Does North Korea really have the nuclear bomb?

ullu

New Member
Does North Korea really have the nuclear bomb?

Beijing: As negotiators from six countries prepare to sit down for talks in Beijing Wednesday on North Korea's nuclear ambitions, one question remains unanswered: Does Pyongyang really have the bomb?
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13399509
The Stalinist state's plans are a top concern from Washington to Moscow, but if its nuclear program is in its infancy, as some believe, it could in fact be a weapon of mass distraction, diverting attention from more important matters.

"The likelihood is they don't have any nuclear weapons," said Tim Beal, a North Korea expert at New Zealand's Victoria University of Wellington.

"The question then is are they making any progress, and the answer is we don't know, but probably not," he said.

According to widely cited estimates, North Korea has enough weapons-grade plutonium for at least a couple of nuclear devices, but it is not clear it knows what to do with it.

Siegfried Hecker, a US atomic expert who visited the controversial Yongbyon nuclear research complex in January, said he was far from certain North Korea was able to build a plutonium-based nuclear bomb.

"I saw nothing and spoke to no one who could convince me that they could build a nuclear device with (plutonium), and that they could weaponize such a device into a delivery vehicle," he said in public testimony after his return.

Even if North Korea has gone nuclear, the trick will be to develop missiles that can carry a payload of at least 500 kilograms (1,100 pounds), the minimum if they are to deliver nuclear weapons, according to observers.

"Personally speaking, I tend to think they may have developed a bomb," said Yang Bojia, a Korea expert at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, affiliated with the Ministry of State Security in Beijing.

"But it's probably not sophisticated enough to be put on a missile."

Even though North Korea may not be quite there yet, its ballistic missile research is making rapid strides, triggering fears of the first credible threat to the US mainland since the end of the Cold War.

The Taepodong-2 missile can "target parts of the US with a nuclear weapon-sized payload in the two-stage configuration," Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, has said.

The missile has a current range estimated at between 3,500 and 6,000 kilometers (2,190 and 3,750 miles), putting Hawaii and Alaska within reach. A slightly more sophisticated version could make all of North America a target.

Even without an advanced missile capability, North Korea could still theoretically be able to deploy a nuclear bomb by lower-tech means.

"They could put it in a rowboat and sail into New York harbor. They could put it onto a truck or onto a train," said Robert Karniol, Asia Pacific editor for Jane's Defence Weekly. "But of course, it's not as efficient as a ballistic missile."

While North Korea's nuclear advances are a matter of dispute, its arsenal of biological and chemical weapons is much better established.

But many observers believe they are mainly intended for a limited set of scenarios.

They could be used to retaliate against a US attack, or in a dying regime's last-ditch effort to preserve itself with a desperate assault on the south.

Few analysts seem to believe the idea of North Korea as a major potential proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.

"They can only proliferate if they've got nuclear weapons," said Victoria University's Beal.

Possible North Korean sales of atomic bombs to terrorists appear to be a major US worry.

However, Pyongyang's diplomats are more likely to use this option for blackmail, threatening to equip terrorists if the United States pushes them too hard, analysts said.

This view is finding strong support in the lack of any evidence that North Korea has ever sold its chemical and biological weapons to other countries, even though it has had them for years.

"They have a special purpose for those weapons, and that purpose isn't commercial," said Karniol.

"Despite the desperate need for hard currency, the cost of engaging in the politics of proliferation seems to counterbalance the commercial benefit."


i dont think nk has any bomb... its just bluffing! but why isnt bush team going after nk like they went after iraq and now iran? :?
 

joker

New Member
"They could put it in a rowboat and sail into New York harbor. They could put it onto a truck or onto a train," said Robert Karniol, Asia Pacific editor for Jane's Defence Weekly. "But of course, it's not as efficient as a ballistic missile."
JDW has lost all credibility whatsoever. What happended? have the AEI taken over?

The question of NK possessing the bomb is irrelevant. They've successfully engaged the 5 "mediators" and US in a nuclear brinkmanship that prevented any rationale strategy to counter and even roll back NKs nuclear ambitions when this whole thing blew up in the first place. Bush adding NK to his axis of evil speech didnt really help things in the first place. Even if they dont have the bomb nobody outside little Kim's possee know that. So we're just sitting in the dark guessing and too scared to piss little Kim off just in case he does have the bomb. God forbid but if NK were to let one rip in anger then it'd be confined to Korean peninsula.

I have a gut feeling that the Pentagon and Bush Administration want out literally and roll back their defensive posture to Okinawa and the half a dozen other bases they in Se Asia.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The US is repositioning in Asia - quite dramatically and as early as possible, in fact the US is redefining its bases world wide, you only have to look at the amount of base changes that I post on this forum to get a very clear idea that they are redefining their involvement worldwide.

As for North Korea, the last thing they would want to do is go through a launch code sequence. IMHO the US would react immediately. China also knows this as well, hence their motivation to manage their cranky little neighbour. Nuke fallout doesn't recognise borders.

The fact that China has abandoned it's subliminal approach to having a more overt response speaks wonders for the degree of potential threat.

The fact that the US is more than willing for China to take a primary role also shows how sensitive they consider the stability of that region is.
 

mysterious

New Member
U're quite right about that gf. The U.S. has been doing a lot of thinking military wise specially in the recent years for its future plans! :cop
 
Top