North Korea Prepping Nuclear Weapons Test(They've Put Everything in Place)

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4, 2007 — - North Korea appears to have made preparations for another nuclear test, according to U.S. defense officials.

"We think they've put everything in place to conduct a test without any notice or warning," a senior U.S. defense official told ABC News.

The official cautions that the intelligence is inconclusive as to whether North Korea will actually go ahead with another test but said the preparations are similar to the steps taken by Pyongyang before it shocked the world by conducting its first nuclear test last Oct. 9.

Two other senior defense officials confirmed that recent intelligence suggested that the North Koreans appear to be ready to test a nuclear weapon again, but the intelligence community divides over whether another test is likely.

"That would surprise me," a senior intelligence official said when asked if North Korea is likely to soon conduct another test.

Another official had a different view, predicting North Korea would conduct a test sometime over the next two or three months.

In the weeks before the Oct. 9 test, U.S. spy satellites witnessed the unloading of large cables at a suspected test site in P'onggye, in northeastern North Korea. The more recent activity has been observed in the same area as the Oct. 9 test.

In October, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed a resolution that imposed harsh sanctions against North Korea just six days after Kim Jong Il's regime declared that it conducted an underground nuclear test. The sanctions were designed to coerce North Korea into giving up its nuclear program.

Resolution 1718 specifically called for North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons completely and irreversibly, as well as to put an end to its biological and chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missile programs.

The United States and Japan had pushed for stronger sanctions but eventually watered down the resolution to appease China and Russia, which feared that tougher sanctions might only make the situation worse.

The U.N. sanctions further mandated an embargo on major military hardware such as tanks, warships, combat aircraft and missiles to North Korea. To appease the Russian and Chinese delegations, however, the United States dropped its opposition to an all-out ban on conventional weapons.

The resolution also ruled out the possibility of military intervention -- a point critical to Russia and China, whose opposition to the initial drafts delayed the vote.

China, in particular, objected to a provision that would have allowed for the search of all cargo ships headed out of North Korea. The Chinese delegation maintained that intrusive searches could provoke further conflict in the region.

In response to these sanctions, North Korean Premier Yon Hyong Muk told the Security Council that the country needed nuclear weapons to protect itself from the danger of war with the United States, and that the Bush administration has responded to North Korea's "patient and sincere" efforts with sanctions and blockades. He said North Korea saw continued pressure from the United States as a declaration of war.

North Korean Gen. Ri Chan Bok told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer that "the U.S. wants us to kneel down before them. We cannot agree with them. If this tension continues war cannot be avoided."

In response, White House press secretary Tony Snow made it clear that it is not uncommon for the North Koreans to use strong rhetoric.

"On the other hand, let me make clear to the people of North Korea and the entire world, not only do we not want North Korea to 'kneel down,' what we're trying to do is offer them a better deal -- better economy, more security, better relations with their neighbors, integration into the global community as opposed to isolation," Snow said.

I wonder if the Chinese are going to be happy when the Japanese test their first nuclear weapon? Morons. Do people really forget the horrors of nuclear weapons after only 60 years that they can be this cavalier about nuts getting their hands on them?

Quite frankly, the 'horrors' of nuclear weapons were displayed only to the Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and as massive as the destruction was, more extensive damage was caused by the consistent fire bombings of Japan which had been undertaken by Curtis LeMay prior to the unleashing of the atomic bombs. So your question about people 'forgetting' is an easily answered one, which is 'yes' because the people who remember it best (the Japanese) know how critical it is that North Korea be prevented from proceeding down the path to a nuclear arsenal because they (the Japanese) surely recognize the same militarist mindset in Pyongyang that was once rampant in Japanese society during World War II.

Very few people living today have actually SEEN an actual nuclear explosion, they have seen film clips, pictures, simulations, but few have seen the Real Deal up close and personal. It is only that actual experience that can possibly put the fear of God into a human being about the power unleashed from smashing weapons grade uranium, plutonium, etc., together.

In a 'good news/bad news' sort of way, nuclear weapons today are probably 'cleaner' than their historical ancestors of 1945 and into the early 1960's, because proximity fusing allowed for nuclear detonation *above* the targets, instead of ground-surface bursts which sucked up enormous amounts of dirt and debris which of course turned into radioactive fallout. Now I'm not saying that today's nukes are so clean that nobody has to worry, far from it. But the type of nukes that are likely to be developed by the likes of Iran and/or North Korea are probably going to be VERY dirty types of bombs in that when they go 'boom', they're going to generate very high levels of fallout and if you think Chernobyl was bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Now as for your comment at #22, I too am far more concerned about Iran's little runt getting a nuke, because Iran poses a far greater threat because they are in the grip of an ideology/belief system that forces them to view things in apocalyptic terms and that prevents logical thought (IMHO). Comrade Chia Pet and his clan in Pyongyang are just in the grip of unchecked greed, but they have no plan for how they're going to face the next 3 years, let alone how they're going to face the rest of the century. In Iran, the Islamofascists believe that the Imammmy/Mahdi/MadHatter, Whatever-the-Hell he is, is going to suddenly climb out of that well, check for his shadow, and if all the Iranian Postal Service trucks are aligned in the parking lot, the guy makes his grand re-appearance, sends Lieutenant Jesus out to kick some infidel butt (so they believe), and the Grand Caliphate shall be established. Now people who are so insane as to actually buy into that crap are NOT people you want to be anywhere NEAR a nuclear weapon.

Sorry for the long rant, it's been a long day. ;)

Quite frankly, the 'horrors' of nuclear weapons were displayed only to the Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and as massive as the destruction was, more extensive damage was caused by the consistent fire bombings of Japan which had been undertaken by Curtis LeMay prior to the unleashing of the atomic bombs.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. My father was in Japan after the ware and he was far more impressed with the firebombing damage to Tokyo than what he saw at Hiroshima. But Curtis LeMay didn't destroy Tokyo with a single B-29 in one shot. And while your points are legitimate, that didn't stop the United States and Soviet Union from understanding that unleashing nuclear weapons would mean mutual destruction. I'm not convinced that nuts in North Korea and Iran have that important appreciation for what using a nuclear weapon would mean.

That's why I've suggested, in other threads, that the United States announce that we still support a MAD response to a nuclear attack and if our opponent lacks the ability to fully destory us, that's their problem. I've also said that if we can't source a nuclear attack, we sould consider all rogue nuclear states (possibly including Pakistan) responsible and retaliate as if they were all the source country. In yet another thread, I've said that the main questions I want any presidential candidate for 2008 to answer is how they'd respond to a nuclear attack against the United States -- successful or unsuccessful, known or unknown source. If a nuclear weapon hits the United States or a close ally, what's President X going to do about it?

Those are good questions my FRiend, the reason (IMHO) that the U.S./Soviet Cold War ended as it did was because even the Soviets understood (as you stated) that an unlimited nuclear exchange would leave them with very little to build their one-world Communist state, even IF they were to prevail. While they were dyed-in-the-wool Communists, they were not fools in the sense of the Islamofascists drooling for their 12th or 13th Imam, or whoever is supposed to be up to bat next.

Regarding your question of presidential candidates as to how they respond to a nuclear attack on the U.S., I suspect you would receive mostly general replies along the lines of 'holding the attacker accountable' and so forth, it is my understanding that the United States does possess the technology to identify the source and/or manufacturer of a nuclear weapon post-detonation, the exact process I'm not familiar with, but if that is the case, we would probably be able to figure out where the nuke came from, although in the case of a simple dirty bomb set off by terrorists, that may or may not be the case.

I have long believed that if Muslims are convinced that a nuclear attack on America would result in the wholesale destruction of each and every holy site or city that their beliefs hold dear, that it go a long way to reining in the terrorists within their ranks.

Have a good day.

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.