sovereign. Of course, no nation has people which all "desire to be ruled" by either a democratic or dictatorial government. In that case, are nations which have a large amount of support for the government more sovereign than others?


No, by that logic, only participatory governments have national sovereignty. Everything else is a joke. Pablo Escobar nearly came close to controlling Columbia, through bought elections, assassinations, bribes, private armies, etc. Had he succeeded, would the country have had a legitimate government worthy of national sovereignty?

While you can't please everyone, participatory government is just that. If some folks don't like it, they can opt to try to change it.

[OF]

Silly reductions that rely on moral relativism are just that. Silly.

I mean, who says killing and torturing innocents is wrong? It's just a lifestyle choice when you get right down to it.

:barf:

- Gabe

[CMichael]

N. Korea is using the nukes as blackmail to try and force economic concessions.

They forgot that Clinton isn't pres. anymore.

I think the Bush Administration should show them that they will be punished for acting the way they are acting.

Giving into to their concessions is the same thing as giving in to terrorists and will only enourage them to do more of it in the future.

[Bruce H]

BINGO Intillectual masturbation is fun until people start dying.

[Sleeping Dog]

Enough is enough! North Korea with the Bomb?

I want a strongly-worded UN resolution!

That'll teach the little freak a lesson.

All sort of tongue-in-cheek. But, Korea was IIRC a UN war, or still is since it never ended. Do we need to take on every bad guy single-handedly?

There's a few other UN countries with weapons and money that could help with some of this nonsense.

Or, give the UN another chance to prove its irrelevance.

Regards.

[Vladimir Berkov]

No, by that logic, only participatory governments have national sovereignty. Everything else is a joke.

The problem is that you must define "participatory government," and that is where the sliding scale comes into play. By "participatory" you could conceivably be talking about everything for true direct democracy, to democratic republics, to parliamentary monarchies, to whatever else.

You either have to explain why if "participation" is the key to legitimacy, there is great variation in the degree of "participation."

Or, you must set some arbitrary standard for "participation" in government, else the nation becomes illegitimate. And of course, it is easy to set this standard higher than the US can meet, thus the US becomes illegitimate.


Pablo Escobar nearly came close to controlling Columbia, through bought elections, assassinations, bribes, private armies, etc. Had he succeeded, would the country have had a legitimate government worthy of national sovereignty?

The concept of worth has nothing to do with this. If you accept the ability of the nation-state to exist as an entity, you must accept the national sovereignty and legitimacy of all nations. Else, what you are saying is that the concept of the nation-state is invalid.



While you can't please everyone, participatory government is just that. If some folks don't like it, they can opt to try to change it.

That is true of any government. And of course, often those who "opt to try to change it" in a participatory government are suppressed just as brutally as in a dictatorial government.

[Sir Galahad]

Vladimir, it's like this:

Perhaps North Korea thinks it has the "right" to build nuclear weapons. And maybe some misled Americans use a moral relatvism to defend them ("Well! The U.S. has them SOOOOOO....it must be ok for every other country to have them!) But the fact remains that we have the right and duty to defend our citizens and chosen allies as we see fit no matter what philosophy you want to subscribe to. North Korea, if it could, would take the U.S. out in the blink of an eye if they could. So preventing their attempt to get the means to do so presents a compelling self-interest in survival on the part of the United States. The events of 9/11 show that we cannot afford to wait for enemies to come to us first. We have to assess the threats and deal with them preemptively.

I also daresay that many of the people defending the "rights" of despots to own NBC have never attended a U.S. military NBC class with a trip to the CS gas chamber, too. Many have probably never even read extensively about NBC weapons.

And I'm sure that there would be plenty of time for philosophy in a fallout shelter.:rolleyes:

[Vladimir Berkov]

North Korea, if it could, would take the U.S. out in the blink of an eye if they could. [B]

Any evidence at all to back up this absurd claim?

[B]
The events of 9/11 show that we cannot afford to wait for enemies to come to us first.

No, we already knew that for a long time prior to 9/11. What 9/11 did was instill a sense of mass hysteria among the American people, and a great need in the government to do something to stop terrorism and prevent future attacks. Thus, we have the unending, intrusive and unconstitutional legislation coming out of Washington, and a new empire being built overseas.


We have to assess the threats and deal with them preemptively.


No, pre-emptive is the wrong word. We are dealing with potential threats in a preventive manner. At least, that is true for the war with Iraq.

[Zander]

I'm against all gun control.I reckon it's about as absolute in North Korea as it can be.

The regime headed by a "leader" of questionable mental stability has been summarily directing humanitarian aid to maintain his control of the military while starving his subjects. The North Korean population has been decimated [ref: the true definition].

Kim Jong-Il is, deservedly, an international pariah; that some, for political reasons, cannot bring themselves to condemn his nuclear-brinkmanship is despicable...to be polite.

The Red Chinese had better step up and control him or face the inevitable result of nuclear weapons deployed in every nation in the immediate region, Japan included. In the interim, Kim is not only willing to continue to export ill-gotten technology around the globe but insists upon it.

If that doesn't give you pause, it should...

[MeekandMild]

Its pretty clear to me. Kim Whazzizname is China's monkey. Let China put him on a leash.

[Bruce H]

If you want to defend Kim why don't you emmigrate to his paradise? I'm sure you will be very happy in his land of sweets and honey.

[Sir Galahad]

All the evidence you need is in the news, Vlad. I can't help it if you're spending all your time getting your information from Mother Jones.:D

[SteelyDan]

A lot of folks can't seem to accept it, but there really are such things as "good" and "bad" in the world. When a totalitarian regime threatens to begin exporting nuclear weapons, presumably to the highest bidder, it's not too hard to figure out which side of the line it falls on. North Korea's security concerns would be eliminated tomorrow if it decided to play by anything approaching international norms.

[HBK]

When it comes right down to it, you have to pick a side. You have to choose between good and evil. I pick the side of the United States becase that is my country and I love my country enough to be willing to give my life for it. If other countries believe the US to be the bad guy or evil, that's their tough luck. Quit the sanctimonious debate and pick your side.