What's one to make of those glasses? What’s one to make of these reports?From Bill Gertz at the Washington Times:
“Intelligence photographs of North Korea's nuclear test site showed technicians playing volleyball this week near the tunnel where a nuclear device was unsuccessfully set off on Sunday. The facility where the test took place was identified by U.S. officials as a North Korean science and technology research center near the town of Kilchu and the northeastern coast. Very high-resolution satellite images obtained by the Defense Intelligence Agency showed the volleyball game being played near dormitories at the facility. The Japanese intelligence agency also had access to the photographs, and according to U.S. defense officials, they reported that a sports activity so close to a nuclear site was inconsistent with post-nuclear testing precautions, since the underground tunnel where the test took place was located several hundred yards away.”
And another report:
“Results from an initial air sampling after North Korea’s announced nuclear test showed no evidence of radioactive particles that would be expected from a successful nuclear detonation, a U.S. government intelligence official said Friday.”
Did they, or didn’t they?
Not to worry though. We have a piece of paper signed by North Korea over champagne and a smile and a handshake from Madeleine Albright herself that says that North Korea won't even work on a bomb. And can you imagine the impact sanctions will have on a country where many of its citizens boil grass or bark to avoid starvation. Cargo inspections and a cutoff of military and luxury trade will surely be enough to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. That will hit 'em right where it hurts.
Another note: I find it interesting that many will criticize the administration for unilateralism in its foreign policy, and that might have some merit, but yet, that's exactly what these same critics are calling for in demanding direct negotiations with Pyongyang beyond the six party talks. This is also the same cohort that deplores our policy with Iraq, but would like to see the 82 Airborne in Darfur tomorrow if they had their way. Why is it that they want to deploy the military only when US interests are not involved? What happened to consistency?
Prognosis: Saddle up, here comes the South East Asian arms race.
10 comments:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/13/D8KO2BR00.html
China is the key player. If they don't get tough with North Korea, then things are going to go down the crapper real fast.
We could surgically strike NK’s nuclear facilities, but what if the North Korean Army came south in response? It’s not a question of stopping them, but of at what cost. Is that something we want to become involved in right now, with Afghanistan and Iraq ongoing? It would be a massive campaign to push back the NK army without our involvement in either country, under the best of circumstances.
While I’m sure we would defend South Korea and our 32,000 troops stationed there against any direct threat, I'm not sure about the question of military action against North Korea in regards to the latest missile and nuke tests. I think if we're talking about a successful test of their long range Taepodong-2 missile, the one that can reach US territory in theory, then yes, we should exercise our missile defense system. Any other confrontation with force would risk escalation and would be very ugly on the ground.
These provocative behaviors by Kim Jong Il are designed possibly with two things in mind: gain more material and security concessions from the US, much like what they conned from the Clinton administration, and to strengthen N.K’s position in its dealings with China. North Korea striking out against its neighbors would be a sign of extreme desperation of a regime near collapse, and international aid helps prevent this. Should we stop the aid and hasten the collapse? Or would Kim Jong Il have nothing to loose and everything to gain at that point and commence an artillery barrage of Seoul? What happens when North Korea collapses? Quick explosion or slow implosion?
My sense is most vested nations in the Korea question are willing –if not directly confronted w/ an immediate military threat-- to deal with the current NK regime with economic pressure, isolation, and deterrence while waiting for the slow implosion. I wouldn’t be surprised if Japan and others quietly (or otherwise) go nuclear while waiting.
What is the consensus of the Committee of Grave Concern?
What about the possibility of NK exporting their nuclear wares to terrorist groups, any concern?
I heard someone ask the question the other day, regarding buying nuclear weapons from the North Koreans.... "will they work?... who would buy them?"
Keep in mind that North Korea has exported ballistic missile technology to Iran, Iraq before 2003, Syria, Libya, possibly Pakistan. My guess is if intelligence points to any similar proliferation on nukes, all bets are off on military strikes.
One wonders how the provision for inspecting cargo provided in the latest UN sanctions will be used for preventing technology transfers. The US Navy stopping a North Korean container ship on the high seas could make for some interesting drama...
Global Warming!!!!!!
It's the single most life threatening issue of our times.
Well, that's what I overheard some woman at the barber shop saying she'd learned from Al Gore's film.
"The US Navy stopping a North Korean container ship on the high seas could make for some interesting drama..."
I wouldn't want for it to have to happen, but I'd love to be an invisible, invulnerable fly on the wall when it did happen.
I think the president overheard the conversation:
"If we get intelligence that they're about to transfer a nuclear weapon, we would stop the transfer, and we would deal with the ships that were taking the - or the airplane that was dealing with taking the material to somebody," the president said.
“Loose nukes from the former USSR are more likely to be more accessible (certainly geographically), and probably work better.”
Maybe not. This from James Dunnigan at Strategy Page:
October 15, 2006: Old Russian (Soviet era) nuclear warheads aren't getting onto the black market because you may be able to steal them, but getting them to work is much more difficult. Russian nukes are more high maintenance than most, and after as little as six months without tinkering and replacement of worn parts, the bombs no longer work. There's also a problem with the PAL (Permissive Action Links) codes. Without the PAL, you can't get the nuke to detonate. But more critical are the electronics and batteries, most of which are custom made, and the tritium booster material, which is always rapidly losing its unique ability to "boost" the initial reaction that makes the radioactive material explode.
Of course, if you could assemble a team of nuclear weapons engineers, you might be able to revive a "dead" nuke. It's this prospect that made counter-terrorism officials nervous when al Qaeda recently made a public appeal for scientists and engineers to join its ranks. It's known that some Pakistani nuclear weapons experts have a favorable opinion of Islamic radicalism, but these fellows are closely watched. Bottom line; it's not impossible for Islamic terrorists to get their hands on a Russian nuke, that is in working order. But it is very difficult.
Post a Comment