North Korea "sorry" for nuke test... - Mercedes-Benz Forum

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 10 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 09:42 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Check Codes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: '01-E320 & 02-ST2
Location: John 15:18-19
Posts: 31,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
North Korea "sorry" for nuke test...

Yeah, I'm sure they are. Well, actually, to the extent NK refers to their citizenry, they probably actually are sorry, but at the same time, it's likely that they didn't even know it happened.

On the other hand, I'd bet that the rulers are sorry only that their actions didn't immediately result it world capitulation to whatever psychotic dreams Il has been having lately.

There's lots to enjoy in the article, right now my favorite piece of tripe therein is "We believe that the nuclear test that we've already held gives us full deterrent, sufficient deterrent power, and we hope to return to six-party talks," Kim Kye Gwan said, adding there's no reason North Korea should remain an enemy of the U.S.




Report: N. Korea 'sorry' for nuke test

By BURT HERMAN, Associated Press Writer


North Korean leader Kim Jong Il said Pyongyang didn't plan to carry out any more nuclear tests and expressed regret about the country's first-ever atomic detonation last week, a South Korean news agency reported Friday.

North Korea, however, kept up its bellicose rhetoric as more than 100,000 people gathered Friday in Pyongyang's central Kim Il Sung square to "hail the success of the historic nuclear test," according to the North's official media.

Kim told Chinese State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan that "we have no plans for additional nuclear tests," Yonhap news agency reported, citing an unnamed diplomatic source in Beijing.

Japan's Foreign Minister Taro Aso said Friday that he has information, though not confirmed, that North Korea is not planning a second nuclear test, Kyodo News agency reported.

Kim also told the Chinese that "he is sorry about the nuclear test," the mass-circulation Chosun Ilbo daily reported, citing a diplomatic source in China. The North Korean leader also raised the possibility the country would return to arms talks.

"If the U.S. makes a concession to some degree, we will also make a concession to some degree, whether it be bilateral talks or six-party talks," Kim was quoted as telling a Chinese envoy, the newspaper reported.

The delegation led by Tang met Kim on Thursday and returned to Beijing later that day.

China is viewed as a key nation in efforts to persuade the North to disarm, as it is the isolated communist nation's main trading partner and provides almost all of its oil, and it is weighing tough options. Government experts have called for the reduction of critical supplies of oil and food.

A North Korean official, meanwhile, defended last week's nuclear test and said Pyongyang would "crush U.S. imperialists' schemes with its self-defensive power."

"No matter how the U.S. imperialists try to stifle and isolate our republic ... victory will be on the side of justice," said Choe Thae Bok, secretary of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea, according to the North's official Korean Central News Agency's Korean-language report.

Choe made the comments at a rally in the North Korean capital in which tens of thousands of citizens and soldiers cheered the nuclear test, according to KCNA — the first known celebration directly tied to the explosion.

In an interview with ABC News in Pyongyang, North Korea's chief nuclear negotiator, Kim Kye Gwan, said the country was willing to return to talks.

"We believe that the nuclear test that we've already held gives us full deterrent, sufficient deterrent power, and we hope to return to six-party talks," Kim Kye Gwan said, adding there's no reason North Korea should remain an enemy of the U.S.

In the interview, Kim also noted the North has not indicated there would be another nuclear test, but that "others have said that."

Meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Beijing on Friday, Tang said that his trip had "not been in vain." Chinese officials also expressed hope that the North would return to arms talks that it has boycotted since last year in anger over U.S. financial restrictions.

The options Beijing is considering mark a break from even the recent past in which China has preferred to use incentives rather than threats with Pyongyang. But the Oct. 9 nuclear test further frayed already damaged ties and strengthened the hand of critics who believe Beijing should take a harder line against a North Korea they say has ignored Chinese interests.

Even before the nuclear tests, with its patience wearing thin, China reduced food aid to the chronically food-short North by two-thirds this year, according to the U.N. World Food Program. After voting last week for U.N. sanctions that ban trade in military and luxury goods, China stepped up inspections of the trucks crossing into North Korea.

On Friday, all four major Chinese state-owned banks and British-owned HSBC Corp. said they have stopped financial transfers to the North — a step beyond what the U.N. sanctions require and a likely blow to a weak economy that relies on China as a link to the world financial system.

Chinese leaders aren't ready to fully cut off North Korea, an ally from the Korean War and still a useful buffer state in Northeast Asia. In enforcing U.N. sanctions, China has balked at inspecting cargo ships, saying it could lead to armed conflict. And Beijing insists it wants Pyongyang to resume negotiations on disarmament, not an end to Kim Jong Il's regime.

But Beijing's growing exasperation with Pyongyang has made a once unthinkable harder line more likely, experts said.

"North Korea is China's biggest foreign policy failure of the past 50 years," said Zhang Liangui of the Central Party School, a training academy for China's communist leadership. "China ought to cut off oil and food."

North Korea has long insisted that the U.S. desist from a campaign to sever its ties to the international financial system. Washington accuses Pyongyang of complicity in counterfeiting and money laundering to sell weapons of mass destruction.

The North has refused since last November to return to the nuclear talks, which include the U.S., China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. Pyongyang has sought bolster its negotiating position by a series of provocative actions, test-firing a barrage of missiles in July and performing its nuclear test.

___

Associated Press writer Audra Ang in Beijing contributed to this report.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. (Winston Churchill)
Check Codes is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 10 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 10:25 AM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
I still think he was bluffing all along. I think like Deathrattle said, he blew up a big firecracker. As to radioactive material, that's easy! All they had to do is mix some spent fuel rods in the hole prior to the firework.
what do you all think?
DP is offline  
post #3 of 10 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 11:10 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Check Codes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: '01-E320 & 02-ST2
Location: John 15:18-19
Posts: 31,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor
I still think he was bluffing all along. I think like Deathrattle said, he blew up a big firecracker. As to radioactive material, that's easy! All they had to do is mix some spent fuel rods in the hole prior to the firework.
what do you all think?
Generally speaking I distrust the NK powers that be far more than I distrust the US powers that be. Thus, I'd not be surprised if they actually detonated a bomb, perhaps it was a fizzler, perhaps not, but they're being (typical for them) like a schoolyard bully. It may all be bluster and bluff, but in the end all they want is money, even if they suspect you curse them and make fun of them once they walk away. The stupid thing is they'd have plenty of money if they'd quit being so asinine about the way they run their government.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. (Winston Churchill)
Check Codes is offline  
post #4 of 10 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 12:21 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I am more impressed w/ Secretary Rice every day! She has been working that crisis long and hard, and it looks like Dr. Rice is being very successful. She got China to smack that little runt hard! And it appears to have worked. And he is even smiling about it... Ouuuuu, it feels so good!


Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #5 of 10 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 01:34 PM
~BANNED~
 
deathrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 1992 W126 300 SE
Location: Head in the clouds
Posts: 11,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
The BBC reports from an 'unofficial' source that China categorically told NK that if they tested another 'device' the oil supplies would be stopped without further notice. Who knows?
deathrattle is offline  
post #6 of 10 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 02:03 PM
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Or maybe it was no rice supplies
DP is offline  
post #7 of 10 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 02:31 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
redeye's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2004
Posts: 1,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
redeye is offline  
post #8 of 10 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 02:51 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by redeye
Why isn't CNN all over this?

They reported on this hostage...

Last edited by DaveN007; 03-28-2007 at 11:40 AM.
DaveN007 is offline  
post #9 of 10 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 03:37 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
From that well-known rightwing rag ...

The ongoing failure of imagination

By Graham Allison
September/October 2006 pp. 36-41 (vol. 62, no. 5) © 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Prior to 9/11, most Americans found the idea that international terrorists could mount an attack on their homeland and kill thousands of innocent citizens not just unlikely, but inconceivable. Psychologically, Americans imagined that they lived in a security bubble. Terrorist attacks, including those on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, occurred elsewhere. These beliefs were reinforced by the conventional wisdom among terrorism experts, who argued that terrorists sought not mass casualties but rather mass sympathy through limited attacks that called attention to their cause.

As we approach the fifth year without a second successful terrorist attack upon U.S. soil, a chorus of skeptics now suggests that 9/11 was a 100-year flood. They conveniently forget the deadly explosions in Bali, Madrid, London, and Mumbai, and dismiss scores of attacks planned against the United States and others that have been disrupted. [1] The idea that terrorists are currently preparing even more deadly assaults seems as far-fetched to them as the possibility of terrorists crashing passenger jets into the World Trade Center did before that fateful Tuesday morning.

Disturbingly more at: http://www.thebulletin.org/article.p...fn=so06allison

As one attempts to assess where we now stand, and what the risks are, the major conclusion of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission deserves repetition: The principal failure to act to prevent the September 11 attack was a "failure of imagination." [2] A similar failure of imagination leads many today to discount the risk of a nuclear 9/11.

How great a risk? Risk equals probability times consequences. During the Cold War, strategists understood that even the slight possibility of a nuclear war that could kill every American made it imperative to do everything possible to avoid nuclear conflict. Similarly, the magnitude of the consequences of even a single nuclear bomb exploding in just one U.S. city swamps differences in judgments about the likelihood of such an attack. A terrorist armed with one nuclear bomb could murder a million people--killing in one day twice as many American souls as died in both World Wars combined.

On a normal workday, half a million people crowd the area within a half-mile radius of New York City's Times Square. If terrorists detonated a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon in the heart of midtown Manhattan, the blast would kill them all instantly. Hundreds of thousands of others would die from collapsing buildings, fire, and fallout in the hours and days thereafter.

The blast would instantly vaporize Times Square, Grand Central Terminal, and every other structure within half a mile of the point of detonation. Buildings three-quarters of a mile from ground zero would be fractured husks.

Lest this seem too hypothetical, recall an actual incident that occurred in New York City one month to the day after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. A CIA agent, code-named Dragonfire, reported that Al Qaeda had acquired a live nuclear weapon produced by the former Soviet Union and had successfully smuggled it into New York City. [3] A top-secret Nuclear Emergency Support Team was dispatched to the city. Under a cloak of secrecy that excluded even Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, these nuclear ninjas searched for the 10-kiloton bomb whose blast could have obliterated a significant portion of Manhattan. Fortunately, Dragonfire's report turned out to be a false alarm. But the central takeaway from the Dragonfire case is this: The U.S. government had no grounds in science or in logic to dismiss the warning.

A nuclear terrorist attack on the United States would have catastrophic consequences even for other countries. After the nuclear detonation, the immediate reaction would be to block all entry points to prevent another bomb from reaching its target, resulting in the disruption of the global "just-in-time" flow of goods and raw materials. Vital markets for international products would disappear, and closely linked financial markets would crash. Researchers at RAND, a U.S.-government-funded think tank, estimated that a nuclear explosion at the Port of Long Beach in California would cause immediate indirect costs worldwide of more than $3 trillion and that shutting down U.S. ports would cut world trade by 10 percent. [4]

The negative economic repercussions would reverberate well beyond the developed world. As U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has warned, "Were a nuclear terrorist attack to occur, it would cause not only widespread death and destruction, but would stagger the world economy and thrust tens of millions of people into dire poverty." [5]

How does one assess the probability of an unprecedented event that could have catastrophic consequences? Since there is no established methodology, the soundest way to proceed is to ask and answer the core questions: who, what, where, when, and how?



Who could be planning a nuclear terrorist attack? Al Qaeda remains a formidable enemy with clear nuclear ambitions. In 1998, Osama bin Laden declared that he considered obtaining weapons of mass destruction "a religious duty." [6] According to the final report of the 9/11 Commission, "Al Qaeda has tried to acquire or make nuclear weapons for at least 10 years . . . and continues to pursue its strategic goal of obtaining a nuclear capability." The commission also discusses bin Laden's fascination with what he calls an American "Hiroshima." [7]

Documenting Al Qaeda's growing intent, the CIA reports uncovering "rudimentary diagrams of nuclear weapons inside a suspected Al Qaeda safe house in Kabul. These diagrams, while crude, describe essential components--uranium and high explosives--common to nuclear weapons." [8]

But the threats do not stop at Al Qaeda. A report by the United Nation's Terrorism Prevention Branch, leaked to the press four months before 9/11, indicated that 130 terrorist groups were capable of developing a homemade atomic bomb if they obtained highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium left over from the Cold War. [9] More recently, "An Encyclopedia for the Preparation of Nuclear Weapons: The Nuclear Bomb of Jihad and the Way to Enrich Uranium" has begun appearing in the virtual training library of some jihadist websites. [10]



What nuclear weapons could terrorists use? Terrorists could acquire a bomb one of two ways: by obtaining a ready-made weapon from the arsenal of one of the nuclear weapon states or by constructing an elementary nuclear bomb from highly enriched uranium made by a state. Theft of a warhead by insiders, or a combination of insiders and intruders, would not be easy. But attempted thefts in Russia and elsewhere are not uncommon.

In 2005, the Russian interior minister in charge of security for many of the nation's nuclear installations stated that "international terrorists have planned attacks against nuclear and power industry installations" with the objective to "seize nuclear materials and use them to build weapons of mass destruction for their own political ends." [11] Such terrorists may find help on the inside: In April 2006, police arrested a foreman of the Elektrostal nuclear fuel fabrication facility and co-conspirators for stealing 49 pounds of low-enriched uranium. The same facility processes large amounts of weapons-usable HEU. [12] The International Atomic Energy Agency has documented 18 cases of trafficking in HEU or plutonium, either of which is a key ingredient of a terrorist's nuclear bomb. [13]

Once a terrorist group acquires 45 kilograms (around 100 pounds) of HEU, building an elementary nuclear bomb no longer takes the mind of an Oppenheimer. With fissile material acquired from a weapon state, using publicly available documents and items commercially obtainable in any technologically advanced country, terrorists could conceivably construct a gun-type bomb like the one dropped on Hiroshima. As John Foster, a leading U.S. bombmaker and former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, wrote a quarter-century ago, "If the essential nuclear materials are at hand, it is possible to make an atomic bomb using information that is available in the open literature." [14]

Where could terrorists acquire a nuclear bomb? If a nuclear terrorist attack occurs, Russia will be the most likely source of the weapon or material--not because the Russian government would sell or lose them, but simply because Russia's 11-time-zone expanse contains more nuclear weapons and materials than any other country in the world, much of it still vulnerable to theft.

A close second would be North Korea. Its top leadership has openly boasted that it intends to sell fissile material and even a nuclear weapon--for the right price. During talks in Beijing in April 2003, North Korea's deputy director general for American affairs Li Gun told Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly that Pyongyang not only possessed nuclear weapons but might also export them, saying, "It's up to you whether we . . . transfer them." [15]
...
When could terrorists launch the first nuclear attack? If terrorists bought or stole a nuclear weapon in good working condition, they could explode it today. If the weapon had a lock, the date of detonation would be delayed for several days. [17] If terrorists acquired the 45 kilograms of HEU needed for an elementary nuclear bomb, they could have a working bomb in less than a year.
Botnst is offline  
post #10 of 10 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 05:11 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by deathrattle
The BBC reports from an 'unofficial' source that China categorically told NK that if they tested another 'device' the oil supplies would be stopped without further notice. Who knows?
That is what I have heard too... She has those chinks' by their tiny little balls.

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    "Yakuza" Sato's AMG Mercedes from "Black Rain" (starring Michael Douglas&Andy Garcia) JJB236 W124 E,CE,D,TD Class 23 10-05-2009 01:19 PM
    N Korea Nuke Test? guage Off-Topic 55 10-10-2006 03:23 PM
    North Korea threatens to test nukes :( Nutz 4 Benz Off-Topic 9 10-04-2006 09:50 AM
    Rumsfeld sold North Korea nuke tech for profit firstmb Off-Topic 1 07-06-2006 08:01 PM
    N. Korea to halt nuke programs Alfa Off-Topic 1 09-20-2005 05:59 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome