Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North Korea 'has six nuclear bombs' (built from material “monitored” by El Baradei & IAEA)
Sydney Morning Herald ^ | December 7, 2004 | David Sanger, William Broad and Cynthia Banham

Posted on 12/06/2004 6:56:56 AM PST by dead

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency is convinced North Korea has built four to six nuclear bombs out of the nuclear material the agency had monitored there until 2002.

Mohamed ElBaradei, whose team of investigators was expelled from North Korea, said: "We know they have the fissile material ... I'm sure they have reprocessed it all."

He said enough time had passed for North Korea to solve the problems of turning the 8000 spent nuclear fuel rods the agency was monitoring into weapons-grade plutonium. "The production process is not that difficult."

He said his claim was not based on new intelligence but on the agency's extensive knowledge of the country. A spokesman for the US National Security Council, Sean McCormack, said he was unaware of any change in the official assessment of North Korea.

Dr ElBaradei's comments go beyond anything the CIA or the US President, George Bush, have said publicly and puts pressure on the White House to either take forcible action against North Korea or cut a deal.

The US insists North Korea has enough nuclear material to make only one or two weapons and that it cannot afford to sell its plutonium or conduct a nuclear test. However, that assessment is based on estimates from the early 1990s and has been contested behind the scenes.

A former senior State Department official, Robert Einhorn, said the comments would "certainly create some pressure" on Mr Bush. "Would the North Koreans ever sell their plutonium? It becomes more plausible if they think we are turning the screws on them," he said.

North Korea agreed in 1994 to freeze plutonium production but in 2002 renounced the deal and ejected the International Atomic Energy Agency after the US accused it of trying to produce highly enriched uranium.

Since then the US had been working with China, South Korea, Japan and Russia to negotiate the dismantling of North Korea's weapons program, but the talks stalled in September. They are expected to resume next year.

Last month the commander of US forces in South Korea, General Leon LaPorte, said he was increasingly worried "North Korea, in its desire for hard currency, would sell weapons-grade plutonium to some terrorist organisations".

Labor's foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, said Dr ElBaradei's assessment was profoundly disturbing.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister, John Howard, said Mr Howard declined to comment.

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has defended his decision not to allow international investigators to interrogate Dr A.Q.Khan, the Pakistani scientist accused of peddling nuclear secrets.

In an interview with CNN on Sunday, Mr Musharraf said requests from UN weapons inspectors indicated a lack of trust in Pakistan. "We can question him the best ... This man is a hero for the Pakistanis," he said.

The New York Times, The Washington Post


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: clintonlegacy; elbaradei; iaea; nknukes; northkorea; proliferation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

1 posted on 12/06/2004 6:56:58 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dead
Funny. No mention of the two Americans most responsible for this situation.


Hint: One was an elected official during the 1990s, the other served on that person's cabinet.
2 posted on 12/06/2004 6:59:02 AM PST by BenLurkin (Big government is still a big problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead; All
-The Atomic Genie- what we know about North Korea's Nuclear program--
3 posted on 12/06/2004 7:01:44 AM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Don't forget Jimmah either.


4 posted on 12/06/2004 7:02:23 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Is there any country that seriously wanted to make a nuclear bomb but deferred or cancelled its plan because it's being monitored by IAEA?


5 posted on 12/06/2004 7:03:13 AM PST by paudio (Four More Years..... Let's Use Them Wisely...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dead

Don't we have over 5000 THERMONUCLEAR warheads, any ONE of which could reduce that entire pimple-on-the-butt-of-the-world country to a large hole in the ground within a matter of say 30 minutes or so?.......


6 posted on 12/06/2004 7:04:12 AM PST by Red Badger (If the Red States are JESUSLAND, then the Blue States are SATANLAND......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
Yeah, but does North Korea has the means to detonate it?

It's one thing to have a nuclear bomb. It's another thing, however, to have the infrastructure and electrical components to transport it, launch it, and making it explode. Sort of like having a car without the engine.

7 posted on 12/06/2004 7:05:53 AM PST by ServesURight (Tim Michels for U.S. Senate Wisconsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead; All
Another FR thread this morning (HERE) discussed a critical report from an Italian website (HERE) that claims that EL Baradei's wife is 1st cousin to a radical islamist Iranian Ayatollah

If this is true he's been caught with an ace up his sleeve and the U.S. should throw over the table on the U.N.'s rigged game.

8 posted on 12/06/2004 7:10:12 AM PST by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Heard on FOXNEWS last week that this U.N. scandal goes VERY deep and that when the whole story is out, there will be a shock regarding the people involved. I haven't considered
Kojo Annan ther real culprit for some time; he's a well-paid scape-goat.
Wouldn't surprise me to learn that el Baradai AND the little schmoo Blix, who loves being on TV even now, were being paid off by Sadaam.


9 posted on 12/06/2004 7:11:40 AM PST by Grendel9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ServesURight
It's one thing to have a nuclear bomb. It's another thing, however, to have the infrastructure and electrical components to transport it, launch it, and making it explode. Sort of like having a car without the engine.

If it happens it will come to us in a ship, a truck, a commercial airliner etc etc etc. If it ever happens we will not know which rouge nation did it. Therefore the only logical answer would be to attack the military infrastructure of each and every rouge nation that wishes us harm and has the means to produce nuclear weapons. When I say attack I mean with thermonuclear weapons.

10 posted on 12/06/2004 7:17:14 AM PST by cpdiii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Grendel9

I hope the investigators 'follow the money'. There may be Americans who were on the take in the 1990s.


11 posted on 12/06/2004 7:21:35 AM PST by BenLurkin (Big government is still a big problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
YUP, their actions and inaction have put us in some very difficult situations and the price will be high.
mc
12 posted on 12/06/2004 7:23:05 AM PST by mcshot (Boldly going nowhere fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii

I agree. The unfortunate problem with using nukes is the fallout that would contaminate other countries freindly to us. Thats a hole we would have a tough time digging ourselves out of. If there was such a thing as a nuke with no fallout and any destruction from a detonation was localized, then this might be more feasable.


13 posted on 12/06/2004 7:41:21 AM PST by wingsof liberty (Marines - the few, the proud, the best!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dead

Clinton, Albright and Jimmy all did the spade work. Further, the next Administration didn't help matters--to their credit they did call off bilateral talks--but it was totally sidetracked from 2002-2004, preoccupied with Iraq...giving the DPRK basically an unfettered chance to continue to surreptitiously develop these weapons and cross over the "red line" with impunity (all the while we engaged in meaningless six party talks at an academic, arguing level in Beijing). As I independently pointed out on FR a number of times in the last two years. Now we are all may have hell to pay due to this bipartisan foreign and nuclear weapons disaster.


14 posted on 12/06/2004 7:51:09 AM PST by AmericanInTokyo (OK, whole stole my tagline just now??!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wingsof liberty
preemptively TOTALLY destroy all known, and suspicious weapon sites, that alone would probably end it

I think th NK people have had about enough

15 posted on 12/06/2004 7:52:42 AM PST by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: paudio; Jim Robinson
>Is there any country that seriously wanted to make a nuclear bomb but deferred or cancelled its plan because it's being monitored by IAEA?

You know, maybe Jim
should announce that FR plans
to "acquire" The Bomb,

then the do gooders
will pay us all lots of cash
to "call off" our plans . . .

16 posted on 12/06/2004 7:55:28 AM PST by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wingsof liberty

In talking with a buddy of mine whose an Air Force Intel weenie, he says that if Norh Korea even looks like they are about to explode a weapon, we will create a parking lot for China.


17 posted on 12/06/2004 8:03:28 AM PST by Taylor42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wingsof liberty
""If there was such a thing as a nuke with no fallout and any destruction from a detonation was localized, then this might be more feasible.""

There is one, I believe it is the neutron bomb, it kills the people without destroying the infrastructure and the huge amount of fallout associated with a "standard" nuke. If memory serves me right we have these things designed and all the components laying around but one of the SALT treaties keeps us from assembling them. The Russians feared these things greatly, especially in Eastern Europe during the cold war. They could kill the troops and a week later forces could move right back through the area with minimal exposure.
18 posted on 12/06/2004 8:04:50 AM PST by Abathar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dead
You can only be logical with logical people. Reasonable with reasonable party's. NK is neither.

Making a deal with Jung is like copulating for virginity. NK has nothing to loose and big bucks to gain by selling nukes and the rockets to deliver them. The deal should be struck with China, Russia, Japan, and S. Korea, to eliminate this threat.

19 posted on 12/06/2004 8:05:43 AM PST by TUX (Domino effect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

I thought the neutron bomb has the radiation and the fallout (that's how it kills) but does not have the explosive power to destroy buildings. It wipes a city clean of life but lets the infrastructure remain intact.


20 posted on 12/06/2004 8:09:25 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson