Comments on: BREAKING: Reports of North Korea Nuke Test http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/ When I wake up I read the Bible and the newspaper... because I want to know what both sides are up to. Sat, 06 Sep 2008 04:39:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Texas Rainmaker » A Glimpse Into Another Clinton Administration http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-108274 Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:33:45 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-108274 [...] Her advisors include someone who negotiated a deal with North Korea to provide them nuclear fuel which they used to build weapons, someone who traded campaign donations for burial rights at Arlington National Cemetary from someone who never served in the military , and someone who pled guilty to stealing and destroying classified documents detailing the response to terror threats. [...] […] Her advisors include someone who negotiated a deal with North Korea to provide them nuclear fuel which they used to build weapons, someone who traded campaign donations for burial rights at Arlington National Cemetary from someone who never served in the military , and someone who pled guilty to stealing and destroying classified documents detailing the response to terror threats. […]

]]> by: endorendil http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13696 Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:45:01 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13696 "April 1997: A South Korean newspaper publishes an essay written by a high-ranking North Korean defector, in which he implies that North Korea has nuclear weapons and the ability to use them against South Korea and Japan." Which was clearly debunked by the UN monitors. Defectors have a bad track record in this matter, don't you agree? And you're saying that NK went through some kind of charade over the last 3 years, pretending to build a plutonium bomb while in reality it already had one for years? "In 1998, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen said plutonium had been detected at suspected nuclear weapons production facilities in North Korea. The State Department confirmed there was “credible evidence” of such." Leaks might have existed before. But constant monitoring proves that no activity was going on at either the reactor or the rods. "March 1999: A U.S. Department of Energy intelligence report claims that North Korea is working on uranium enrichment techniques." Yes, they were, and it was not prohibited under the MoU. It was also a complete dead end. They still don't have the capability to make uranium bombs. "July 1999: A U.S. intelligence report claims that North Korea has between 25 and 30 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium, enough to make several nuclear warheads." Yes, exactly. It was under lock and key, in those 8000 rods that they started reprocessing in 2003. The entire point of the MoU was to keep that plutonium from being used. "October 2000: The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assesses that North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons." Same as before. They had the plutonium, but it was inside the rods. It needed to be reprocessed, which is the step that the Clinton administration successfully halted. TR, Clinton did manage to control NK, which is something Bush hasn't even tried to do. Republicans have a horrid track record in this matter anyway. Reagan allowed NK to build the reactor. Bush senior allowed them to build the reprocessing plant. Thank goodness that Clinton stopped them shortly after becoming president, or they would have had nukes ten years ago... “April 1997: A South Korean newspaper publishes an essay written by a high-ranking North Korean defector, in which he implies that North Korea has nuclear weapons and the ability to use them against South Korea and Japan.”

Which was clearly debunked by the UN monitors. Defectors have a bad track record in this matter, don’t you agree? And you’re saying that NK went through some kind of charade over the last 3 years, pretending to build a plutonium bomb while in reality it already had one for years?

“In 1998, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen said plutonium had been detected at suspected nuclear weapons production facilities in North Korea. The State Department confirmed there was “credible evidence” of such.”

Leaks might have existed before. But constant monitoring proves that no activity was going on at either the reactor or the rods.

“March 1999: A U.S. Department of Energy intelligence report claims that North Korea is working on uranium enrichment techniques.”

Yes, they were, and it was not prohibited under the MoU. It was also a complete dead end. They still don’t have the capability to make uranium bombs.

“July 1999: A U.S. intelligence report claims that North Korea has between 25 and 30 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium, enough to make several nuclear warheads.”

Yes, exactly. It was under lock and key, in those 8000 rods that they started reprocessing in 2003. The entire point of the MoU was to keep that plutonium from being used.

“October 2000: The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assesses that North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons.”

Same as before. They had the plutonium, but it was inside the rods. It needed to be reprocessed, which is the step that the Clinton administration successfully halted.

TR, Clinton did manage to control NK, which is something Bush hasn’t even tried to do. Republicans have a horrid track record in this matter anyway. Reagan allowed NK to build the reactor. Bush senior allowed them to build the reprocessing plant. Thank goodness that Clinton stopped them shortly after becoming president, or they would have had nukes ten years ago…

]]> by: Texas Rainmaker http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13679 Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:57:40 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13679 "<b><i>"Failure" =1994-2002 -- Era of Clinton 'Agreed Framework': No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.</i></b>" Oh, you're right. The Clinton administration was a roaring success on this. <a href="http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/nkorea/nuke-miss-chron.htm" rel="nofollow">April 1997</a>: A South Korean newspaper publishes an essay written by a high-ranking North Korean defector, in which he implies that <b>North Korea has nuclear weapons</b> and the ability to use them against South Korea and Japan. In 1998, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen <a href="http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9811/19/north.korea/index.html" rel="nofollow">said</a> <b>plutonium had been detected at suspected nuclear weapons production facilities in North Korea</b>. The State Department confirmed there was "credible evidence" of such. Also in <a href="http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9808/17/nkorea.nuclear/" rel="nofollow">1998</a>: <blockquote>A massive underground complex detected in North Korea could be used to revive the country's frozen nuclear weapons program, The New York Times reported Monday. <b>White House and U.S. Defense Department officials fear the complex is part of an effort to renege on a 1994 agreement</b> for North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions in exchange for billions of dollars in Western aid, officials privy to the information told the Times on condition of anonymity.</blockquote> March 1999: A U.S. Department of Energy intelligence report claims that <b>North Korea is working on uranium enrichment techniques</b>. July 1999: A U.S. intelligence report claims that <b>North Korea has between 25 and 30 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium, enough to make several nuclear warheads</b>. October 2000: The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assesses that <b>North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons</b>. Just a smashing success. Maybe the documents Sandy Berger stole and destroyed were Achievement Awards for this bang up job with North Korea. ““Failure” =1994-2002 — Era of Clinton ‘Agreed Framework’: No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.”

Oh, you’re right. The Clinton administration was a roaring success on this.

April 1997: A South Korean newspaper publishes an essay written by a high-ranking North Korean defector, in which he implies that North Korea has nuclear weapons and the ability to use them against South Korea and Japan.

In 1998, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen said plutonium had been detected at suspected nuclear weapons production facilities in North Korea. The State Department confirmed there was “credible evidence” of such.

Also in 1998:

A massive underground complex detected in North Korea could be used to revive the country’s frozen nuclear weapons program, The New York Times reported Monday.

White House and U.S. Defense Department officials fear the complex is part of an effort to renege on a 1994 agreement for North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions in exchange for billions of dollars in Western aid, officials privy to the information told the Times on condition of anonymity.

March 1999: A U.S. Department of Energy intelligence report claims that North Korea is working on uranium enrichment techniques.

July 1999: A U.S. intelligence report claims that North Korea has between 25 and 30 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium, enough to make several nuclear warheads.

October 2000: The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assesses that North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons.

Just a smashing success. Maybe the documents Sandy Berger stole and destroyed were Achievement Awards for this bang up job with North Korea.

]]> by: Nate http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13674 Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:52:13 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13674 The conservative version of history: "Failure" =1994-2002 -- Era of Clinton 'Agreed Framework': No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb. "Success" = 2002-2006 -- Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated. From Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010311.php The conservative version of history:

“Failure” =1994-2002 — Era of Clinton ‘Agreed Framework’: No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.

“Success” = 2002-2006 — Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.

From Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010311.php

]]> by: endorendil http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13665 Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:48:18 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13665 SouthernRoots, it really is much more difficult to do. NK has had plutonium-producing reactors since Reagan's days, which has generated about 8000 spent fuel rods before it was mothballed under the MoU and put under UN seal and monitoring. They actually didn't break the seals up until 2003. All they needed to do was to start reprocessing the rods to extract the plutonium. That's trivial compared to enriching uranium, which is what the Iranians are doing, and what NK was doing after 1994 (since it wasn't prohibited by the MoU). Despite their best efforts, and help from Pakistan's Khan, NK isn't even close to producing a uranium bomb, 10 years later. That's how much harder it is to produce a uranium bomb. Incidentally, Iran is going at a pace that is compatible with peaceful purposes (even if that isn't it's ultimate goal). If it wanted a quick bomb, it would build a small Magnox reactor, produce plutonium and use that. SouthernRoots, it really is much more difficult to do.

NK has had plutonium-producing reactors since Reagan’s days, which has generated about 8000 spent fuel rods before it was mothballed under the MoU and put under UN seal and monitoring. They actually didn’t break the seals up until 2003. All they needed to do was to start reprocessing the rods to extract the plutonium. That’s trivial compared to enriching uranium, which is what the Iranians are doing, and what NK was doing after 1994 (since it wasn’t prohibited by the MoU). Despite their best efforts, and help from Pakistan’s Khan, NK isn’t even close to producing a uranium bomb, 10 years later. That’s how much harder it is to produce a uranium bomb.

Incidentally, Iran is going at a pace that is compatible with peaceful purposes (even if that isn’t it’s ultimate goal). If it wanted a quick bomb, it would build a small Magnox reactor, produce plutonium and use that.

]]> by: WintheLog :: Progress Report: Six Years of Failure :: October :: 2006 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13649 Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:45:51 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13649 [...] DRAWING RED LINES: With few good options left,  the Bush administration is now forced to consider options it originally  rejected. Yesterday, Bush "_seemed  to draw a sharp line that he warned Pyongyang not to cross_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR200…) ," telling  reporters that the "transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to  states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United  States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable of the consequences of  such action." But these clear warning lines — employed by the Clinton  administration to prevent North Korea from going too far and converting fuel  into bombs — were previously rejected by the Bush administration. National  Security Advisor Stephen Hadley once stated that "_red lines make no  sense in North Korea’s case_ (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/03/news/nuke.php) , because they are just an invitation to step  over them." The right-wing’s knee-jerk reaction to _blame_ (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/10/no_korea_drop…)   _President_ (http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-ko…)   _Clinton_ (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/10/north-korea-clinton/)   and reject his administration’s policies out-of-hand is no longer realistic and  now more dangerous than ever. Under the 1994 "_Agreed  Framework_ (http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/NSAG_WorstWeaponsinWorstHands_July20…) ," North Korea agreed to shut down its major nuclear reactor, stop  construction of two nuclear power plants, and subject spent nuclear fuel to  international inspection. In return, Japan and South Korea agreed to build two  light-water reactors (far less of a proliferation concern) and the United States  would supply North Korea with heavy oil to make up for the lost energy from its  shuttered nuclear plants. Once the light-water reactors were completed, their  existing nuclear reactors were to be dismantled. The deal wasn’t perfect, but  during the Clinton administration, _North  Korea didn’t make any nuclear bombs_ (http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/NSAG_WorstWeaponsinWorstHands_July20…) . [...] […] DRAWING RED LINES: With few good options left,  the Bush administration is now forced to consider options it originally  rejected. Yesterday, Bush "_seemed  to draw a sharp line that he warned Pyongyang not to cross_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR200…) ," telling  reporters that the "transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to  states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United  States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable of the consequences of  such action." But these clear warning lines — employed by the Clinton  administration to prevent North Korea from going too far and converting fuel  into bombs — were previously rejected by the Bush administration. National  Security Advisor Stephen Hadley once stated that "_red lines make no  sense in North Korea’s case_ (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/03/news/nuke.php) , because they are just an invitation to step  over them." The right-wing’s knee-jerk reaction to _blame_ (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/10/no_korea_drop…)   _President_ (http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-ko…)   _Clinton_ (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/10/north-korea-clinton/)   and reject his administration’s policies out-of-hand is no longer realistic and  now more dangerous than ever. Under the 1994 "_Agreed  Framework_ (http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/NSAG_WorstWeaponsinWorstHands_July20…) ," North Korea agreed to shut down its major nuclear reactor, stop  construction of two nuclear power plants, and subject spent nuclear fuel to  international inspection. In return, Japan and South Korea agreed to build two  light-water reactors (far less of a proliferation concern) and the United States  would supply North Korea with heavy oil to make up for the lost energy from its  shuttered nuclear plants. Once the light-water reactors were completed, their  existing nuclear reactors were to be dismantled. The deal wasn’t perfect, but  during the Clinton administration, _North  Korea didn’t make any nuclear bombs_ (http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/NSAG_WorstWeaponsinWorstHands_July20…) . […]

]]> by: SouthernRoots http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13612 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:17:34 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13612 <i>As you say, in 1999 and 2000 the facility was visited and found to have no signs of illicit nuclear research. This inspection was possible because of the MoU. That means Clinton’s approach was working.</i> So, based on endorendil's statement, we should believe that, with virtually no natural resources, an economy in dire straits, and millions of starving citizens, North Korea was able to create a nuclear device, suitable for testing, in less than 5 years (because we know they didn't start any of this until after Jan 21, 2001)? Uh-huh. So, with Irans greater wealth and supposedly fewer domestic problems, and no MoU - why haven't they tested their nuclear device yet? Surely, if North Korea can do such amazing things in 5 years, why can't the Iranians? As you say, in 1999 and 2000 the facility was visited and found to have no signs of illicit nuclear research. This inspection was possible because of the MoU. That means Clinton’s approach was working.

So, based on endorendil’s statement, we should believe that, with virtually no natural resources, an economy in dire straits, and millions of starving citizens, North Korea was able to create a nuclear device, suitable for testing, in less than 5 years (because we know they didn’t start any of this until after Jan 21, 2001)?

Uh-huh.

So, with Irans greater wealth and supposedly fewer domestic problems, and no MoU - why haven’t they tested their nuclear device yet? Surely, if North Korea can do such amazing things in 5 years, why can’t the Iranians?

]]> by: endorendil http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13592 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:59:21 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13592 TR, both China and North Korea obsessively obey their international legal obligations. If the US had replaced the old reactors with safer new ones, NK would not have been able to use the breach of the MoU as an excuse to leave the NPT. Of course, it also would not have had access to the fissile material to build its bombs. And the US would have shown that it can be negotiated with in good faith. As you say, in 1999 and 2000 the facility was visited and found to have no signs of illicit nuclear research. This inspection was possible because of the MoU. That means Clinton's approach was working. Sure, US intelligence agencies thought that they might be doing stuff anyway. We know how reliable they are, don't we? They never knew India was building a bomb until it exploded. Same in Pakistan. The reverse in Iraq and North Korea (at least when they wrote the assessments in '99 and '00). They're 0 for 4. TR, both China and North Korea obsessively obey their international legal obligations. If the US had replaced the old reactors with safer new ones, NK would not have been able to use the breach of the MoU as an excuse to leave the NPT. Of course, it also would not have had access to the fissile material to build its bombs. And the US would have shown that it can be negotiated with in good faith.

As you say, in 1999 and 2000 the facility was visited and found to have no signs of illicit nuclear research. This inspection was possible because of the MoU. That means Clinton’s approach was working. Sure, US intelligence agencies thought that they might be doing stuff anyway. We know how reliable they are, don’t we? They never knew India was building a bomb until it exploded. Same in Pakistan. The reverse in Iraq and North Korea (at least when they wrote the assessments in ‘99 and ‘00). They’re 0 for 4.

]]> by: Leaning Straight Up http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13591 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:16:54 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13591 <strong>Was the bomb a dud or a hoax?</strong> Is Kim Jong Il a fraud?  A Fake?  Was his nuclear test a fraud? That is the question being raised in some circles. U.S. doubts Korean test was nuclear U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did no... Was the bomb a dud or a hoax?

Is Kim Jong Il a fraud?  A Fake?  Was his nuclear test a fraud?
That is the question being raised in some circles.
U.S. doubts Korean test was nuclear
U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did no…

]]> by: Texas Rainmaker http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13492 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:06:31 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/10/08/breaking-reports-of-north-korea-nuke-test/#comment-13492 Charlie, I don't dispute that the reduction of tax rates results in a larger cut for the top earners. It's simple math. Reduce the tax liability by 10%, it results in a $100 savings for the guy making $1,000, but it results in a $10,000 savings for the guy making $100,000. And that doesn't even get into the progressive nature of our tax system, which results in a much larger negative impact on the top earners. Such a redistribution of wealth system smacks of socialism. That's not what the American dream is all about. As for your point about the credit card analogy, I understood it. And I agreed that spending is out of control. And I agree it ought to be cut significantly and immediately. But I don't think those of you complaining about the spending are willing to make the cuts to entitlement programs and other wasteful spending that is needed. Or are you one of those thinking we ought to eliminate the "war machine" that defends our way of life? Charlie,
I don’t dispute that the reduction of tax rates results in a larger cut for the top earners. It’s simple math. Reduce the tax liability by 10%, it results in a $100 savings for the guy making $1,000, but it results in a $10,000 savings for the guy making $100,000. And that doesn’t even get into the progressive nature of our tax system, which results in a much larger negative impact on the top earners.

Such a redistribution of wealth system smacks of socialism. That’s not what the American dream is all about.

As for your point about the credit card analogy, I understood it. And I agreed that spending is out of control. And I agree it ought to be cut significantly and immediately. But I don’t think those of you complaining about the spending are willing to make the cuts to entitlement programs and other wasteful spending that is needed. Or are you one of those thinking we ought to eliminate the “war machine” that defends our way of life?

]]>