Atomic Activity in North Korea Raises Concerns

[zimv20]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/international/asia/12nuke.html?hp)


WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 - President Bush and his top advisers have received intelligence reports in recent days describing a confusing series of actions by North Korea that some experts believe could indicate the country is preparing to conduct its first test explosion of a nuclear weapon, according to senior officials with access to the intelligence.

While the indications were viewed as serious enough to warrant a warning to the White House, American intelligence agencies appear divided about the significance of the new North Korean actions, much as they were about the evidence concerning Iraq's alleged weapons stockpiles.

Some analysts in agencies that were the most cautious about the Iraq findings have cautioned that they do not believe the activity detected in North Korea in the past three weeks is necessarily the harbinger of a test. A senior scientist who assesses nuclear intelligence says the new evidence "is not conclusive," but is potentially worrisome.

If successful, a test would end a debate that stretches back more than a decade over whether North Korea has a rudimentary arsenal, as it has boasted in recent years. Some analysts also fear that a test could change the balance of power in Asia, perhaps leading to a new nuclear arms race there.

In interviews on Friday and Saturday, senior officials were reluctant to provide many details of the new activities they have detected, but some of the information appears to have come from satellite intelligence.

One official with access to the intelligence called it "a series of indicators of increased activity that we believe would be associated with a test," saying that the "likelihood" of a North Korean test had risen significantly in just the past four weeks.

It was that changed assessment that led to the decision to give an update to President Bush, the officials said.

The activities included the movement of materials around several suspected test sites, including one near a location where intelligence agencies reported last year that conventional explosives were being tested that could compress a plutonium core and set off a nuclear explosion. But officials have not seen the classic indicators of preparations at a test site, in which cables are laid to measure an explosion in a deep test pit.


While the intelligence community's experience in Iraq colors how it assesses threats in places like North Korea, the comparisons are inexact. Inspectors have seen and measured the raw material that the North could turn into bomb fuel; the only question is whether they have done so in the 20 months since arms inspectors were ousted. While Iraq denied it has weapons, the North boasts about them - perhaps too loudly, suggesting they may have less than they say.

On the other hand, the divisions within the administration over how to deal with North Korea mirrors some of the old debate about Iraq. Hard-liners in the Pentagon and the vice president's office have largely opposed making concessions of any kind in negotiations, and Vice President Dick Cheney has warned that "time is not on our side" to deal with the question. The State Department has pressed the case for negotiation, and for offering the North a face-saving way out. While the State Department has won the argument in recent times, how to deal with the North is a constant battle inside the administration.


Mr. Bush, while declaring he would not "tolerate" a nuclear North Korea, has insisted that his approach of involving China, Russia, Japan and South Korea in a new round of talks with the North is the only reasonable way to force the country to disarm. He has refused to set the kind of deadline for disarmament that he set for Saddam Hussein.

When asked in an interview with The New York Times two weeks ago to define what he meant by "tolerate," he said: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators and tyrants. I think it's important for us to continue to lead coalitions that are firm and strong, in sending messages to both the North Koreans and the Iranians."

[Thanatoast]

When asked in an interview with The New York Times two weeks ago to define what he meant by "tolerate," he said: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators and tyrants. !?! What a hypocritical asshole. I'm sorry, but it gets more difficult to be civil when talking about Bush every time he speaks. That the sewege that spills from his mouth still fools half the country is incredibly infuriating.

[winwintoo]

May I ask who Bush is to say he will not "tolerate" a nuclear North Korea or any other country for that matter when he himself sits on such a big arsenal.

I'm getting more uncomfortable by the day sitting here next door to the US of A. I like America, and I like Americans, I can't figure out though how you've tolerated letting that man take over your country and pull of the c**p he has in the past 4 years and it looks like he might do it again.

The world is a dangerous place right now, not because North Korea has nuclear weapons, but because G.W.Bush thinks he is all powerful and it's his responsibility to do something about it.

Maybe it's time he learned that he's not "president of the world" and somebody should show him a globe and show him just how small the USA is in the overall scheme of things and how few of the world's population *elected* him (assuming that anyone actually voted for him and that whole election wasn't rigged)

I worry about you folks. Your poor are being sent off to slaughter in Iraq, while the rich are getting richer from the lucrative *recontruction* projects in that same country. I guess he's solving two problems with one war - reducing the population of marginalized youth, and increasing the wealth.

Take care, m

[skunk]

It was ever thus.

[Thomas Veil]

!?! What a hypocritical asshole.
Heh. I was just reading a comment by James Carville the other day where he enumerated some of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq: (1) the country is run by a madman (2) who has nuclear materials that could be used to make a bomb (3) and is developing the missile technology to deliver it.

Carville's point was that two of those three things ultimately did not describe Iraq, though they do describe North Korea. So which country did Bush choose to invade?

[winwintoo]

Heh. I was just reading a comment by James Carville the other day where he enumerated some of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq: (1) the country is run by a madman (2) who has nuclear materials that could be used to make a bomb (3) and is developing the missile technology to deliver it.

Carville's point was that two of those three things ultimately did not describe Iraq, though they do describe North Korea. So which country did Bush choose to invade?

And all three of them (unfortunately) describe the USA!! Well, actually #2 and #3 are technically incorrect since the US already has the bombs and the technology to deliver them and currently they have a madman at the helm with his finger on the trigger.

Getting back to Carville's remarks, Bush wouldn't invade North Korea, there's no oil there, but Russia and China might think he's too close to their oil and they have more poor people to send into the fight than Bush does and that's really what it comes down to as he's finding out in Iraq.

It's interesting that soldiers are refusing to re-enlist and quitting the national guard and others are opting to drive a truck rather and follow the carrot of a "free" education paid for by the armed services. People like Bush will never catch on though. he thinks wearing a ratty t-shirt down on the ranch makes him one of the "people" - well hopefully the people are starting to see through that.

Take care, M

[zimv20]

Bush wouldn't invade North Korea, there's no oil there, but Russia and China might think he's too close to their oil
and NK has a capable military. any action by the US would likely precipitate Seoul being shelled and run over within hours.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Heh. I was just reading a comment by James Carville the other day where he enumerated some of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq: (1) the country is run by a madman (2) who has nuclear materials that could be used to make a bomb (3) and is developing the missile technology to deliver it.

Carville's point was that two of those three things ultimately did not describe Iraq, though they do describe North Korea. So which country did Bush choose to invade?

Only because his advisors said that Iraq would be a cake walk. Guess what, Bush tripped....

[IJ Reilly]

Meanwhile, in the other evil axis...

Iran Threat Grows Amid U.S. Divisions

The lack of consensus on how to deal with Tehran's nuclear program is complicated by allies' opposing views and the stakes involved.

WASHINGTON — Deep divisions within the Bush administration are hampering U.S. efforts to defuse the growing nuclear weapons threat posed by Iran, a cross-section of Middle East specialists say.

The differences — between those advocating a tough, confrontational approach and those convinced that engagement on a variety of issues is the best way to stop Tehran's quest for a nuclear weapon — are so strong that nearly three years after President Bush declared Iran part of an "axis of evil" threatening the free world, his administration still has no widely accepted approach to the problem.

The search for common ground has been complicated by a variety of factors, including the sharply opposing views among America's closest allies and the stakes involved. Arms control specialists and regional analysts argue that a nuclear-armed Iran could endanger Israel's existence, touch off a regional arms race in an already unstable Middle East and — because of Iran's medium- and long-range missile technology acquired from North Korea — very quickly pose direct threats to Europe and the United States.

"It's a potential nightmare," said Joseph Cirincione, who specializes in nonproliferation issues at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

...

Although debate goes on about how best to deal with Tehran, there is no disagreement, either within the administration or among America's allies, that Iran's effort to build a nuclear weapon must be stopped.

White House officials insist that the administration is united on the immediate need to work with European allies to head off Iran's nuclear weapons production through diplomacy. The absence of an agreed overall strategy on Iran means little when dealing with the day-to-day realities of the issue, they say.

"It's typical of those in Washington who think a piece of paper or another meeting is the answer to the problem," National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said. "We certainly have a policy. We're willing to engage Iran on issues of mutual concern in the appropriate manner, if the president decides."

Others express frustration at what they describe as a lack of depth in U.S. policy.

Two experts outside the administration — one from either side of the ideological divide, neither of whom wanted to be named — said the lack of what one of them called a "coherent plan" had undercut America's ability to shape events on Iran.

"There's no effective policy on the nuclear issue, so there's no coordination with the major powers," said one specialist, who favored engagement. "It's not good at all."

The other said the Bush policy sometimes seemed to go no further than rhetoric.

"There are those who insist we keep trying a diplomatic approach, others believe that hasn't worked, so you have the president standing up there and saying a nuclear Iran is intolerable, but not being exactly specific about how to go about preventing that from happening," this specialist said.

Some blame national security advisor Condoleezza Rice for failing to shape a comprehensive policy, whereas others think those favoring engagement have blocked efforts to produce such a policy in the belief their ideas would not survive.

Some who have worked within the administration on the Iran issue say the absence of an agreed strategy is distracting.

"When you don't have a policy, this is where the debate is; it's a lightning rod," said Michael Rubin, who dealt with Iran at the Pentagon's main policy unit before moving to the conservative American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington last spring.

...

Despite such accounts, some respected American voices in foreign affairs caution that the U.S. must resist what one called "strong-arm tactics" against Iran.

"This would not just unite the fundamentalist mullahs and the democratic opposition [in Iran] against the U.S., but would give Iran the chance to leverage Shia populations in Iraq and Afghanistan against us," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as President Carter's national security advisor. "It would be disastrous for the United States."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-irannuke12sep12,1,3042575.story

[Leo Hubbard]

Getting back to Carville's remarks, Bush wouldn't invade North Korea, there's no oil there, but Russia and China might think he's too close to their oil and they have more poor people to send into the fight than Bush does and that's really what it comes down to as he's finding out in Iraq.

I liked ZimV's answer on this. and NK has a capable military. any action by the US would likely precipitate Seoul being shelled and run over within hours.
Additionally, in this specific case, it would be better that if anything is done about N. Korea both S. Korea and China should lead the assault as they are the parties directly affected by N. Korea's nuclear technology. They are also the parties who would most likely be the recipient of any nuclear bombardment regardless the makeup of the force that attacks N. Korea.

The idea is to stop, if possible, countries from gaining nukes before they gain them. Going to war against someone who already has them, isn't necessarily a bright idea. I personally, didn't want Saddam with that kind of power in his hands. The power to attack Israel and keep the US from protecting Israel through the use of threats of their nuclear powers.

It's interesting that soldiers are refusing to re-enlist and quitting the national guard and others are opting to drive a truck rather and follow the carrot of a "free" education paid for by the armed services. People like Bush will never catch on though. he thinks wearing a ratty t-shirt down on the ranch makes him one of the "people" - well hopefully the people are starting to see through that.

Take care, M
Here you need to recheck your facts. While I'm sure the NG is probably having re-enlistment problems due to the simple fact that those who join the NG are simply weekend warriors with jobs and going to war kind of messes that up. On the other hand Army, Marine, Navy, Air Force retention rates are up. You can do a simple search on this very forum to find old posts linking to news reports stating such facts.

A new story.

With the US military under greater strain today than it has been for decades, turning around units back from the front is an urgent challenge. Tens of thousands of tanks and other vehicles are encrusted with desert sand and dust, and weary troops are eager for home. Yet the demands of fighting, while exacting a toll, also benefit armed-force preparedness in ways that are often overlooked, senior Army officers and military analysts say.

War-zone deployments hone combat and leadership skills, improve unit cohesion and often boost retention rates, at least initially. At the same time, they test the military's equipment and organization, acting as a catalyst for change.

"The majority of the Army will have a combat patch for the first time since Vietnam," says General Blount, now in charge of Army readiness, at his Pentagon office. "We were already the best army in the world. Now we're the most experienced."

Real-world missions are nurturing leaders and building postwar peacekeeping skills that are difficult to train for, military officials and experts say. "It's hard to get an unruly mob to train with," says one US official who specializes in ground forces.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0120/p02s02-usmi.html

Moreover, although the deployments are placing unprecedented demands on the all-volunteer military, recruitment and retention are generally holding up, official statistics show. In the 2003 fiscal year, all four services met their recruiting and retention goals, with the exception of a retention shortfall in the Army reserves.

Indeed, contrary to popular belief, deployments have historically had a positive effect on retention, at least initially.

Some units in Iraq and Afghanistan report high retention rates. For example, mobilized Naval Reservists have a higher rate of retention than those not called up, naval reserve chief Vice Admiral John Totushek told a May 2003 hearing. At the same hearing, the Army National Guard Bureau chief, Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, said he saw no evidence of a long-term recruiting or retention problem, adding, "so far ... it's been quite the opposite."

Studies in the 1990s also showed that "units deployed on initial contingency operations exhibit higher rates of retention," although prolonged deployments could have an adverse impact, according to Pentagon retention officials. Still, no one can say for sure how far the all-volunteer force can be pushed, and military officials are watching manpower figures carefully. "The longer we operate it at the tempos we have, the greater the challenge will be," the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, warned in November.

Indeed, since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks there has been a dramatic increase in US military personnel tempo, which tracks the number of nights individual service members spend away from home. As of November, 51,000 service members had spent more than 400 days away from home over the past two years. Over the same period, more than 310,000 others had spent from 220 to 400 days away, according to Defense Department statistics.

The Reserves is the same as the NG as far as individual expectactions. When you join either you don't expect to do much, it is just a part time job. Those who join the main forces know its a full time job.

[winwintoo]

I was thinking of this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=75557&highlight=re-enlist) thread that indicates the numbers are down. The quotes you mention above are a bit old to apply to the current situation.

Also with the current problems (lack of benefits enjoyed{?} by regular forces etc.) faced by the families of reserves that are deployed, I doubt that many more will be anxious to go.

If there are sufficient numbers in the regular forces, why are so many reservists being called to serve, and why are they being deployed for so long?

Doesn't make sense to me and now they're thinking of North Korea??

'course now that Bush has won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and they've proved what good fighters they are, maybe they'll go along and help spread his "message"

I worry about what will happen to the US when that many young people return home broken again. The people at home are being supportive of the troops and the world feels their pain, but as far as the reasons for the war, most can see through the smoke screen.

m

[Leo Hubbard]

If there are sufficient numbers in the regular forces, why are so many reservists being called to serve, and why are they being deployed for so long?

Doesn't make sense to me and now they're thinking of North Korea??


Special skills, probably mostly those with bi-lingual Arabic skill sets, or those with "actual" police backgrounds. Also, don't forget Bush had to deal with Clintons gutted military.

N. Korean has threatened to use Nuclear force if they don't get handouts to prop up their failing government. I would hope everyone would be thinking of the possibility of removing N. Korea as a problem. I would hope China would simply just do it, as it would be in their best interest to do so instead of waiting for US to do it for them.

[Backtothemac]

!?! What a hypocritical asshole. I'm sorry, but it gets more difficult to be civil when talking about Bush every time he speaks. That the sewege that spills from his mouth still fools half the country is incredibly infuriating.

Just a question, but what would you refer to the leader of North Korea as?

[IJ Reilly]

Just a question, but what would you refer to the leader of North Korea as?

Just a question, but what was the point of this question?

[Thanatoast]

Just a question, but what would you refer to the leader of North Korea as?a self-interested nutcase. he's just more open about it than Bush is :D