Everyone keeps making claims like this or similar, when if ever was the DPRK in a position to be attacked or weakened by "military intervention"? It's position, alliance with China and proximity to Seoul has always rendered it a very difficult target, I don't imagine that nuclear weaponry changes this much for the US, at least not in this stage of the game. I think if anything this places pressure on China, because China has been walking a fine line between support for the DPRK, and relations with the US and Japan. Can she continue this bargain, two for one, alliance while North Korea so blatantly disregards the demands of the US and Japan?

It also places the NPT into final jeopardy as this is the first signed state or party to the non-proliferation of the NPT that has in fact gone nuclear, as both Pakistan and India were never parties to the treaty.

The DPRK will not go down by arms, or tanks or "military intervention" , as the articles I posted clearly demonstrate, the wounds were inflicted months ago, she will die the death that all states who are determined by the majority of superpowers to be illegitimate and unwanted powers...economic destruction. Has the DPRK been just that? That is the really interesting question here, has China finally traded something useful to the US? Because it is likely the DPRK would know of this betrayal long before you or I.

EDITED TO ADD:

I am delayed today

Why do we keep on with this silly theory that having a nuclear weapon prevents attacks and secures the state. Obviously it doesn't, The US is likely the number 1 nuclear power and we have been routinely attacked, as has the UK and India.

Well thats certainly possible I suppose. So far the US's misile defence prohgram has had the same degree of luck as NK's long range misile program. But I suppose anything is possible in the future...



I'm sorry, but this is simply in error. Firstly, in terms of 'suitcase bombs' this is a misnomer. There in fact has NEVER ben an atomic bomb which can fit in a suitcase. The closest thing invented was the United States Small Atomic Demolition Munition, which could fit in a large pack or trunk. This was the height of materiel sophistication, and it was not developed until the late 1960s, over 20 years after the US went atomic.

The USSR claimed to have similar weapons, but this was never confirmed. The miniturisation required to make such a weapon is spectacular, it is a very impressive bit of machining way beyond NK, but far more important is the necessary level of purity of the fissile materiel. There needs to be a basic minimum mass of fissile materiel in order to achieve critical mass. As the size of the mini-nuke would prevent the use of a sperecal implosion detonator, a gun model detonator would be required, which is far less efficient. Thus the materiel needs to be exceptionally pure, again something WAY beyond NK. Even then, the maximum yield of the US SADM was about 0.9 kt.

NK can't even put nukes on top of missiles yet, as it is beyind their level of sophistication. I have not even started on the enormous problems of shipping, transportation, shielding and decay (The US SADM had a shelf life of less than a year before decay made critical mass impossible. Then they became very small radiological weapons.) Suitcase nukes in the hands of third world nations are the product of paranoid minds and bad fiction.




Not disagreeing, just pointing out that it has never, ever been used for terrorists to enter the country. The reason being that the limited number of roads are surveyed, that the bush tends to be pretty difficult to pass through with any kind of load, that getting the stuff INTO Canada is insanely difficult... but more than all of those, the main reason by far why going in by Canada (or Mexico) has never happened... why bother? Every terrorist which has ever attacked the US, or been part of an attack has just flown into the US on commercial flights, and not one has ben stopped. All the 9/11 attackers, all the foreign national suspects being held without legal or consular representation in Guantanimo, they ALL just flew into the country. Why bother coming in by Canada when you can come in with pretty much 100% certainty through LAX?

Geez...talking about seeing what you want to see. I read that same article and agree it states (on it's own - it's only an article by someone with an opinion) that Korea has no problem with proliferation, but I can't see anything in there that states Korea would welcome an nuclear exchange with anybody.

It's only premise seems to be the common sense idea that everybody understands - the US is out of control and needs to be held in check. If everybody has nukes, America is not the only superpower it has been. If they (America) tries to invade and occupy a country with nukes, it would cost us one or more cities. That's a hell of a deterrent.

Maybe we need to start a thread to discuss why we think some heads of state are suicidal. Becuae I'd sure like to see some hard evidence of that goofy idea.

Which is EXACTLY why bilateral talks are not in our best interest, and unlikely to lead anywhere productive.



This I would agree with...KJI is not a madman. Much like Saddam before him, he has successfully managed to thumb his nose at us, and the world, for years, while also achieving his aims. Hardly something a fool would be able to accomplish. I think we'd be much better viewing him as a highly intelligent opponent who has so far managed to be one (or two or three?) steps ahead of us in our diplomatic efforts. We may not agree with his methods, or his apparent disregard for his people, or any number of facets of his leadership...but that doesn't make him a madman. In fact, his ability to maintain control in spite of the damage being done to the people of the DPRK is just even more proof of his political skill. Now, it would seem he has also decided to thumb his nose at China, his erstwhile greatest ally. So far, he seems to be getting away with that as well. Certainly not someone to underestimate. I suspect, again much like Saddam, he has a very good sense of just how far we might go in reacting to him, and that he measures his actions very carefully within that framework. History certainly points to this being the case.

From the article:


Perhaps this is a one-sided statement of the MAD doctrine. If so, it's a new spin on an old concept. Seems to me that he's saying North Korea has little to lose in a nuclear exchange with Japan or South Korea. In other words, it isn't mutually assured destruction, it's assured destruction for Japan and South Korea and advantage North Korea.

Vermillion, I'm not sure how you derived your conclusions, but certainly even North Korea these days is more advanced than we were in the 1960s when it comes to miniaturization. By the way, the smallest bombs are indeed suitcase sized--approximately 30 kg all told, including 10 kg of plutonium (16kg of plutonium is the standard critical mass, which can be reduced with a neutron reflector). Shielding is a non-issue since plutonium does not emit significant amounts of ionizing radiation. It emits alpha particles, which are blocked easily.


Qualifying statement: not enough to destroy a city, but only enough to destroy a significant portion of a city. The smallest W54 warhead (the Mk54) weighed in at 23kg with a yield of between 0.1 kton and 0.25 kton. It was used with the M388 Davey Crockett tactical nuke launcher in the 1960s.

The low yield setting was only 10 tons or 0.01 kton. Testing on these started mid 1950s, about a decade after the first nuke was developed. They were deployed throughout the 1960s. All it takes is one nuclear weapons engineer (presumably Russian) to make quantum leaps in this area. You don't need to re-invent the wheel in order to design a car.

Primer on tactical (suitcase) nukes

I'm not saying these weapons are in the North Korean arsenal, but lets not dismiss the possibility either.

So, your defense of this absurd abstract is that 23,000,000 people in North Korea are worthless?

Is that the debate we're really having? Other than 23,000,000 people getting vaporized, North Korea has little to lose in a nuclear exchange? Amlord, do you really beleive that?

No, it is not. It is the position of the author of the article and whackos like him, such as Kim Jong Il.

Everyone isn't the same. Megalomaniacs do not have the same motivations as everyone else. If KJI wants to cement his place in the glorious history of Korea, what better way than a nuclear exchange with the US. He'd be such a hero.

Some people think that way, believe it or not. Who'd have believed in 1939 that the leader of one of the largest democracies in the world would gas 6 million Jews? What rational person would think of that? And yet it happened. And another leader, from a purported democracy, wants to see Halocaust II come to DVD.

Madmen exist. It is my belief that KJI just might be one of them.

In Kim Jung Il's eyes....probably. More importantly, is he willing to treat them as worthless so as to make his nuclear deterrence more viable? I would say absolutely. This shouldn't be shocking...it is exactly the position our government put us in for years. The difference being, as the article states, that N. Korea has very little else to lose, whereas any of its likely opponents would. This has the effect of magnifying N. Korea's deterrence force.

I assume your are refereing to the W-54 Davy Crocket or the MK-54? In the 60's, the Davy Crocket could sustain a blast of 1 kt weighing in at only 23kg to 55kg. A 1kt blast can destroy everything in a 1 mile radius, excluding radiation effects.

Oops, read down further and saw Amlord addressed the same thing. Pardon the repetitiveness.

How could any leader allow his entire population to be vaporized and expect to remain in power? Your argument still makes no sense. Who would KJI be a hero to? The 7 mutants still able to walk on their clubbed feet?

In my opinion, this is what you want to see in a leader such as KJI, but I don't see a shred of evidence he could care less about his general population. Plenty of tyrants (Castro, Saddam, et al) have allowed sanctions to cripple them, but did some things for their citizens better than the US does for it's citizens. I beleive they were/are acting in the best long term interests of thei respective countries. Just because you don't agree with their actions (as nor would I) doesn't mean they would let them all get nuked for political points.

The unfortunate thing is Kim is not concerned with his people or he would have spent what resources he had available to him to feed them. Kim is a man who wants to be remember such as Hilter, Stalin and heck, Napoleon.

Saddam sure had people raped , dipped in acid, and had their arms broken with hammers better than we ever could. But hey, he had the "best long term interest of Iraq" in mind. Or he was nuts, you decide.

Similarly, I'm sure KJI's restrictions on internet access, talking to people outside of the country, and organizing any type of political opposition is simply in the country's best interest. Similarly, forced labor camps where torture is "endemic" (according to Human Rights Watch. Rationing food based upon political loyalty is probably fine if you don't look through our skewed Western prism.



In a country where the political views of one's dead ancestors can affect whether or not you eat today, Kim Jong Il is a calm, sane leader in a storm of opposition.

Testimony by Tom Malinowski before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations


Kim Jong Il is simply misunderstood.

I know that nobody here will defend KJI's behaviors and policies. However, we must look at what this country's policies have been for the past 50 years. This is not simply a Kim Jong Il problem, it is a Communist North Korea problem. The system that they have created there is (in Tom Malinowski's words) "Orwellian".

I do think that Malinowski's suggestion that we sign a peace treaty with North Korea is a wise move. However, the people of the DPRK will never know unless their government wants them to know. If they want to use the US as Eastasia or Eurasia, then they will continue to do so. The DPRK is a real life dystopia.

What will the U.S. response be? What do you think the goals of such a response will be, and do you think it will be effective?
I think the US response should be, and will be, to get tough on the corporations that do business with Kim Jung Il. For example, I've heard that this maniac has over 100 Mercedes Benz cars. When he purchased his luxury items like the luxury cars or the Cognac, nobody at those corporations asked him where he was getting his money from. The Multinational Corporations, the Russian and Chinese governments seem to have no concience when it comes to helping a murderous dictator use international aid to develop nuclear weapons and live a life of luxury.

If the US and the International Community get tough on the corporations that sell luxury items to Kim Jung Il, Kim Jung Il may actually get a taste of the suffering that he helped impose on his people, and thus might become willing to do serious negotiations with the world instead of using blackmail. The important thing is to let Kim Jung know that blackmail will not work. For doing that, the US can send some warships into the area and show Kim Jung that if he tries any military attack, it will be his last act.

Of course Saddam was brutal to people who opposed him. And that is what your example reflects.

But did Saddam pull innocents off the streets and do this to them? Amlord, show me some evidence that Saddam committed these barbaric acts against average citizens minding their own business.

And while we're on the topic of lame talking points, show me where Saddam dropped chemical weapons in downtown Bagdad so he could "gas his own people".

Is that the best argument you have why these leaders would allow their entire populations to be vaporized? Because Saddam brutalized his opposition? Is that it?

Not to rain on any ones parade, I really could care less for the saddam family, but that country pretty much lived in political turmoil for a long time before saddam, the kind that involves violence and the such with dead people. So when saddam took power in Iraq, I really doubted for him to not have a mind for the game if you will, I am sure many in iraq had designs to take him out generically speaking. He made his kingdom last for a bit and even won U.S support in the war against Iran, his big mistake, he let his state of mind take him to Kuwait and the good old conservative U.N acted with instinct automatically making a big pile of dead bodies to stop that, I wonder if oil had anything to do with it...

After the fact its easy for many to say saddam you bad guy, which is true but its not like Iraq was a bed of roses when he made his way to the top, and actually he did managed even if brutally to bring Iraq into some stability, more so then exists now with over a half million dead but again that’s beside the point. About the violence, I am sure that’s what living a basically violent life through the span of such can do to people, I mean looking at bush’s history in Texas, every year more and more on death row were put to death, it just must have gotten easier or something.

I cant really compare the two, I mean saddam listened to Frank Sinatra and liked speed boats and dressed like some English man half the time, and pretty much was hated by radical Islam basically for having a hint of secular thought about his party. Sure the guy in north Korea can easily seem like a mad man, and when I see them on t.v I actually think we are being invaded by people from mars but that’s a bit over the top to say. The only real thing they have in common is north Korea has been an enemy of the U.S for a long time and eventually saddams government want that route too, I do find it funny though that we cant find a trace of any wmd really in Iraq still, past stuff blown up in inspections. Really as much as it might not make sense saddam might have wanted wmd to protect his country from more then just the U.S, after all I am sure Iran did not like him that much, and we pretty much crushed his army, I can only wonder why Iran did not invade really.

DR, I’ll ask a rhetorical question. Do you believe that the world would be safe if everyone had a nuclear weapon? Let's assume the obvious answer is ‘no’. Well....why not? By your argument no one would be crazy enough to take the chance of retaliation, right? Well…we’ll ignore people in the insane asylums. Now would it be okay? How about just every government...uh, oh, there are 193 countries now, but in 1990 there were 166. Looks like new nations are forming. Nukes for all! Would that be a safe call? I think we'd last about as long as a shiny new Lamborghini would last in Liberty City Miami.

The more nuclear weapons there are around, the more of a chance there is that they will fall into the hands of someone who will use them. People don't always act rationally in the scientific sense. They neglect facts, make stupid decisions, and override longterm consequences for short-term gain. In point of fact, if such a weapon gets in the hands of a private entity, retaliation is next to impossible. Retaliation only has the chance of working as a deterrent when such weapons are employed by state or state sponsored entities. With such weapons in the hands of private entities we enter a world of nuclear blackmail. “I’ll nuke some large city unless you do X or give me Y”

I don't have to give you the personality profile of any individual despotic leader and "prove" he is capable of mass slaughter or simply selling the weapons to a rogue nation or entity capable of using it or extorting their ability to use it. Logic would indicate that sometime, somehow, if these weapons are widespread there will be someone mad enough. This is the beginning. If we don't place some severe consequences on KJI's government for this, look for more from around the world. Then, the world will be one big dike and we're the little boy with the finger in one hole next to the DPRK, another here, there....

To review, we signed an agreement to ban all nuclear weapons from the Korean peninsula over ten years ago. KJI agreed to do the same for guarantees against nuclear attack and removal of our nuclear weapons. We kept our end of the agreement and he did not keep his. He has violated each and every agreement on this issue that he has ever made.

The short answer is no. Of course not.

But why would anybody not arm themselves to protect themselves from us? This is a repercussion of the Iraq war that won't go away. We've proven we'll invade in the name of righteousness and the world can go to hell.

Korea kept the plutonium under lock and key. Taking a play out of the Bush playbook, they began enriching uranium. Why should they follow the "spirit" of an agreement? Bush never has and never will. Want proof? Refer to our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. We don't torture because we unilaterally redefined torture. Why can't Korea decide for itself what the agreement meant? That's what we do.

In the end, they kicked out inspectors, reopened the plutonium, and tested a plutonium bomb. Exactly what effect did the uranium enrichment have lately?

Again, I will not assume terrorists are trustworthy or leaders are suicidal to dictate foreign policy. The problem with the world is us. We've made the world much less safe by alienating our allies and instilling more fear in our enemies. This is foreign policy blunder of epic proportions and some are still in denial.

This happened on Bush's watch where Bush has stated a nuclear North Korea is unacceptable. Now he is using methods (UN security council, sanctions) he criticized Clinton for.

Clinton held Korea off for 10 years. If Bush would have used diplomacy instead of calling North Korea and axis of evil and telling the world we reserve the right to invade countries we deem a threat, maybe North Korea would still have inspectors and be a garden variety pain in the butt versus a nuclear threat.

I don't know what you are talking about here. Inspectors were only permitted at one nuclear facility, while the DPRK itself admitted to a surreptitious nuclear program elsewhere. Regarding the agreement's "spirit", the DPRK signed the the North-South Joint Declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in March of 1992, stating that it:

1. Shall not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons.

2. Shall use nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes.

3. Shall not possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities.

What "spirit" are you referring to? They violated it outright, and they did so during Clinton's term.

Didn't they state they were doing it for energy purposes? Do you have proof that their activities had a 0% effect on nuclear energy production?

Mrs. P, I understand your point. I really do. But the damage Bush has done is inescapable. The bottom line is Dubya made us a credible threat. The North Koreans opened up an idle plutonium enrichment program and set off a nuke. All this was done on Bush's watch. The uranium argument is an obfuscation of the damage done. I don't see how it's even a factor thus far.

When Bush parses the words of the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and practically anything that touches him negatively, how can we hold anyone else accountable for doing the same thing? What moral authority do we have to get people to honor spirits of agreements? I may be wrong (so you attorney types can set me straight here), but the spirit of a law is a factor in civil and criminal cases (only a factor - not a guiding issue). Bush has thrown that out the window. If KJI had violated the agreement, but can show their activities could be for peaceful purposes, who are we to cry foul?

The reason I've fallen so far from the apple tree in regards to republicans, is that everything Bush is allowed to do that violates the principles of decent people gives license for anybody else to do the same thing.

We probably agree more than disagree on this issue, but Bush's leadership* has made it impossible to deal with people such as KJI with any moral authority. If he found a way to make his case -however weak - that what he done was legal, he's only done what Bush would do.

*using that term loosely

How did Clinton hold DPRK off for 10 yrs? He was only president for 8.

This is the policy of containment, or what we pretend to be containment under what again we pretend to be achieved through diplomacy. In reality it is just blackmail, I wonder why so many feel the idea of being blackmailed, under constant threat and intimidation is an acceptable existence? The DPRK knows it is not Iraq, it has nothing to do with fear from invasion of the US but instead an ever increasing lack of support from it's "allies" in favor for American trade relations....the world is nothing like it was in the 1940s.

We gave DPRK it's nuclear equipment...it was all part of that containment plan you think took place when again in reality it was a bad deal from the get go, it was bad diplomacy and it was a bad course to put DPRK on. It is hard to negotiate and make promises with those who have no intention of ever playing by the rules or fulfilling the promises they made. I have a hard time imaging we would be where we are now if it was not for everything that occurred before.

Everyone the world over knows Bush will be gone in two years, but not Kim Jong Il, so the idea of comparing our nation's policies and actions as if they were the same personality cults that exist in states like DPRK, where one man's image and ideology does control the state seems really defective. This is not about Bush's policies or Clinton's policies and how each served the state better, I think they go far beyond that as the DPRK has been an enemy of the US through many admins and none of them have ever solved or contained this conflict.

So, your argument is that Bush is such a credible threat that the N. Koreans went back in time to enrich the uranium and plutonium to build this bomb? How did that happen, exactly? Were they simply scared into the past? Or did they develop time travel in addition to nuclear technology? Wonderful strategy, though...the inspectors would never think to look in the past. It's just the implementation I question.

Further, your argument is then that such a weapon is actually completely useless in their hands, because they'd never put their population in danger by using it? Nuclear weapons only work in one and only one situation....if you convince your opponent that you're more willing to lose people in a nuclear exchange than your opponent. You claim here that Kim would never do that. No reason to have the weapon at all then, because if indeed that were the case, he'd never use it. After all, a benevolent dictator like Kim would surely never jeapordize his people that way. I guess all this starvation and misery is then just an attempt to hide his true good nature, thereby rendering the threat credible again? But that then the world should still ignore these signs (and all the others), and trust in his benevolence and desire for only a defensive weapon, and take no action as he's clearly not a threat to anyone?

No, I never suggested he would never use his nukes. I stated that if he were being attacked, he would have nothing to lose and may use nukes. Anything short of that is straight up suicide.

KJI didn't get where he is because he's a fool. He's smart enough not to use WMD as an offensive tool just like any other leader in the world with 2 brain cells. But as a defensive tool, all bets are off.

As far as their development, they unlocked the plutonium on Bush's watch. What the heck does that have to do with going back in time?

As I stated earlier, I tend to agree with this...although I'm not sure I would risk a few million American lives on it, particular in the case of him distributing a weapon to someone else.

Also, the entire concept of what constitutes 'being attacked' comes into play here as well. One could easily conclude that the imposition of sanctions, for example, constitutes an attack...I'm quite sure KJI views it that way. Ditto for any number of situations in which the U.S. (or any other country) seeks to project power into the area. Which brings us back to what I think this is all about ...power projection.



Because they've been working on their nuclear program for decades, and actually had the plutonium back in the 90's. As I linked earlier, in Arms Control Association: N. Korea’s Uranium-Enrichment Efforts.



Further consider that the framework itself would never have been necessary had the N. Koreans not already been working on nuclear weapon technology. With that in mind, I have seen other sources that put the origin of the material likely being used in today's weapons back as early as 1991. The point being, the N. Korean nuclear weapons program has been an issue for quite some time, certainly long before GWB came into office. Which becomes relevant when discussing what to do, as there has been a long history of lack of success in this area, going back long before GWB took office.